Ready to go back to Film Theory 101 with me? You can thank Captain Marvel for this textbook throwback. At the age of 18, I was a plucky young film (nay, movie) lover that was following the bright light of optimism through 4 years of Film Theory and Criticism in University. Funny, at the time I scoffed at the topics that were dulling that light within. My response to film peers bringing up feminism after sitting through a 3-hour German Expressionist film tested my gag reflex, and slowly chipped away at my ability to simply enjoy watching movies. For that, I never forgave film theory.

That was then. Now I find myself clutching for deeper themes and subterranean discussion of the movies I consume, whether they’re worth that level of conversation or not. So much so, that the first thing I did after seeing Captain Marvel in theatres was look up Laura Mulvay’s term “the male gaze” and dissect the hell out of this latest Marvel movie.

For context, although I assume that after reading that previous sentence you’ve already hit up Wikipedia, The Male Gaze looks at three viewpoints:

1. The individual filming

2. The characters within the film

3. The spectator

The Coles notes you’re looking for would go something like this: The Male Gaze is how women are depicted in art from a male, heterosexual perspective. In film and photography, the male gaze has three perspectives: (i) the man behind the camera, (ii) the male characters within the film; and (iii) the male spectators gazing at the image. Think about that. The image of a woman on film is created by men, to interact with men, and be watched by men. Does that make you feel super gross? It’s that feeling you get when a man you don’t know calls you honey because he thinks you like it.

So, in response to The Male Gaze is the feminist film theory aptly named “The Female Gaze”, looking at the same three perspectives, but this time, with women in the role of: director, characters in the film, and spectator. If you strike all three, you basically have a Penny Marshall film. For a really, painfully long time, the Female Gaze was only in practice in the form of a Chick Flick. The problem with that is, critics will say that often chick flicks flip the stereotypes 360 degrees, and use male characters as objects in the name of empowerment. That’s kind of missing the point of the whole “feminism just means equality” thing. Emma Watson wouldn’t be happy.

It’s also dangerous, in my humble opinion, to make gender exclusive films. Girl movies vs. Boy movies. If I’m a feminist (and I am, because, I’m human), I want men to see films with female characters, directed by a woman and inherently value that perspective. That won’t happen if the movie is “not FOR them”.

So, I buried the lead like a fucking amateur, but I’m finally going to make a point about Captain Marvel. It’s directed by Anna Boden (that’s a woman), centres around the story of Carol and her relationships with her best friend and best friend’s daughter (all women), but who’s buying tickets? Men. And women, but men are the primary spectators given it’s a superhero movie.

What strikes me most about this movie is that the main hetero relationship is that of Carol and Fury. It is completely A-sexual. It’s an entirely equal working relationship. There is respect, understanding, communication, and absolutely NO objectification - yet somehow this movie got made. Can we please talk about how rare this is? Even Wonder Woman (that many would argue was a breakthrough for feminist film making) fixates on the romantic heterosexual relationship of the two central characters. Her love for him makes her weak. His love for her…well, quite frankly, perpetuates the Male Gaze ideology and pulls focus from Diana’s female relationships.

There’s an entire “Female Gaze” theory that analyzes what women wear onscreen as a means of perspective. Wonder Woman’s superhero suit is iconically sexualized. C’mon, it inspired Madonna’s Blonde Ambition. It’s bulletproof lingerie. There’s nothing wrong with that, but since we’re talking about the sexual objectification of women in film, I can’t help but bring it up. Captain Marvel (nee Carol) wears a space suit that looks like something an Olympic Luger would wear. When she’s not in her retrofitted wet suit, she’s wearing worn-in jeans, faded Nirvana tees , plaids and leather jackets. These clothes make her no less hetero or “feminine” than Wonder Woman in her metallic braziers. At the same time, this (meticulously selected) attire doesn’t draw an unnecessary “gaze” that detracts from her story, her dialogue and ultimately, her strength.

Can I let you in on a little secret? I hate superhero movies. Hate may not even be the strongest or most accurate word in the English language for my attitude towards the genre. The fact that I’m writing about one will absolutely knock my husband on his ass. None of the tropes are attractive to me, and my broken record justification is that "these movies really aren’t made for me”. I know without a shroud of doubt that I am not the target spectator. It’s actually excruciatingly obvious. Yes, yes, I know there are strong female characters in the Marvel/DC universe. Go ahead, tell me about Storm and Black Widow and Batgirl or whatever. Their story lines are not enough to convince me that there is a female perspective onscreen, nor that anyone really cares what the female spectator feels beyond the price of a ticket. That’s my opinion, don’t throw shit. However, Captain Marvel may be the first comic-to-big-screen adaptation that I’m here for.

I love that the female relationships in this film are what make the main character strong. I love that the primary male/female relationship is one of platonic equality and respect. I love that the entire narrative of the film - both diegetic and non-diegetic - is from a female perspective. And finally, I love, love, love that the target spectator is gender proportionate.