Are they really seen orJust decorated for Pleasure

The male gaze theory was introduced by Laura Mulvey in her 1975. The male gaze is a feminist theory that states that women are portrayed in cinema in objectifying and limited ways to normalize and perpetuate patriarchal society. The theory considers the ways that different perspectives are combined in cinema to sustain a symbolic order that privileges men.

Also, using this theory we would be able to analyze the male gaze in the video of Glo “Feliz Navida”. So, first of we would look at the Camera’s POV – Whose Eyes Are We Seeing Through? From the beginning of the advert, the camera flows through scenes like a visitor or guest admiring the celebration. It lingers on smiling women, their dresses, and festive details. From the entrance of the video, when the video shows us the woman who is endowed with so much and so much beauty. This alone arrives with a male gaze from the viewer’s lens. But ask: who is the camera meant to please? The camera does not step into the shoes of the women in the advert. Instead, it looks at them especially when they dance, sing, and smile, not with them.  This suggests we are seeing through an outside eye, not the lived experience of a Nigerian woman. The camera acts like a spectator admiring her joy and beauty possibly from a male eye that enjoy the looks rather than the action or message passed across in the video. Aside this another one is the Framing & Fragmentation – Are Women’s Bodies Broken into Parts? Yes, while the ad is wholesome and festive, there are clear signs of visual fragmentation, like for example.  Shots zoom in on the women’s smiles, clothes, or the movement of their bodies while dancing, especially the legs.   The focus is on beautiful presentation, not character depth. This is subtle, not sexual, but Mulvey would still argue that breaking women into aesthetic parts even in a festive setting is a kind of visual control. It turns women into objects of the spectacle, not subjects of the story. What do I mean by objects of spectacle.  Mulvey argued, drawing on psychoanalysis, that Hollywood cinema was structured along a threefold gaze (by the audience, the camera and the characters) that looks at women from a male point of view and regards them as mere (sexual) objects.

Another one is the narrative Function; Are Women Part of the Plot or Just Decoration? This is a major point, because why else will you place a woman in your video, if she is not part of the plot. Then she is for decoration or enticing to the male viewers. We notice that there’s no real story or character journey. The women do not have goals, voice, or conflicts. They are shown celebrating, posing, and performing joy, but not driving the message. They function more as part of the visual environment than as storytellers. According to Mulvey, this is how the male gaze worksit removes the woman’s inner life and replaces it with surface-level beauty and pleasure.

 

In addition, there is the Spectatorial Alignment, which means in simpler terms that “Do We Identify with Them or Desire Them?” The ad invites admiration, not identification. Even though the women are not shown in a sexual way, they are:  Pleasant to look at, from their dress in festive outfits and often smiling directly at the camera. Placed in a way that makes the viewer feel like they’re watching rather than connecting.  This creates distance, which supports a male gaze structure: we’re not meant to be the women or understand them, we’re meant to enjoy watching them. That is what the male gaze structure just says basically, just enjoy watching them. For example, the first lady shown in the ad, is not identified but desired by the gaze of men who watch this.

 Besides all these are their disruption, Is There Any Alternate Point of View? I would say there wasn’t any, not really. There is no strong female voiceover, no personal storytelling, no complex emotional moments. So therefore, Women in the ad, do not tell their own stories. Are not seen through each other’s eyes. And are presented in harmony with a controlled, idealized vision of femininity.  There’s no alternate perspective to disrupt the male gaze structure. In summary of all being we understand that looking at this video in Mulvey’s male gaze from the beginning they were objectifying gaze and then there was a fragmentation of the body, for example the legs and the face, Then to the women just being used as decoration, not any narrative drive and so on.

In conclusion, Even though the Glo ad is cheerful and respectful on the surface, Laura Mulvey’s male gaze theory helps us see that it still places women in a passive role. They are not subjects of their own story; they’re pleasant visuals meant to enhance the atmosphere, not shape it. There are used as an object of spectacle This is a reminder that even in non-sexual content, the male gaze can be present through how women are filmed, framed, and silenced.