You've probably heard the term "the male gaze" tossed around on TikTok or in film reviews. It’s one of those phrases that people use to describe a camera lingering a little too long on a bikini or a female character who exists solely to look pretty while the hero does the actual work. But honestly? Most people using the term today don't realize it started as a dense, psychoanalytic war cry in 1975.
That was the year British film theorist Laura Mulvey published "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" in the journal Screen. She wasn't just trying to be a critic. She was trying to "destroy" pleasure. Her words, not mine. She wanted to figure out why movies felt so one-sided and why, even as a woman watching, you often ended up looking at the female lead through the eyes of a man.
The Three Layers of the Gaze
Mulvey didn't think the male gaze was just about a guy looking at a girl. It’s way more baked-in than that. To her, the gaze is a triple-threat system that controls how we see everything on screen.
First, there’s the camera itself. Historically, the people behind the lens were almost exclusively men. Because of that, the way the camera moves—the slow pans up a pair of legs or the way it frames a face—is inherently masculine. It’s the "look" of the recording process.
Second, you have the characters within the film. Think about every classic noir or action flick. The male protagonist is usually the "bearer of the look." He’s the one watching the mysterious woman walk into the room. He’s active. She’s the spectacle.
Finally, there’s the audience. This is the part that trips people up. Mulvey argued that the cinema experience forces everyone—regardless of their actual gender—to identify with the male protagonist. You sit in a dark room, you lose yourself in the story, and suddenly you’re seeing the world (and the women in it) through the hero’s eyes. You become a voyeur by proxy.
✨ Don't miss: Cuba Gooding Jr OJ: Why the Performance Everyone Hated Was Actually Genius
To-Be-Looked-At-Ness: The Iconic Term
Mulvey coined a specific, clunky, but perfect phrase: "to-be-looked-at-ness." It describes the way female characters are styled and choreographed to function as erotic icons. In the world of 1940s and 50s Hollywood, women weren't really "makers of meaning." They were "bearers of meaning." They were the prize at the end of the race or the motivation for the hero to get revenge.
Take Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo. Mulvey uses this as a prime example. Scottie (James Stewart) is obsessed with making Judy look exactly like the dead Madeleine. He’s literally constructing a woman to satisfy his own visual fantasy. The film isn't just about a man looking at a woman; the entire structure of the movie is about the power and danger of that gaze.
What Most People Get Wrong
A common misconception is that the male gaze is just about "sexualization." It’s not. Or at least, it’s not only that.
A female character can be fully clothed and still be a victim of the male gaze if she has no agency. If she only exists to react to the man, or if her presence stops the plot just so we can admire her, that’s it. Mulvey argued that the "male" is the active force that moves the plot forward. The "female" is the static image that threatens to bring the narrative to a halt.
Think about a musical number. The plot stops. The woman performs. We stare. Then, when the song is over, the man goes back to "doing things."
🔗 Read more: Greatest Rock and Roll Singers of All Time: Why the Legends Still Own the Mic
Does the "Female Gaze" Exist?
This is the big debate now. In 1975, Mulvey was pretty bleak about it. She didn't think there was an easy "alternative" gaze because the very language of cinema was built on patriarchal structures.
Since then, critics have pushed back. Does a movie like Magic Mike or a Jane Campion film create a "female gaze"? Some say yes, but others argue it’s not just about flipping the script and objectifying men. A true female gaze might be more about feeling rather than looking—focusing on intimacy and interiority rather than just the surface of the body.
The 2026 Perspective: Is Mulvey Outdated?
It’s been over 50 years since the essay dropped. We’ve had the MeToo movement, the rise of intersectional feminism, and a massive influx of female and non-binary directors.
Mulvey herself hasn't stayed static. In March 2025, she joined the University of St Andrews as an Honorary Professor, still actively discussing how digital technology changes our "pleasure in looking." In her later work, like Death 24x a Second, she explores how we can now pause, rewind, and "possess" the filmic image in ways she couldn't have imagined in the 70s.
Modern critics point out that her original theory was very "white, cis, and hetero." It didn't account for how Black women or queer audiences might look at a screen differently. The "intersectional gaze" is the new frontier, looking at how race and class change the power dynamics of the camera.
💡 You might also like: Ted Nugent State of Shock: Why This 1979 Album Divides Fans Today
Real-World Action Steps
If you want to actually use this theory instead of just talking about it, try these "eye-opening" exercises next time you’re on Netflix:
- The Mute Test: Watch a scene with a female character on mute. Is the camera telling a story about her thoughts, or is it just "browsing" her body?
- Identify the "Looker": Note who in the scene is doing the watching and who is being watched. Does the "watched" person ever look back at the camera?
- Check the Agency: Ask yourself: If this female character was removed, would the plot still work? If the answer is "yes," she’s likely there for "to-be-looked-at-ness."
- Seek Out Different Perspectives: Actively watch films by directors like Celine Sciamma (Portrait of a Lady on Fire) or Greta Gerwig to see how they handle the camera differently when portraying women.
The male gaze isn't an "insult" you throw at a movie you don't like. It’s a tool for understanding how power is distributed in our culture. By recognizing it, you stop being a passive consumer and start seeing the invisible strings that pull at your own visual pleasure.
The goal isn't necessarily to stop enjoying movies, but to understand why we enjoy what we do—and what that says about the world we've built.
Next Steps for Deepening Your Knowledge
To see the male gaze in action, watch the 2022 documentary Brainwashed: Sex-Camera-Power by Nina Menkes. It uses Mulvey’s framework to analyze over 175 film clips, showing exactly how framing and lighting choices reinforce these power dynamics. You should also read Mulvey’s 2019 book, Afterimages: On Cinema, Women and Changing Times, which updates her classic theories for the modern era.