[Heather Lubey]

After reading Laura Mulvey’s “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” it was nearly impossible not to watch Peter Weir’s “Witness” without a critical look at the role of Rachel Lapp (McGillis), the only major female character in the film. It is evident throughout “Witness” that Rachel, though an important character, plays a much more passive role than the men that surround her, and it becomes increasingly clear that her character easily fits the mold of a stereotypical object of the male gaze, specifically that of John Book (Ford).

One of the major ideas explored in Mulvey’s essay is that of scopophilia, which she defines as “taking other people as objects, subjecting them to a controlling and curious gaze” (Mulvey 835). In class, we broke down scopophilia into two categories. We identified voyeurism as a gaze that is objectifying and sexual in nature, and compared a fetishistic gaze to Joseph Campbell’s description of the goddess: “the incarnation of the promise of perfection” (Campbell 111). In “Witness,” Rachel’s character falls into both categories, depending on the situation that she and John are in.

Towards the beginning of their relationship, it may be argued that Rachel embodies more of a fetishistic view, as she acts almost maternally towards John. Examples of this can be seen when she acts as his nurse when he is recovering from a gunshot. Scene after scene, she is shown caring for him through the night, applying natural medicines to his wounds, making him tea, and praying for him to recover. When he begins to heal, she provides him with new clothes to help him blend in, brings him lemonade while he builds a new birdhouse, and holds a lamp to provide light while John works on his car. During the scene where the men of the community are building the barn, Rachel serves John first during dinner, which invites a questioning look from Eli. She is also always conveniently nearby to smile at John while he works, acting as a constant source of warmth and encouragement. In each of these scenarios, Rachel’s character embodies Campbell’s goddess. She cares for John when he is sick, provides him with food and drink, and is generally an encouraging (though passive) presence. It may be said that Rachel “encompasses the encompassing, nourishes the nourishing, and is the life of everything that lives” (Campbell 114).

In other senses, Rachel becomes an object viewed through a more voyeuristic lens for John. The most obvious scene where this is evident is when Rachel is bathing, and John is quite literally lurking in the doorway, watching her. Rachel’s response after discovering him further emphasizes her passivity, and even helps to perpetuate her status as an object of the male gaze, as she simply stares back at John, with no signs of indignation, despite the fact that he is essentially spying on her. A second instance, though much more discreet, takes place when John is putting up his newly made bird house. While Amish women are always supposed to have their hair covered in public, Rachel removes her bonnet before running out into the yard to kiss John. In a much subtler sense, the act of removing a necessary (in the Amish community) article of clothing before presenting herself to John (and the audience) emphasizes Rachel’s “to-be-looked-at-ness,” as Mulvey would put it (Mulvey 837). Though she is not literally naked in this scene, the removal of the bonnet is an act which makes Rachel arguably more pleasurable to look at under the male gaze, which reinforces the idea that female characters are to be “looked at and displayed” (Mulvey 837).

Coupled with these voyeuristic and fetishistic views of Rachel are the more general suggestions throughout the film that Rachel is a woman who is on display. When John is recovering, she makes a comment about the “English,” who are incredibly intrusive in their attempts to observe Rachel’s Amish community. Throughout the film, there are mentions of English people trespassing on the community’s land to get a closer look, instances of tourists trying to take photos of the Amish, and situations in which the members of the community are lacking any sense of privacy or personal space due to the curiosity of the English. Rachel (and her larger community) are somewhat of a spectacle to outsiders, including John at first. Additionally, there are a variety of shots of Rachel that take place from the point of view of John, whether he is looking down at her from his perch on top of the barn, watching her through the kitchen window, or through the bathroom door. These shots that literally take place from the perspective of the male gaze further enhance the passivity and scopophilic nature of Rachel’s character in the context of Laura Mulvey’s essay, and establish her as a character who is to be looked at in every sense of the word.

-Heather Lubey

[Darby Daly]

Heather,

I found your use of both Campbell and Mulvey in analyzing Peter Weir’s Witness to be extremely interesting and appropriate. I agree with the points that you brought up regarding Rachel, however, I did not really put together the maternal side of it as well until I read your points. While I was watching the movie, I really only saw Rachel as being a sexual object for Book to look at. But I think that you are definitely right with the maternal concepts as well.

Rachel’s character did not have much significance other than being an object for Book’s use. I found myself becoming very frustrated with how she was portrayed, I think that she had so much more potential as a character. Even her young son had a more dominant role than she did. Her portrayal of being an object of sexual desire added that hint of romance that adds to the plot, but I just really found it rather annoying.

Your comment regarding her taking off her bonnet was pretty interesting as well. I definitely agree that it was a symbol of her being naked within the Amish community. I just found it a little much that she was so quick to give away everything that she had built her life around, but I guess that is where the audience can see the significance of Book and the insignificance of Rachel.

[Jeanna Foti]

Heather and Darby,

I completely agree with both of your interpretations of the movie. While I do see Heather’s point of Rachel portraying a Campbellian type goddess figure, I agree that I saw Rachel more as a sexual object of desire. I think her character was lacking development that would have classified her as a strong female lead and was often around to be looked at.

Her role as a sexual object was only emphasized by the overwhelming silence in the movie. Book and Rachel’s relationship didn’t go any deeper than sexual attraction. It was only apparent that they were becoming closer through meaningful looks that the couple gave each other, emphasizing Rachel’s role in the movie as someone to be looked at. These looks, as well as the scenes with Rachel bathing and Rachel running to Book sans bonnet were all devoid of dialogue, conveying their sexual attraction over everything else.

-Jeanna

[Author]

Posts