Christian metz psychoanalysis
Carly Passovoy
FTV 360
4 November 2014
Film & Psychoanalysis
Christian Metz had many views on how we view film in a certain way. He believes that an audience looking at sexually explicit content is “Scopophilia” or “deriving pleasure from looking.” Furthermore, cinemagoers make it a point to not be too close or too far from the screen. They need to maintain the right amount of distance, while still being separated from the "object” on screen. Metz describes how viewers create a fine line between accepting and denying the object on screen. Since the actor cannot see us, we are able to enjoy what is being displayed without any sense of wariness. The viewer is not part of the action. Since most of the time the characters are not breaking the fourth wall and not looking directly right at the viewer, Metz feels that the viewer will not be troubled by any consequences from watching. It is acceptable. I agree with what Metz is saying, and also want to bring up a few points. It is true that watching this content as a viewer. There is something to be said about the fact that we can watch content like this and kind-of be compared to a “fly on the wall.” We feel a sense of comfort knowing that the “objects” or actors on screen do not know we are there. Our presence is unknown, and this is how we are able to view this content. However, I do believe that times are changing, and material like this is becoming more and more common. Not that there ever was a huge stigma, but it is becoming more normal to watch a movie and see sexual images. That is not to say viewers do not still subconsciously put up a wall of distance. It’s saying that it’s becoming more normal.
FTV 360
4 November 2014
Film & Psychoanalysis
Christian Metz had many views on how we view film in a certain way. He believes that an audience looking at sexually explicit content is “Scopophilia” or “deriving pleasure from looking.” Furthermore, cinemagoers make it a point to not be too close or too far from the screen. They need to maintain the right amount of distance, while still being separated from the "object” on screen. Metz describes how viewers create a fine line between accepting and denying the object on screen. Since the actor cannot see us, we are able to enjoy what is being displayed without any sense of wariness. The viewer is not part of the action. Since most of the time the characters are not breaking the fourth wall and not looking directly right at the viewer, Metz feels that the viewer will not be troubled by any consequences from watching. It is acceptable. I agree with what Metz is saying, and also want to bring up a few points. It is true that watching this content as a viewer. There is something to be said about the fact that we can watch content like this and kind-of be compared to a “fly on the wall.” We feel a sense of comfort knowing that the “objects” or actors on screen do not know we are there. Our presence is unknown, and this is how we are able to view this content. However, I do believe that times are changing, and material like this is becoming more and more common. Not that there ever was a huge stigma, but it is becoming more normal to watch a movie and see sexual images. That is not to say viewers do not still subconsciously put up a wall of distance. It’s saying that it’s becoming more normal.