The Pioneer Log

Friday, February 22, 2008

French film reveals the true nature of the beast

by Sanne Stienstra // arts editor

Special: Sex & Health

French filmmakers seem to have a lot to say about sex. From Louis Malle’s “Le soufflé au Coeur” (“Murmur of the Heart”) (1971), to Maurice Pialat’s “À nos amours” (“To our loves”) (1983), to Ziad Doueiri’s “Lila dit ça” (“Lila says”) (2004), it is obvious that sex has been on the mind of the French for decades.

The sex featured in French films of this type occurs most frequently with or because of a strong-willed and dangerous French femme fatale. This dominating female figure—whether it is young Laurent’s mother in Malle’s film, a grown woman and mother of three still in her sexual prime, or Doueiri and Pialat’s young women who use sex to rebel—it is the image of the willful and proud female as a sexual predator who takes no prisoners that seems to intrigue these directors and their respective audiences.

This icon, however, is not exclusive to French films or even to the world of cinema itself. It is an intoxicating figure that has been around since before film was even a distant dream. From Greek mythology’s proud and jealous queen Hera and the Sirens who seduced sailors to their deaths, to the demonic succubi, according to medieval legend, who seduce men to have sex with them in their dreams, females who exist as sexual beings can be threatening, dangerous, and even evil.

The women in today’s cinéma français are removed from this position as evil incarnate, but the evolution from the mythological witches of yore to Sandrine Bonnaire’s Suzanne in “À nos amours” seems undeniable. The power these women yield through their desirousness and sensuality is what makes them provocateurs—sexual trouble-makers.

The women in these films are made by a precarious craft of creating a sympathetic sex fiend. This method transforms the demonic sexual predator into an understandable, utterly human character.

Besides lacking fishy scales, thunderbolt-wielding husbands, and magical powers to enter into men’s dreams, these women also lack the demoniacal attributes that once made them so scary. Suzanne cannot deny Sirens and succubi in her vast heritage somewhere, but she can relate as a real human and not a villainous sex addict devoid of emotion. 

These French directors thus achieve their art in combining the elements of predatory and dangerous sexuality with the modern woman, one who is just looking to get by. These women reveal their true natures not as heartless captors of male prey, but as fragile and vulnerable people finding their way through the world.

Their sexuality becomes tied directly to that humanity they exhibit so delicately—their sexuality reveals their confidence and proud sense of self, sure, but it simultaneously also deals with their self-consciousness, doubt and fragility. American films do not treat sex this way: the likes of Angelina Jolie and others have pornographic, base and unreal sex on camera. The French cinematographer has found, through characters like Suzanne and Laurent’s mother, the true way of depicting women as related to their sexuality, the utterly human way of contradictions and complexities.

Comments:

The overall main point of this peace was interesting, but after reading the whole article – I felt like it might have been communicated more clearly. In fact, I thought the article would have benefited from a shift of focus because the last 1/3 of the piece was what really grabbed my attention. I have included my suggestion for a stronger main purpose a bit further down in my critique.

The article was organized well from the on start; beginning with how French films used to characterize females and sex to how they do now. This was a difficult thing to assert and you did so in a very colorful interesting manner. I really liked your descriptive language and examples you used during your explanation. However, I thought you did a better job of explaining the French past female portrayal with phrases like “femme fatale”, villainous sex addict devoid of emotion” and “demonic succubi” than you did for the present portrayal. I wasn’t really sure if you meant to use the word “fragile” in the later depiction of women. Being real is not necessarily accompanied by fragility. I have seen some of these films and I know that this comment sounds very feminist oriented, but I just personally wouldn’t describe the shift as portraying women as weaker – more just with faults that made them less glaringly without feeling. Nevertheless, syntax like “sympathetic sex” fiend is still a great use of language.

Although I thought you had some great examples and language, I thought you could have gone a little further with your examples. You drew from your examples throughout the article and this is good, but you needed to describe these characters better in their introduction as example characters. This confusion later on in the article was especially the case with my understanding of Suzanne in “À nos amours”. I don’t know if there was a specific word limit on the piece, but even 100 more words would have made you piece much more clear.
In terms of clarity, I think a shifted focus would really help the profundity of your article. The first two times I read the article I wasn’t entirely sure what I came away with, after the second time I grasped your intent…French films have changed the way they depict women and sex to a much more “real life” portrayal. This is good, but in your last paragraph you introduce a contrast between American film portrayal of women and sex to this new French film portrayal of women and sex. I would definitely like to read more about this contrast and in my opinion the contrast should have been integrated into the main goal of your article at a much earlier stage.

In terms of furthering your style, I think the biggest enhancement I would make would be to change the title of this article. I guess after reading the article more than several times I am unsure on its meaning – and the title should preview the article. The last sentence in the first paragraph could also have been a better lead in. It did the job, but compared to the rest of your article, it did so without flare. From what I could tell the article was mostly free of errors. The few things that I questioned proved to be correct. Other than lack of a few explanations and structure, it is a polished piece. Many congrats, I enjoyed your style of writing!

left by Hannah Hultine at 5:50 pm on March 21, 2008.

Let us know your thoughts on this article:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:


If you're having trouble seeing the word, please feel free to contact us at (503) 768-7146 and we will post your comment for you.