Female Sexuality in Recent Cinema

Saro: There seems to be an influx of European art films attempting to directly confront their female protagonists’ sexuality. We had the Palme d’Or winning, and endlessly controversial, Blue Is The Warmest Color; Lars Von Trier’s pretty deliberately provocative 4 hour sex-epic Nymphomaniac and soon we’ll have Francois Ozon’s so-called “baby Belle De Jour” Young & Beautiful. However all these films, as provocative as they may be, are directed by men, which begs the question; how well-equipped are men to deal with such intimate depictions of female sexuality? Of course debates about the male gaze and depictions of women in cinema rage across every area of film criticism, in every genre and period. But this particular phenomenon has its own issues; a male director trying to occupy the feelings of his female character, get inside her mind and figure out what makes her tick. Abdellatif Kechiche spends a good portion of Blue is The Warmest Color, self-reflexively talking about the obsession that men have always had with trying to show “female pleasure” and its clear he knows that he can’t quite understand it entirely.So that’s where I’d like to begin. Does a film like Blue Is The Warmest Colour, with its inconsistent gaze and filtering of its subject’s (or arguably object’s) experience through a straight male experience, have much to offer? Or is it just another, more self-indulgent realisation of the male gaze?

Peter: Well, I have to come into this at a slight disadvantage. I haven’t seen Blue, and I should hope that one of the other panelists will give your points their due. However, I think your point about self-reflexivity reflect the qualms I have with a director like Lars Von Trier and the way he problematizes female sexuality in Nymphomaniac.I think you’re right to identify ‘mainstream’ (whatever that means) cinema as suffering from a historical preference for male voices, even when discussing female sexuality. In Lars’ case, I can count at least five films of his I’ve seen that are grounded on female perspectives. His production house, Zentropa, was the first mainstream studio to produce pornography for a female audience (which Lars directed). Critical reception has, understandably, turned on this issue of whether what Lars is doing is appropriate.On one hand, there is a protracted scene in the film where the archetypal male figure, Seligman (Skarsgard), interprets the way society has treated Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourgh) as evidence of an ingrained misogyny. He goes as far as saying her actions would be unremarkable were she a male. Though to me, this is an example of too little too late. It comes almost four hours into the film, and by that point, we’ve seen Joe go through a variety of tortures and tribulations. I have to wonder whether Lars’ ‘feminism’, if it can be called that, is little more than a posthumous barrier against criticism. Though I’m not sure if this one example precludes other males from engaging meaningfully with female sexuality, especially if there’s evidence that they have collaborated meaningfully with women (Tarantino’s relationship with Uma Thurman springs to mind, though I’m unsure of how appropriate an example this is).

Grace: Peter, I think you’re right in criticizing Von Trier’s attempt at what to me as well felt like covering himself with acknowledging the double standard about female and male promiscuity. Nymphomaniac, to me at least, did not offer a powerful female character completely in charge of her own sexuality and while of course, that is not necessarily an imperative, it still felt like Joe was constantly punished for her desire.Male directors like Von Trier and Kechiche too, let themselves time and time again be criticized for the way they portray female sexuality. They rarely prove themselves as worthy of the production of its representation.

For example, it’s unfortunate that the sex scenes in Blue is the Warmest Color are so outlandish and unrealistic because they become an easy target for the criticism of male directors who focus on female sexuality. I am usually wary of criticizing any sex scene as “inauthentic” because it implies there is some specific, authentic way to have sex, but it’s difficult to not feel like Kechiche was interested in scenes that would excite him and an (arguably) male audience and not as interested in the representation of the lived experiences of queer female life. Every lesbian with a blog has completely lambasted the film for its “unrealistic, stereotypical” portrayal of lesbian sex and while I do not believe that the heterosexual sex in Nymphomaniac could not also be described as over the top etc, the excessive amounts of scissoring in Blue really does just detract from its authenticity.

Felix: I’m glad you’ve brought up those outlandish sex scenes Grace – realistically I think they were just in there to drum up publicity for the film rather than actually function as a realistic portrayal of sex. I’d also accuse Von Trier of often being guilty of this. In terms of advancing the plot or the films overriding themes, the sex-scenes only really showed that Adele was coming out of her shell and gave no insight into her relationship with Emma whatsoever. Their explicit nature is, arguably, completely unnecessary and it would be totally fair to assume that Kechiche was just filming something that would arouse him (especially considering his apparently abusive nature on set), however, I’d lean more on the side of generating publicity (I doubt it would have received the Palme d’Or or such wide distribution without them). However, I’d posit that Blue is the Warmest Color is less of an exploration of female sexuality and more of a coming of age film that happens to focus on an outsider to what society considers “the norm”, a homosexual female.

Structurally, it’s sort of the same generic coming of age story that’s pushed out every couple of months (albeit with some interesting narrative techniques like the jump forwards in time at the halfway point), just framed through a different sexual identity. As such, even though experiences that are obviously unique to a homosexual female’s journey growing up are portrayed in the film, I don’t think that the film is first and foremost an exploration of female sexuality like Nymphomaniac (for instance), nor does it purport to be.

Saro: Well I’d actually flip your observation Felix. I think Nympomaniac is the one that I wouldn’t completely boil down to being about female sexuality in the same way Blue Is The Warmest Color is. While Blue Is The Warmest Color has many beautiful, non-sexual moments, (and its a shame critics are sort of throwing out the baby with the bath water) sex is very clearly on its mind through a lot of the film and it becomes even more pointed when one of Adele’s actor friends starts talking about the male gaze and the history of men’s obsession with feminine pleasure. I think why I find Blue Is The Warmest Color so frustrating is that Kechiche attempts this really hyper-realistic style all throughout and then fumbles in the sex scene, which even if they feel incongruous, are clearly important to him for whatever reason. Blue Is The Warmest Color is so hung up on being “real” and “honest” that its disingenuous sex scenes leave an even worse taste in your mouth.

Von Trier on the other hand is so stylistic, provocative and generally all over the place that authenticity is never really required. I do buy into the interpretation that sees Joe as a stand in for Von Trier and Selligman as a sort of critic/audience figure. The ham-fisted monologue trying to recast Joe’s story as a feminist one is not Von Trier trying to cover all bases, but having a jab at his liberal, middle class audience that try to rationalise and mitigate his pretty dangerous and fucked up work. Joe’s sexuality is like Von Trier’s depression (remember that Nymphomaniac is Part 3 of the ‘Depression Trilogy’) and filmmaking; it’s not good or bad – it simply is. It defines Joe and it destroys her just as Von Trier’s own little issues inspire his work while constantly sabotaging him. Selligman’s tedious rationalisations and politicising of Joe’s actions refuse to accept her on her own terms and when you consider the extremely divisive ending I think it’s clear to see what Von Trier thinks of that.

Peter: It’s interesting to hear Grace describe the sexual acts in Blue as so over the top. Somewhat disappointing to think that these directors would intentionally contrive scenarios purely for the pleasure of the audience. And then we have Lars who seems to go in the opposite direction, contriving situations that seem to demand our moral outrage. How are we meant to feel about Joe’s behaviour? Grace hit the nail on the head describing Joe as an addict, Von Trier really does portray her as incidental to, instead of in control of, her actions. It’s certainly reductive.The relationship between Lars and his characters is a point of disagreement between Saro and I. While I agree that Joe, at some point, is Lars’ self-insert, it’s my interpretation that this only applies to the second volume. In the first, I believe Von Trier is embodied in Seligman, and this explains his behaviour as the detached questioning figure. I believe honestly that Lars is trying to interpret Joe’s behaviour here. It’s in the second volume that Von Trier most readily embodies himself in Joe, though, interestingly, this is not a process by which he grants himself deeper insight into her sexuality, but instead one through which he airs his own vile political opinions. (We all recall Joe’s sudden prejudices in the second half, as well as her outburst during rehab that seems directly to respond to Von Trier’s prior controversy at Cannes).

This suggests, to me anyway, that the film has discarded any primary interest in sexuality, and instead wants to comment on what Lars sees as restrictions on what society will let him say. That’s why the first volume has so many banal interruptions (fishing, et al) and the second has so many political interludes. He seems to be intentionally undermining everything he said the film would be in pre-production (we all remember the urban legend that all the male genitalia had been digitally, ahem, ‘enhanced’). I hadn’t thought of reading that monologue at the end as being a stab at the audience, though does this simply confirm what Von Trier’s critics said all along about his inherent prejudice?

Grace: Peter, I think you allude to a really important point that I would like to make also. Both Kechiche and, even more so, Von Trier seem to use the representation of female desire as a means to challenge and create controversy and push back against the “mainstream”. While Blue is the Warmest Color, to me at least, is actually quite a beautiful film and its exploration of class and intimacy and passion outweigh the issues it has with disingenuous sex, Nymphomaniac felt to me to be just a way for Von Trier to shock. I want to make it clear that I don’t think there is anything innately wrong with that, he made a very interesting film and I have a lot to say in praise of it. The real issue is more to do with the lack of diversification when it comes to the representation of female (particularly queer) sexuality. It is not Von Trier’s fault that he is given the platform to make films about women and sex in a high-profile way, but to constantly be bombarded with only skewed, male driven sexual fantasy when trying to find oneself on-screen can be disheartening.

Felix: Can we talk about realism in the sex scenes in both films? I’ve always thought that the portrayal of explicit or unsimulated sex in film is generally an attempt to portray sex as realistically as possible and a push away from the super-glossy, totally unrealistic sex in Hollywood films where everyone is airbrushed to within an inch of their life and there’s none of the passion, awkwardness or even humour of real sex in the sex scenes. What we have here is two films that use explicit and (arguably) somewhat unsimulated sex as a filmic technique but the result is, as we’ve previously established, entirely unrealistic in Blue is the Warmest Color. I have less of a problem with the actual sex in Nymphomaniac, but a much bigger problem with the way it is discussed; why strive for realism with your depiction if the character narrating the scenes has entirely unrealistic dialogue. I don’t know about any of you, but I’ve never known anyone to always refer to their vagina as their “cunt”, especially when talking to a total stranger.

Saro: The discussion is so unrealistic because the way these sorts of films are often experienced is through an echo chamber of discussion about explicit sex on-screen (like this one). I feel that Von Trier is so aware of this he includes said discussion in the film as a sort of wink to the camera. But I digress. I feel like if male directors want to try to depict female sexuality then realism is probably the worst way to go about it. It feels like a grab for claiming to be an “authoritative” depiction of sex, which is kind of what rubbed me the wrong way about Blue Is The Warmest Color. The notion that sticking a camera in front of unsimulated sex creates ‘realism’ is misguided and silly and I’m much more interested in how director’s can use the gaze of the camera to their benefit.

Two of my favourite films that would qualify for this discussion are Belle De Jour and The Piano Teacher. The characters in both films are masochists (in a loose definition of the words) but the viewer never comes close to understanding what makes them up because the characters don’t and by extension the director doesn’t claim to either. Bunuel uses his subtly surrealistic touches to try to very lightly suggest the illogic that guides sexuality while Haneke goes in the exact opposite direction and coldly places the camera statically away from Issabelle Huppert, reducing his own camera to just one of many voyeuristic devices found in the film. Neither filmmaker tries to suggest that they can truly understand their protagonists, which seems like a more humble, and ultimately more satisfying approach for a male filmmaker to take.

Grace: The main film that comes to mind when talking about explicit and even unsimulated sex is John Cameron Mitchell’s Shortbus. While not a European film, it is a key example (I think at least) of a male director making a film primarily about female sexuality and getting it right. A film that is about a sex therapist that has never had an orgasm, Mitchell goes to great pains to make things realistic and authentic, even while quite heightened and humorous. This is a film that takes a mostly heterosexual woman of colour and let’s her search for her own sexual agency, finding it eventually in the sex she has with another woman. Whether it is Mitchell’s queer gaze that altars the tone and legitimacy of the film, I’m not sure, but it is a film by a man, almost exclusively about female sexuality and he nails it in away that Von Trier and Kechiche don’t.

Felix: I definitely agree with you on Shortbus, not only does it tackle female sexuality and nail it but Mitchell respectfully portrays a whole range of sexualities not generally tackled by mainstream cinema in a respectful and non-exploitative manner. Personally, I’ve found the exploration of female sexuality that isn’t framed by the male gaze far more interesting than what we’re traditionally given. Catherine Breillat’s various forays into female sexuality are fascinating, particularly Fat Girl, which explores the sexual awakening of an obese 14-year old and her older, much more traditionally attractive but naive sister. The discussion of sexuality is confronting and designed to shock but it always feels realistic and is never heavy-handed. The strength of the film mostly comes from the fact that all of her female characters feel like real people. They are properly fleshed out and are far removed from the two-dimensional cut-outs of women handed to us in Hollywood productions.

That’s not to say that a film in which a female explores female sexuality will automatically be better than a male exploring the same concepts. Shortbus is a far more effective film than Jane Campion’s In the Cut, which while presenting some interesting ideas and intentionally breaking from the male gaze in sex scenes often falls into the trap of heavy-handed commentary due to a weak script.

Peter: If we’re talking about realistic portrayals of female sensuality and sexuality, I personally can’t go past Miranda July. I recall seeing The Future, which was an incredibly understated examination of relationships and commitment through the eyes of the director. I found it interesting that, in the absence of any obvious male gaze, the males I saw it with were incredibly ambivalent about what they saw. I feel the most insidious effect of this gaze is when it’s presented not in the hyperbolic way Von Trier does, but in the faux naturalistic way of whoever directed say (500) Days of Summer, which creates false expectations and interpretation of female sexuality. If anything, Von Trier is the least likely to set gender relations back, and we should level the blame for the way we’ve been presented with a false consensus of female sexuality at a predominantly male Hollywood.

Saro: Well I guess that’s a good place to conclude. As problematic as these independent male directors can be, they are still making much more of an effort than the complacent and insidious gaze that pervades Hollywood. Maybe we should encourage these attempts to alter the norm, regardless of their success. Or maybe the more important aspect is altering the power structure behind the camera as well. You have to wonder if these films would be filling in the void if there wasn’t such a gender disparity in the film industry to begin with. But that’s a much bigger discussion for another time.