2. 2
Faculty of Art, Design & Architecture
HA6101
~
Dissertation: Research & Reflection
âŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠ.......
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE
REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN IN
FRENCH NEW WAVE CINEMA
âŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠ.......
Charlotte Lily Hanson-Lowe
K1116222
~
BA (Hons) Graphic Design
Word Count: 8,747
With Thanks To Kamila Kuc
2014/2015
3. 3
CONTENTs
~
IntroductionâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠ5
Chapter I :
Jean-Luc Godard and The Modern Women
Vs. Genevieve Sellier and The Male GazeâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠ.9
Chapter II :
The Representation of Women Behind the CameraâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠ...23
ConclusionâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠ...33
BibliographyâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠ37
5. 5
INTRODUCTION
~
On the 20th
September 2014, Emma Watson, leading actress and
philanthropist, addressed the world at the UN Headquarters in New York
and reminded us that, âNo country in the world can yet say they have
achieved gender equalityâ (Watson, 2014). Gender equality is, by
definition, an objective outlined by the United Nations Universal Declaration
of Human Rights referring to the view that men and women receive equal
treatment in law and society, especially in working environments, and
should not be discriminated against on a gender basis. Vanity Fair
described Watsonâs speech as, âgame-changingâ, (2014), with over six
million people viewing it on YouTube. This much reported and discussed
speech identifies an ever present sense of inequality within our society and,
although there is a multitude of nuanced aspects that negotiate to establish
this, the media has often being cited as an influencer in gender
disproportion within society.
âThe media can be an important factor in the promotion of gender
equality, both within the working environment (in terms of employment and
promotion of female staff at all levels) and in the representation of women
and men (in terms of fair gender portrayal and the use of neutral and non-
gender specific language)â, (White, 2009, 9). As of 2013, within the film
industry, women accounted for only 16% of all directors, executive
producers, writers, cinematographers, and editors in the production of the
top-grossing 250 domestically made films in America. Although this figure
refers to America, these types of statistics are seen worldwide throughout
the media industry. It was only in 2014 that The European Film Academy
appointed its first woman head: Agnieszka Holland. Likewise, in April
8. 8
females behind the camera and the role in which they played towards the
representation of females in front of the camera. Through these avenues, I
shall ascertain a portrait of female representation in French New Wave
Cinema, inciting questions about our relationship with filmsâ portrayal of
women to identify that the âmale gazeâ was often employed as a critique of
traditional gender representations on screen. This analysis of La Nouvelle
Vague may not identify a stream of overt female objectification, but rather
raises the question, in regards to sexualisation on camera, how does
cinema negotiate the line between the female objectification and womanâs
autonomous sexuality?
_____________________________________________________________
9. 9
Chapter I
~
JEAN-LUC GODARD AND THE MODERN WOMAN
VERSUS
GENEVIEVE SELLIER AND THE MALE GAZE
In the 1970s, over a decade after the French New Wave movement began,
a growing trend of feminist criticism began to emerge within cinema. âFirst
wave feminist critics adopted a broadly sociological approach, looking at
sex roles women occupied in various imaginative works, from high art to
mass entertainment. They assessed roles as âpositiveâ or ânegativeâ
according to some externally constructed criteria describing the fully
autonomous, independent womenâ, (Kaplan, 1983, 23). Kaplan, a feminist
critic, uses reflection to assert that feminist critics harnessed their own
techniques to examine the portrayal of women in culture.
In âVisual Pleasure and Narrative Cinemaâ (1975), Laura Mulvey
introduced her feminist theory: âThe Male Gaze Theoryâ. The theory states
that the audience spectates a film through the perspective of a heterosexual
male. For example, the camera may focus on the curves of a womanâs body
to present her attractiveness. In this sense, the woman is relegated to the
status of an object, to be admired for physical appearance and in turn,
devoid of human identity. The female character takes on two roles: as an
erotic object for the character within the narrative to view and secondly, as
an erotic object for the spectators within the cinema to view. In the darkness
of the cinema, the viewer can âspectateâ without being seen by those on
screen or by any other viewers. The theory is based on scopohilia: the love
10. 10
of watching. According to Mulvey, in a patriarchal society, the male
characters serve as âactiveâ, they drive the narrative forward, whereas the
âpassiveâ female characters only serve as an inspirational catalyst for the
men to act.
Mulvey, (1975, 33), furthered this analogy to speak of the
âcontrolling gazeâ which presents âwomen as imageâ or âspectacleâ and man
as âthe bearer of the lookâ. Jonathan Schroeder, (1998, 208) highlights
that, âto gaze implied more than to look at â it signifies a psychological
relationship of power in which the gazer is superior to the object of the
gazeâŠfilm (is) an instrument of the male gaze, producing representations of
women, âŠthe sexual fantasy from a male point of viewâ. This âsexual
fantasyâ leads to an increasing mythological presentation of the female. The
concern here is that a passive audience will be influenced by this
representation of reality and mirror it into actual reality, resulting in women
viewing each other through the male gaze and increased hegemonic
ideologies within our society.
Due to the predominantly male statistic of directors, (Varda was the
only female director), it is arguable that the male gaze is synonymous with
French New Wave. Sellier argues that âmostâŠ(films) are elaborated from
the gaze of one or two male protagonistsâŠfemale characters in these films
are the male heroâs fears and desires made concreteâ (Sellier, 2008, 148).
Certainly, in several films such as A bout de souffle (1960) and Jules et
Jim(1962) the female character outlives the male who dies as an effect of
her actions. Sellier cites Loshitzkyâs statement that, âthe misogynistic
tendency of (Godardâs) filmsâŠcannot be avoidedâŠâ (ibid). This chapter
shall focus on the debatable presence of the âmale gazeâ in Godardâs A
Bout de Souffle (1960), and, Une Femme Est Une Femme (1961) and Vivre
Sa Vie (1962) and its relationship to the representation of a âmodern
11. 11
womanâ â (a woman who encompasses sexual liberation and female
emancipation from traditional gender roles) .
Seen as one of the most seminal films in cinematic history, A bout de
souffle (1960) signalled a departure from the studio Hollywood films of the
1950s. Given an original treatment by Truffaut but completed by Godard,
the film, âwhose story is contemporaneous with its shootingâ (Esquenazi,
2000), signalled a landmark for Auteur cinema with its originality. It tells the
story of Michel, a man on the run for murdering a police officer and his
affair with Patricia, an American living in Paris. It is Patriciaâs call to the
police that ends Michelâs life after he decides to stay with her. Sellier (2008,
149) is correct in identifying that Patricia âembodies the fatalityâ of Michel
âsimply for the reason that he has fallen in love with herâ but whether this
means that she is a âmasculine creationâ exemplifying the male gaze and
traditional gender roles is debatable.
Jean Seberg had already gained critical applause for her role in
Bonjour Tristesse (1958), in which the female was the subject of the
narrative and not the object, marking a departure from traditional female
representations. A bout de souffle is arguably no difference. We again see
Seberg take on the role of the âmodern womanâ as Patricia. Whalley argues
that âbeing introduced to Michelâs love interest as a small, fat chested,
shorthaired girl is a cinematic revolution in itself. Hair is a symbol of
femininity and Patriciaâs cropped style extracts this womanliness exerting
her independence from the typical passive female roleâ. This boyish
presentation is also seen when Catherine dresses as a boy in Jules et Jim
(1962). This progressively androgynous portrayal of women is symptomatic
of the âmodern womanâ. We know that Patricia has more than one lover, let
alone engaging in premarital sex that is not informed by love and in this
sense A bout de souffle âshowcases the independent woman, totally defying
13. 13
âresponsibilityâ for her âdesireâ and is part of her sexual independence, not
a rejection of it. We do not necessarily need to know the reason why.
When they do eventually sleep together it is because Patricia wants to and
not because she had been coerced into it, nor does Godard condemned her
for it as would have been seen in Hollywood films.
Sellier would disagree with this appraising interpretation of the
female representation in A bout de souffle. She argues that Godardâs
framing of the shots is synonymous masculine voyeurism. In Patriciaâs
bedroom we are provided with several close ups of Sebergâs face where
lighting is used to enhance Sebergâs beauty. âHere Godard oscillates
between fetishism of the close up when he shoots the female face and body
as objects of desire for the male gazeâ (Sellier, 2008, 114). Likewise, there
are several scenes where the camera films over Patricia shoulder and in this
sense, the audience is complicitous in the male gaze as we spectate through
Michelâs eyes. However, Sellier fails to recognise that the camera spectates
both Michel and Patricia equally. The use of the close up is also used on
Michel to showcase Patriciaâs gaze. It must also be noted that throughout
the film we are presented with sexualised images of women in the media
(for example, the semi-dressed woman on the tabloid that Michel reads)
which can be explicitly compared to Patriciaâs boyish looks to reveal a
departure from this traditional female icon. Therefore, the camera does not
sexually objectify Patricia, it reveals a comparison between the modern
woman and the pre-existing male gaze.
When Michel wraps his hands around Patriciaâs neck and threatens
to kill her if she does not smile, Sellier argues that âthe male
characterâŠpossesses a knowledge about the female character that the film
confirmsâ (ibid). Michelâs narration declares that Patricia shall give in
because she is weak and seconds later we do see Patricia smiling.
However, although Michelâs character is able to predict Patriciaâs response,
14. 14
Sellier does not appreciate Patricia as an independent woman capable of
making her own decisions. Although the audience have experienced
Michelâs violence, Patricia has not and so is unaware of violent potential.
Additionally, even though we know Michel to be violent, the threat lacks
sincerity. Patricia acknowledges this too and so her smile is not symbolic of
female âweaknessâ, rather, it a natural response from a human who finds a
situation amusing.
However, sexism is still identifiable within the film when Michelâs
undermines Patricia by making a âvulgar retortâ whenever she makes a
remark about something of high culture including âRenoir, Bach, Faulkner,
Dylan Thomasâ (Sellier, 2008, 114). Patriciaâs accepting response provides
critics with an example of a patriarchal presence in Godardâs film. This can
be directly compared to Godardâs Le Petit Soldat (1963) in which Karinaâs
infantilizing full skirts and foreign accent âgives all of her sentences the
awkwardness of a child learning to speakâŠwhich undermines her value of
political commitmentâ (ibid. 154), suggesting a trend of Godardâs disinterest
with female academics within his films. However, in A bout de souffle I
would argue that the sexism reiterates my previous point that French New
Wave attempted to negotiate the representation a modern woman with
traditional gender stereotypes. Blythe (2013) articulates it precisely when
she stated that âat times, A bout de souffle is ironic and paradoxical. It is
almost overtly sexist in Michelâs treatment of women, yet Patricia is
undoubtedly a modern womanâ. Sellier is correct in identifying the male
gaze and potential sexism within A bout de souffle, but her dismissal of
Godardâs positive portrayal of Patricia as a modern woman ultimately
renders her feminist interpretation limited in its analysis as it fails to
recognise why the sexism may be there and other sociological aspects.
Although A bout de souffle is seminal to Godardâs reputation, it is
âthe Karina yearsâ (Bergala, 1985) which provide a definitive insight into
17. 17
Figure 2 : Une Femme Est Une Femme (1961)
Figure 3 : Gilda (1946)
Likewise, although the scene provides voyeurism, âGodardâs film
requires participationâ, (Monaco, 1976, 101). His jump cuts, direct sound
and genre eluding do not allow for Mulveyâs passive, voyeuristic spectators,
again showing a non-traditional use of the male gaze. Sellierâs
misinterpretation of Une femme est une femme as misogynistic may be
better focused towards the filmâs promotional material which consistently
19. 19
just as Truffautâs unsympathetic portrayal of the mother in Les quatre cent
coup (1959).
However, although fulfilling gender stereotypes as a femme fatale,
signals of female emancipation and the âmodern womanâ are still present
within the narrative. She has had three lovers and actively criticised the
male characters throughout, vocalised in her opinion. Female sexual
autonomy is directly discussed when Jules states that, âa wifeâs fidelity is
important, a husbandâs secondâ and wonders whether the female
protagonist of a play is a virgin. Catherine declares that her virginity is
âunimportantâ and grows angry at Julesâ sexist sentiments. Here, Truffaut
overtly presently misogyny but allows the female character to rebuff this,
referencing a âmodern womanâsâ mentality over pre-marital sex. However,
although the female is given a voice, the male dissipates this voice.
Catherine (woman) still needs Jim (man) to defend her from Jules (man).
Jules and Jimâs inability to truly understand her is synonymous with
Truffautâs difficulty in understanding a modern woman. She is not allowed to
simply be sexually liberated, she must also be âcrazyâ and take on roles
such as âa Queenâ or an âinnocentâ child, âthe woman that all men
desireâ. The men are constantly trying to justify Catherineâs behaviour by
stereotyping her. In the bar another female character is introduced as,
âempty. Just a thing. A lovely object. SexâŠPure sex.â. Here, women are
criticised far more for their sexuality than with Godard and are spectated
under the male gaze due the male charactersâ inability to understand the
âmodern womanâ.
However, Catherineâs erratic behaviour and inaccessibility can be
interpreted as a true representation of the âmodern womanâ. The Press of
the time were empathetic towards this portrayal. Cayotte (Cinemonde,
1961) declared that, âwomen like Moreau have a deeper
mysteryâŠsomething other than the projection of the mystery desired by
20. 20
man. Their mystery is that of the autonomy of a humanâs lifeâ. Likewise,
Duras, the only female writer of French New Wave, stated that âMoreau is
(one of) the actresses that best represent the women of our era (the sixties)
because they incarnate feminine dramaâ (Sellier, 2008, 181). However,
although by contemporary standards Truffautâs indications of the âmodern
womanâ are certainly present, (Catherine does introduce a new type of
sexuality that was more intelligent than previous sexualised imagery of
women), we can ascertain with hindsight that he still failed to show a
sexually liberated female without placing her under a male gaze.
Returning to Godardâs depiction of Karina, I would turn Sellier
towards Vivre Sa Vie (1962) for an exemplification of the male gaze in
French New Wave with Godardâs continual use of close up shots and
appraising lighting. Karina plays Nana, a Parisian who turn to prostitution
after rejecting her husband and son. She is the epitome of an objectified
woman who dies as a result of her sexual appeal during cross fire between
her sex-traders.
Godard again alludes to historical cinema to reveal this
objectification: Karinaâs bobbed hair is a direct nod to Louise Brookesâ in
Pandoraâs Box (1928) where the heroine also meets her fate after falling
into prostitution. Diana Holmes and Alison Smith argue that although, âthe
feminist spectator will have to face uncomfortable viewingâŠas they will
have to gaze if they want to gain sconic pleasureâŠGodard uses
claustrophobic and displaced images of women to unfoldâŠwhat seems to
be a real concern for why women images accumulate their meaningsâ
(2000,118). The male gaze here is, as with Godardâs other films, employed
to expose the presence of male gaze in pre-existing cinema.
âPhotographic techniquesâŠused to frame Karinaâs face (explore
this),âŠas the lighting darkens and flattens Karinaâs facial features, her face
becomes a maskâ (ibid). The audience are made aware of Karina as a
21. 21
spectacle when Godard frames her in a window. However, the window
here is not used to reveal openness as is so often with film, but rather, it is
used as a metaphor for the screen itself, âan intangible frontier between
interior and exteriorâŠ(representing) the invisible yet foreboding barrier
surrounding womenâ (ibid). Godardâs filmic techniques are a form of self-
reflection. They expose themselves to expose the male gaze within society.
Rather than dismissing Godard under the veneer of the male gaze,
critics such as Sellier should look to the reason for its presence. As stated, it
was a form of criticism on representations of women in studio cinema. I
would also argue Godardâs presentation of Karina is predominantly
indicative of their personal relationship. It is Godard showing us how he
experiences her life. Nana may be interpreted as an anagram for Anna
and in turn, we view Karina as Godard does. Godard employs the male
gaze here to facilitate a commentary on the spectating gaze surrounding
Karina, and women in general.
It is not in Vivre Sa Vie (1962) alone that we see this. William Simon,
(1979 in Loshitzky, 1995, 136), stated that, Karina âfavours the expression
of the most romantic aspect of Godardâs temperament...the hero is, to a
certain degree, Godardâs alter ego in fictionâ. If the camera celebrates
Karinaâs beauty, it is because Godard is celebrating his love for her.
Likewise, although Jacques Rivette once remarked: âHave you ever noticed
that Godard never uses women older than twenty five?â, the majority of his
films used Karina as his leading actress. He did not use enough of a variety
of actresses to make this assumption and I would argue that it is
inappropriate to use this observation as a criticism against Godard. Karina
was cast because of who she was and not because of her age.
On their first meeting, Godard infamously requested Karina
undressed for a role in A Bout de Souffle (1960), as she had done in a
soap advert, to which Karina replied: âAre you mad? It was only in your
22. 22
mind that I was undressedâ. Her refusal is an indication of her authority
over her own image. It seems unlikely, then, that Karina would agree to
negate her authenticity as an actress and can be used as a direct criticism of
Sellierâs painted, child like image of Karina as the girl who followed
Godardâs direction blindly. She had more control than has been credited in
how she was portrayed as a woman. Therefore, although Auteur cinema
would lay all ethical responsibility with Godard, I would argue that this
undermines the influence of actresses and others involved within the
filmmaking process and, in so doing, provides a criticism of auteur cinema.
As expressed, Mulveyâs âmale gazeâ was present in the work of
Godard and other French New Wave filmmakers such as Truffaut and
Chabrol, but its presence is symptomatic of a developing attempt to present
the sexual emancipation of the âmodern womanâ without sexually
objectifying her. Often, these films do fail to remove the female from a
voyeuristic gaze, but Sellier fails to recognise Godardâs genuine concern
about traditional representations of women and his use of the male gaze as
a critical technique to compare Hollywood films to auteur cinema. Likewise,
Sellierâs appropriation of Mulveyâs theory may be misguided as the theory
was never intended for the films of the sixties, but, like New Wave, it
attempted a critical analysis of the Hollywood studio representation of
women. Mulvey herself criticised the theory by noting its exclusivity (it
ignores the sexuality of homosexuals). Sellier ignores these criticisms
entirely to apply it to her preconceived notions of gender inequality and in
doing so renders her analysis limited and out-dated.
30. 30
It is interesting to note that although Hiroshima serves under the
banner of auteur cinema, the film is often regarded as both Resnaisâ and
Durasâ. Here, the director is not the author of the film: responsibility and
acknowledgement are very much shared between director and writer. It is a
positive, then, that we are able to remember the contributions of a woman
in the involvement of this film compared to the forgotten contributions of
French New Waveâs female editors.
And to what was the extent of Durasâ influence over the
representation of women in Hiroshima? Evidently, great. There is an
undeniability of thematic presences in Hiroshima that is found in Durasâ
other work. Woman here is entirely autonomous in her sexual desires,
challenging the narrow confines of appropriate sexual behaviour through
miscengation: first in World War One where she falls in love with a
German, and then here with a Japanese man. It is a rejection of the racial
tensions of the time or the expected attitudes of women. This miscengation is
also found in her novel, The Lover (1984), where we again spectate the
affair between a Caucasian girl and a Chinese man and the rejection of
social constraints. The Lover (1984) was semi-autobiographical, reimagining
Durasâ own history, and very much represents the female as sexually
autonomous, who âseeks to control the terms of her own pleasureâ (Staley
and Edson, 2010). This is not to say that Duras/the girl are not objectified:
they are. Our understanding of sexuality is shown through the girlsâ
perspective, we see her gaze at her female friendâs body with desire, but
this sexuality is an appropriation of male desire. Although her original novel
was objectifying, Durasâ later disapproval of the film version of her novel,
which she viewed as too objectifying, displays a genuine concern for the
hegemonic tendencies of film. Therefore, The Lover (1992) provides us with
an insight into Durasâs attitude towards sexuality in Hiroshima. With each,
woman is allowed a total sexual autonomy but Duras does not reject the
31. 31
objectification of women in film if it is used as tool for commentary. The
Lover (1984) is an example of its use to remark on male desire and
hegemonic influences, but The Lover (1992) provides a misuse as it does not
facilitate a progressive comment on the representation of women. The
powerful and modern representation of the female in Hiroshima,
furthermore, can very much be attributed to Duras and not Resnais alone.
With both the work of Varda and Duras, it is impossible to not notice
evident feminist influences over their representations of women. Concerns
over sexual autonomy are very present and, as Sellier states, each allow
their female protagonists to reveal a consciousness and complexity. This
was a very modern representation of a womanâs sexuality and subverts the
mythological female of traditional cinema. Both Duras and Varda are
remembered for their influence over French New Wave and it is a testament
to the movement that these two women were provided with such authority.
Likewise, auteur cinemaâs complete acceptance of Varda, who was
untaught, as a filmmaker is remarkable for its open-mindedness, a break
from the snobbery of the contracted studio systems.
However, French New Wave still exposes a lack in female
contributors. It is no wonder that the two films that are considered most
modern in their representations of women were the ones in which a woman
had great influence over the filmmaking process. Women were few and far
between behind camera, and this sense, French New Wave was very much
a boyâs club. However, it would be inappropriate to dismiss all New Wave
as sexist. Several of the male filmmakers displayed a genuine concern over
the representations and objectification of women on screen and attempted
the representation of a modern woman, emancipated and autonomous in
her sexuality. Likewise, women still obtained roles behind camera such as
script supervision or editing. The minimal number doing so does not
necessarily expose an exclusivity in French New Wave: it may be attributed
32. 32
to the time. Fewer women were trying to have a role in the filmmaking
process and Varda herself has stated that women simply did not believe in
their own ability to make a film. This indicates a gender inequality in society
rather than simply within French New Wave films. Likewise, itâs an
inequality that is still present in the film making industry today, as outlined in
my introduction. The key issue with French New Wave is not its exclusivity,
but its ability to forget these female contributors by providing all credit and
memory to the director.
_____________________________________________________________
33. 33
Conclusion
~
As previously outlined, French New Wave was a predominantly male
movement with men severely outnumbering women behind the camera.
However, this does not mean that French New Wave can be dismissed as
sexist. During the 1960s, there was social and cultural upheaval, especially
in France with the growing tensions that lead to the protests of 1968. Youth
were experiencing a cultural revolution and with it came new ideas
regarding female emancipation and sexuality. French New Wave was a
progenitor to the feminist interpretations of film delivered in the Seventies,
and, as with anything birthed as a predecessor, what we see with La
Nouvelle Vague is a genuine concern and attempt to represent the modern
woman both in front and behind the camera.
In front of the camera, the male gaze can definitely be identified, but
often it is employed as a comparative means between the traditional
representations of women and the new. There are direct references: for
example, the repeated appropriations of traditional strip-tease scenes,
found in Une femme est une femme (1961) and Les Bonnes Femmes (1960)
etc., that employ satire to comment on the traditional sexualisation of
women on screen. Likewise, French New Wave aimed to deliver audiences
with female characters that were sexually autonomous. Films were
beginning to show women as sexually independent, a sexuality that did not
reflect male desire.
French New Wave is not devoid of sexism, however. The general
characterisation of these women often achieves this projection of the
modern woman, but the camera still occasionally fetishistically frames the
female, and in this the audience spectate through the male gaze. Close up
35. 35
indeed, the actresses themselves. As previously stated, Karina and Riva
both spoke about their representation on screen and it would be naĂŻve to
suggest that they were ineffective in their own characterisations. Likewise,
unless the director was the one who directed, wrote, edited, and performed
their film, they cannot single handedly claim total responsibility for the
audienceâs experience. As we see with the applause for Durasâ
contributions to Hiroshima, a writer holds equal influence to the director
over the filmâs narrative. It is wrongful, then, that we dismiss the
contributions of Decugis and Guillemot, for example, through our lack of
acknowledgement. There may have been other female contributors to these
films, but unfortunately, the nature of auteur cinema has only allowed the
memory of its leaders to succeed.
That said, there was certainly a lack of women contributing to French
New Wave but this is not necessarily isolated to this movement. We still
have actresses speaking of the limited variety of roles of women today.
Natalie Dormer (Zemler, 2014) spoke of her role in The Hunger Games
Trilogy(2014): âit is nice to play a character defined by her profession and
not by her gender. Television has really assisted a lot in providing
consciously three-dimensional and heroic female characters. And I think
cinema is catching on to the fact that 50 percent of their audience is female
and it would be nice to have a little bit more representation other than the
wife, the mother, the femme fatale, and the mistressâ. Evidently, filmmakers
have not yet achieved a totalitarian mastering of this negotiation in the
representation of women and as mentioned earlier there is still a huge
disproportion in the number of women making films. Therefore, we cannot
dismiss French New Wave as sexist because it was a predominantly male
movement, we must appreciate it for what appears to be - a genuine
concern regarding the representation of women and an undoubtedly
36. 36
modern embodiment of female sexuality, regardless of the gender of the
director.
Varda articulates it precisely when she stated, âI am not interested in
seeing a film just because it is made by a womanâŠthe question isnât men or
women. The question is to fight for innovative films, a genuinely filmatic
language that aims to use pictures and sound in alternative waysâ (Sjaastad,
2010), and, in this sense, French New Wave achieved precisely that
through its resistance and commentary concerning traditional objectifying
representations of women.
39. 39
â Parnell, L, (2013), The French New Wave: Revolutionising Cinema,
Available at: http://theculturetrip.com/europe/france/articles/the-
french-new-wave-revolutionising-cinema/, Accessed : 02/10/2014
â Reynaud, B., (2013), The Gleaners and Varda: The 2013 AFI Fest &
American Film Market, Available at:
http://sensesofcinema.com/2014/festival-reports/the-gleaners-and-
varda-the-2013-afi-fest-american-film-market/, Accessed: 13/12/2014
â Richardson, R. , (2009), Grandmother of the French New Wave
delivers unique autobiopic: calling into question memory, fantasy,
reality, Available at :
http://thevillager.com/villager321/grandmother.html, Accessed:
12/10/2014
â Rihoit, c, (1986), Brigitte Bardot: Une Mythe Française, Paris: Oliver
Orban
â Schwartz, V. R., (2007), Itâs So French! Hollywood, Paris and the
making of cosmopolitan film culture, London: University of Chicago
Press
â Sellier, G, (2008), Masculine Singular: French New Wave Cinema,
Durham and London: Duke University Press
â Sellier, G, (2010), French New Wave Cinema and The Legacy of
Male Libertanage, Available at:
http://www.muse,jhu.edu/journals/cinema_journal/summary/vo49/4
9.4.sellier.html, Accessed: 10/04/2014
â Shroeder, J. E. , (1998), Consuming Representation: A visual
Approach to Consumer Research, Barbara B Stern, London:
Routledge
â Silcier, J. , (1984), Postif, les cahiers, Cinema 84, Cinematographe:
les romans de Francois Truffaut, Monde (Des Arts et des Spectacles),
no. 12415, 7, France
â Simon, W. G., (1979), The Influence of The Director: Jean Luc
Godard and Anna Karina, In Great Film Actresses, Chicago: Art
Institute of Chicago
â Simonton, D. , (2006), The Routledge History of Women Since 1700,
England: Manchester University Press
â Sjaastad, EO, (2010), Whoâs afraid of Agnes Varda?, Available at:
http://www.filmdirectors.eu/?p=1236&lang=fr, Accessed :
08/08/2014