Rivette side-track about sexism in cinema

[maRi]

is the original any better?

I think that's very likely. As I understand, the French word might primarily refer to behaviour, and presumably, as Rivette is talking about her on the screen, that would be a comment on her acting. If that's the case, "slovenly" is an unfortunate translation, but "limp" could be right.

The way he uses Emmanuelle Béart is pretty uncomfortable and objectifying.

She plays a model. It's an exploration rather than an exploitation of the erotic and its limits, and Rivette probably deliberately makes his task more difficult by casting her.

If I seem to be an expert on everything I touch, might it be because I speak only on topics about which I can speak with confidence?

Sorry to comment on this, but your tone is very strident and your confidence seems conservative and too contemptuous. I'm afraid that's more common than lack of confidence. It's really not impressive.

[Dan Warburton]

sex·ism /ˈsɛksɪzəm/
–noun
2.
discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women.

sexism (ˈsɛksɪzəm)
— n
discrimination on the basis of sex, esp the oppression of women by men

1
: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2
: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

(actions based on) the belief that the members of one sex are less intelligent, able, skilful, etc. than the members of the other sex, especially that women are less able than men

I fail to see how any of the above definitions applies to the director mentioned above, or his films.

[leroysghost]

is the original any better?

I think that's very likely. As I understand, the French word might primarily refer to behaviour, and presumably, as Rivette is talking about her on the screen, that would be a comment on her acting. If that's the case, "slovenly" is an unfortunate translation, but "limp" could be right.

finally someone says something actually helpful. if it's a mistranslation that would change things. the problem lies in débandante being a verb instead of an adj like limp. as a verb it still seems like behavior that fosters stereotypes of social roles based on sex.

[ttg]

If I seem to be an expert on everything I touch, might it be because I speak only on topics about which I can speak with confidence?

Sorry to comment on this, but your tone is very strident and your confidence seems conservative and too contemptuous. I'm afraid that's more common than lack of confidence. It's really not impressive.

Impressive I am not attempting to be.

I just say what I mean. And I like conservation in writing. Pardon me.

I thank you for your useful comment.

I do not in any way attempt to identify the motivations for his choice. I am not in his head. I do, however, see long, nigh silent passages of a naked woman in uncomfortable poses. Whatever his motivations may be.

I don't mean in any way to assert that Jacques Rivette is a sexist. I merely meant to point out possible sexist elements in a single film in response to the assertion that his films had no possible evidence for such. And I do think that quote can be construed as sexist. Maybe it was just spiteful.

The words are clear. Projection isn't necessary.

Pax

Loads of edit. I'm tired of herring. Out of crackers. Argue the point or no responses; all the ad hominem crap is wearisome.

[ttg]

Sexism:

2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

Or, as I prefer, the OED: 'noun - prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.'
(See how it's all clean and neat in a single phrase? Lovely.)

'I do, however, see long, nigh silent passages of a naked woman in uncomfortable poses.'

Not likely we'll see that happen to many men any time soon.

But it probably isn't a stereotype.

And complaining about Kate Winslet's performance, as I understand is the case, using digs at her appearance.

Probably not stereotyping either.

Really?

It isn't the worst thing in the world nor the most sexist but it is there: the stereotype, the social habit.

Conservative would be to cover it up and apologise for it.

Pax

[ttg]

The way he uses Emmanuelle Béart is pretty uncomfortable and objectifying.

She plays a model. It's an exploration rather than an exploitation of the erotic and its limits, and Rivette probably deliberately makes his task more difficult by casting her.

Might I add: Even if he has this as an excuse, doesn't mean he had to do it. Did he say that the film is 'an exploration rather than an exploitation of the erotic and its limits' or is that yours, from a magazine/critic? I personally didn't find the film in the least erotic or about eroticism. There is a lot sinister in those scenes. The dry scratching of the pen as she sits there contorted, vagina to the wind. Édouard forcing Marianne into painful positions. Do you remember this film? Gender maybe or relationships but not eroticism. Unless you contend the film is about S&M? That would be an interesting interpretation. We could say it's about horny, old artists, too.

And this: 'Rivette probably deliberately makes his task more difficult by casting her.' Moralistic apologetics. You don't have any idea what his motives were. It's just as easy to say it was because she isn't 'slovenly', 'limp', 'loose', débandante. You know, he looked at her naked for hours or however long it took to shoot those scenes.

And his 'basing' it on 'Le Chef-d’œuvre inconnu' is a conceit.

Pax

[sevenarts]

Women should just sacrifice themselves to abusive men, for art!

Is this really your takeaway message from La belle noiseuse? Marianne doesn't "sacrifice" herself to Frenhofer's art; their relationship starts with the older artist manipulating and using his young model, but over time it becomes much more complex than that: she becomes an engaged collaborator in the painting, and in any case the film makes it pretty clear that Frenhofer isn't exactly an admirable character, he's an asshole and an egotist, and washed up to boot, his inspiration having fled long ago. In the end Marianne breaks free of everything, not letting herself get destroyed or drawn into prolonged misery the way Frenhofer and his wife have been. It's not a film about Marianne being abused by Frenhofer; it's about the intense and often ugly or difficult emotions stirred up by art, and the effect on both artist and subject.

Rivette's the last artist I'd ever accuse of sexism, and his other films refute the charges of sexism even more easily - like Celine and Julie Go Boating, Gang of Four, Love on the Ground, Pont du Nord, and the Duelle/Noroit diptych, all films that are about, on some level or another, women defining their own roles in relation to expectations, telling their own stories, exercising their own creativity. Men only rarely figure into Rivette's world as important or powerful presences, and when they do it's often to be outwitted and outmaneuvered by the women, as in the denouement to Love on the Ground. The bulk of his films tell stories that are about women, and that don't at all resort to the usual stereotypes about women - probably because he asks his actresses to bring so much of themselves to their characters through improvisation.

[ttg]

Women should just sacrifice themselves to abusive men, for art!

Is this really your takeaway message from La belle noiseuse? Marianne doesn't "sacrifice" herself to Frenhofer's art; their relationship starts with the older artist manipulating and using his young model, but over time it becomes much more complex than that: she becomes an engaged collaborator in the painting, and in any case the film makes it pretty clear that Frenhofer isn't exactly an admirable character, he's an asshole and an egotist, and washed up to boot, his inspiration having fled long ago. In the end Marianne breaks free of everything, not letting herself get destroyed or drawn into prolonged misery the way Frenhofer and his wife have been. It's not a film about Marianne being abused by Frenhofer; it's about the intense and often ugly or difficult emotions stirred up by art, and the effect on both artist and subject.

Rivette's the last artist I'd ever accuse of sexism, and his other films refute the charges of sexism even more easily - like Celine and Julie Go Boating, Gang of Four, Love on the Ground, Pont du Nord, and the Duelle/Noroit diptych, all films that are about, on some level or another, women defining their own roles in relation to expectations, telling their own stories, exercising their own creativity. Men only rarely figure into Rivette's world as important or powerful presences, and when they do it's often to be outwitted and outmaneuvered by the women, as in the denouement to Love on the Ground. The bulk of his films tell stories that are about women, and that don't at all resort to the usual stereotypes about women - probably because he asks his actresses to bring so much of themselves to their characters through improvisation.

That highly selective quote is clearly hyperbole. It was jest.

Your romantic projections onto his films are great. How about a response to my actual point.

Are there no critical viewers and readers here, only the naive? (C.f. The Limits of Interpretation - Eco, 1991 [This means: terminology not from the OED.])

And please, read the whole thread.

I am so tired of all of these generalisations.

I said nothing about his œuvre in general.

Pax

[sevenarts]

I have, in fact, read the whole thread.

The full context for the quote I pulled from you is:

La Belle Noiseuse is also, arguably, extremely sexist.
The way he uses Emmanuelle Béart is pretty uncomfortable and objectifying.
Not to mention the relationship between Édouard and Liz.
Women should just sacrifice themselves to abusive men, for art!

Speaking of generalizations, I guess. What is your point? The film is sexist because Beart appears naked in it? The film is sexist because it portrays an exploitative/abusive relationship? If the film is "arguably" sexist, make the argument, don't just state it as a fact. There's a lot to be taken from this film, but vaguely articulated jabs about "sexism" don't exactly constitute critical viewing.

[ttg]

I have, in fact, read the whole thread.

The full context for the quote I pulled from you is:

La Belle Noiseuse is also, arguably, extremely sexist.
The way he uses Emmanuelle Béart is pretty uncomfortable and objectifying.
Not to mention the relationship between Édouard and Liz.
Women should just sacrifice themselves to abusive men, for art!

Speaking of generalizations, I guess. What is your point? The film is sexist because Beart appears naked in it? The film is sexist because it portrays an exploitative/abusive relationship? If the film is "arguably" sexist, make the argument, don't just state it as a fact. There's a lot to be taken from this film, but vaguely articulated jabs about "sexism" don't exactly constitute critical viewing.

Well, let me recap since you missed a few things.

1) 'I merely meant to point out possible sexist elements in a single film in response to the assertion that his films had no possible evidence for such.'

2) "'Sexism: 2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex'

Or, as I prefer, the OED: 'noun - prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.'
(See how it's all clean and neat in a single phrase? Lovely.)

'I do, however; see long, nigh silent passages of a naked woman in uncomfortable poses.'

Not likely we'll see that happen to many men any time soon.

But it probably isn't a stereotype.

And complaining about Kate Winslet's performance, as I understand is the case, using digs at her appearance.

Probably not stereotyping either.

Really?

It isn't the worst thing in the world nor the most sexist but it is there: the stereotype, the social habit.

Conservative would be to cover it up and apologise for it."

As you can see, I started out only hypothesizing and ended with pointing out a sexist element in the film and a particular quote.

Other than a brief aside to state I didn't think the film was even remotely erotic or about eroticism, the rest was herring.

Pax

Ed. Fixed.

[mudd]

i have a pretty low tolerance for posting obnoxiously. watch your tone.

m

[ttg]

i have a pretty low tolerance for posting obnoxiously. watch your tone.

m

I apologise, I do feel like I have made my point clearly a number of times and everyone is dancing around it, accusing me of being everything hateful they can think to hate for making a point I never tried to make.

Pax

N.b. I'm bowing out of this.

[leroysghost]

soooo...we are just going to let this die out without addressing the issue at hand?

a question specifically about Rivette was asked, and instead of answering it the thread was pointlessly split and everyone except maRi evaded the question and talked a lot of bullshit (just like the Salò discussion).

good job guys.

[rrepeatt]

a question specifically about Rivette was asked

I have no interest in getting into this argument, but what was the question again? Not this I hope:

what kind of sexist fairy tale world does he live in?

[leroysghost]

i don't want an argument either, that was all ttg.

in an interview, Jacques Rivette seems to single out Kate Winslet as a bad actress because she made his cock soft. i thought this was a pretty sexist thing to say. subsequently i have been a little put off of seeing the man's films if he himself has such crass and shallow criticisms of things.

maRi made the point that the word might not mean what it appears to. everyone else just talked about how unsexist his films are (for no reason seeing as i never said i thought they were) and that just seems like they doth protest too much. now i'm even more put off seeing Rivette films then ever.

[leroysghost]

You earlier described someone else as an "asshole" and a "moron".. what does that make you?

Rivette calls Speilberg an asshole when he talks about Titanic, what does that make him?

i'd also like an answer to this, actually.

[franz bieberkopf]

you blew a single comment out of proportion. you had nothing else to draw from in terms of your interpretation of Rivette (the man) or his work (which, perhaps would be implied by the word "cinema" in the title). that which was cited as an argument--La Belle Noiseuse--put its stock in the existence of a power dynamic expressed at the level of content, which some would argue is not necessarily held up elsewhere in the film--and which doesn't feel held up in other parts of Rivette's work.

Rivette was a critic at the Cahiers for many years before he started making films, and by the point that Titanic rolls around he has been making them for about 35 years. he's had all kinds of time to cultivate his very particular sense and vocabulary about the whole thing. the comment to my mind sounded as though it might've been as much about her energy as a performer as it was about her physical appearance. even if this is not the case, it's really just a silly little driveby about a film he had nothing to do with. it's not the basis for a discussion about anything on its own. except for maybe: that was a nasty thing to say to a source who would disseminate it elsewhere.

[leroysghost]

okay now i'm a little ticked off.

what is your fucking problem? why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

i have NO criticism of Rivette's work, and the only "interpretation" of him as a man is that he seems like kind of a loser if the public comment he chooses to express about a film is about a single actress and his dick (if that is indeed what he says which is what i want to know and you have not answered). i don't know he is a loser; i don't know if he is sexist; i've never met the fucking man!

what are are you trying to accomplish?

[surfer]

hey now. let's all just think happy thoughts.

[leroysghost]

i'll try. i just don't understand why we can't rationally assess what the man said, say whether or not it was an unfortunate comment, and move on. we don't need to right off the bat claim that there is absolutely nothing sexist about the comment and start putting words in my mouth.