Use textual evidence (i.e. direct quotations from the readings) as well as visual evidence (specific scenes from the film) to weigh in on the Mulvey-Keane debate: whose position do you find more convincing? Why?

This is the first of 3 papers you will submit for this course wherein you combine the readings and philosophical themes from the weekly lectures with a film screening. For this particular assignment your job is to watch Hitchcock’s Vertigo (available online) and consider it in light of the debate between Mulvey and Keane. We discussed Mulvey’s famous article “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” at the end of Week 3 where she criticizes Hitchcock’s Vertigo for its male-centric perspective and degradation of the female lead (Kim Novak). Mulvey argues that in this way it is exemplary of the mainstream Hollywood style. In Keane’s article, which you’ll read on your own, she defends Vertigo against Mulvey’s criticisms. For your paper I’d like you to use textual evidence (i.e. direct quotations from the readings) as well as visual evidence (specific scenes from the film) to weigh in on the Mulvey-Keane debate: whose position do you find more convincing? Why? What scenes from the film and claims from the readings support your point? Whose tragedy is Vertigo? Scottie’s or Madeleine/Judy’s? Both? Or is this simply the wrong way to look at the film? If so, why?