This film inspired a lot of discussion. Is it patriarchal or a critique of patriarchy? If the latter, how is the critique limited by its participation in perpetuating what Laura Mulvey famously termed "The Male Gaze"?
I actually really enjoyed watching this film, like it was an Alfred Hitchcock movie or something. It was suspenseful and masterful. Still, a lot of women/feminists who saw it and don't have any context for the work (it's directed by Claude Chabrol) objected to the film strongly.
My own reaction was: why did he make this film now?
Being an enormous fan of the French New Wave, I tend to give Chabrol the benefit of the doubt here. How does film critique the world-as-it-is? Does art have to show heroic transformations where women overcome all odds and prevail in order to be feminist? After putting a lot of thought and work into it, I have come to the conclusion that feminist art is art that shows how womens' lives are shaped, formed and limited by their specific social, historical circumstances. (see: Godard's Vivre Sa Vie or Arundhati Roy's The God of Small Things for two very different but excellent examples) This film does that well. But that's not all it does. It's a compelling work full of ideas, story and craft. To dismiss it as merely "sexist" is to miss a lot of what is happening in the film, including all the work and thinking that went into the making of it, which ultimately does a disservice to artists everywhere.
Art is meant to be considered carefully, not rashly dismissed. If you don't care, you don't care, but give it some thought: why don't you care? And if you find that you really don't care about the French New Wave, by all means, please start your own film movement that critiques society, promotes radical action and documents incendiary thinking! It's been too long.
No comments:
Post a Comment