The melodrama is known as a women’s film, which markets a certain
domestic male ideal to its accpeted female audience.
In this societies' internalized misogyny the male gaze is the norm in
the majority of films. Even though in melodramas, one of the three
‚gazes‘ from Mulveys theory (characters, camera, audience) is not
dominantly male, but rather female - the audience.
So isnt the melodrama rather a limiting manipulation of women costumed
as a moving image-refuge?
With male directors focusing on female protagonists we, as the
audience, as film scholars, always get a male gaze defined female
character, a version of this directors fantasy, a misogyny filled
portray of a romanticized version of a female who is "empowered"
enough to let the film be considered for female audiences, while still
reeking of a certain submissiveness, just enough to let male audience
members fantasize about having such a woman waiting for them at home.
Additionally its important to note the narrow representation in these
films, as they act as a refuge for only the white middle / upper class
house wife and for no one else, as to the limited character depth,
especially in Sirks black characters.
But are melodramas really women’s films? in comparison to contemporary
projects presenting a female gaze which personifies rather than
objectifies, melodramas still reek of a clean ideal of a women,
constantly presented in a state of male comfort.
But with Todd Haynes homage to Sirks melodramas of the 1950’s, isn't
the male gaze really the straight male gaze? Haynes still shallowly
moves in-between ideals, clean and superficial surrealities of women,
even though his female character is rarely objectified in the most
basic, classy sense.