![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Brother, what's my name?
I wrote the following around six in the morning, sparked by finishing my writeup of Robert Siodmak's Criss Cross (1949) and then showering and trying without much success to shut my brain off enough to sleep. I figured I would look at it when I woke up and see how much it resembled dreaming Dorothy Parker. Nothing in here rhymes with "passes" or "glasses," so it seemed safe to post. All of this is thinking out loud.
It is not that I don't believe in the archetype of the femme fatale. Film noir is full of dangerous, duplicitous women, as it is frequently full of dangerous, duplicitous men. I've met some examples already; I'm sure others exist. I just feel increasingly that the femme fatale, like the private eye, is a much more significant and frequently employed character in neo-noir—and film criticism—than in film noir itself. I would love to know when the term was coined and/or first applied within film noir, whether it happened during what I think of as the first wave of the genre (1940's), the second (1950's), or if it was even later, looking back from the neo-noir years. Most things look simpler in reception than in reality. Athene is not the goddess of wisdom.
I may have come to regard the term "femme fatale" in much the same way as I regard the term "Mary Sue"—I don't argue with the utility of a shorthand label for a class of fictional characters, even negative ones, but when I start seeing it misapplied to any female character at the center of a narrative, I start to side-eye its motives.
It is possible that I am skeptical of the concept of the femme fatale because I am approaching these movies from the perspective of a culture that no longer quite so uncritically accepts as a real factor in human interaction the irresistible attractiveness of women that absolves men of bad behavior committed while under its spell. This paradigm most often turns up in contexts of sexual consent, but I see no reason it shouldn't apply to crime. Probably for this reason, I really notice when noir filmmakers take care to point out the culpability of men as well as the incentive of women. It happens much more frequently than, even a few years ago, I might have thought.
If the deception isn't deliberate, if the seduction isn't part of the strategy, if she isn't using men to make up for the agency she can't otherwise obtain within the gendered confines of her society—or just for the fun of it—I don't think she's a femme fatale. She may be a bad idea, but so are a lot of romances that aren't La Belle Dame Sans Merci.
Tagged for Patreon by virtue of really being an extension of the previous review. I wouldn't have been able to fit it into a footnote.
It is not that I don't believe in the archetype of the femme fatale. Film noir is full of dangerous, duplicitous women, as it is frequently full of dangerous, duplicitous men. I've met some examples already; I'm sure others exist. I just feel increasingly that the femme fatale, like the private eye, is a much more significant and frequently employed character in neo-noir—and film criticism—than in film noir itself. I would love to know when the term was coined and/or first applied within film noir, whether it happened during what I think of as the first wave of the genre (1940's), the second (1950's), or if it was even later, looking back from the neo-noir years. Most things look simpler in reception than in reality. Athene is not the goddess of wisdom.
I may have come to regard the term "femme fatale" in much the same way as I regard the term "Mary Sue"—I don't argue with the utility of a shorthand label for a class of fictional characters, even negative ones, but when I start seeing it misapplied to any female character at the center of a narrative, I start to side-eye its motives.
It is possible that I am skeptical of the concept of the femme fatale because I am approaching these movies from the perspective of a culture that no longer quite so uncritically accepts as a real factor in human interaction the irresistible attractiveness of women that absolves men of bad behavior committed while under its spell. This paradigm most often turns up in contexts of sexual consent, but I see no reason it shouldn't apply to crime. Probably for this reason, I really notice when noir filmmakers take care to point out the culpability of men as well as the incentive of women. It happens much more frequently than, even a few years ago, I might have thought.
If the deception isn't deliberate, if the seduction isn't part of the strategy, if she isn't using men to make up for the agency she can't otherwise obtain within the gendered confines of her society—or just for the fun of it—I don't think she's a femme fatale. She may be a bad idea, but so are a lot of romances that aren't La Belle Dame Sans Merci.
Tagged for Patreon by virtue of really being an extension of the previous review. I wouldn't have been able to fit it into a footnote.
no subject
AMEN. Yes.
"Things are going badly in my life. Must be the fault of the woman I'm involved w--" NO. Stop.
Since the directors are taking the time to show that the women *aren't* culpable (in the examples you've talked about), and that the men make bad decisions all on their own, is it maybe that that's what the directors are trying to show? --the blame-others tendency when clearly your own bad choices are actually what got you into the situation?
no subject
It didn't even work for Adam! You still got blown out of the Garden, buddy. Own it.
is it maybe that that's what the directors are trying to show? --the blame-others tendency when clearly your own bad choices are actually what got you into the situation?
In the cases of Double Indemnity and Criss Cross, definitely; it's part of what makes the movies work. There's a lot of real fatalism in the genre, but there are also a lot of characters who want to pass the moral buck. It's easier to be foredoomed, because then it's not your fault. If there was never any way out, you can't be blamed for not finding one. I really need to rewatch The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946) to see how that movie apportions its blame and complicity. I remember it being a two-person job.
no subject
no subject
If you get to it before I do, please provide a report!
Afterthought to the conversation above: Joseph Losey's The Prowler (1951) also features a noir protagonist who can put the blame anywhere but on himself, and whom we are not in the slightest meant to believe.
no subject
no subject
Thank you! That matches what I remember, but I have not seen the film since high school, so I figure a refresher course is in order.