Well, The Auteurs has more of a male population, but that aside, the fine folks who inhabit this site, tend not to be skewed by “feminine” or “masculine” films. A film is a film is a film, and it’s either good or it’s bad, Madame de…‘s philogynist message or usage of jewelry and grand and beautiful sets wouldn’t bother most here.
Well, the high percentage of men on the site has quite a bit to do with it. Also the sort of men on here who like world cinema are not the stereotypical macho action fans. Yes, films with female protagonists, whether by men or women, may sometimes have a lower profile than “grander” high powered films- “women’s films” may have lower critical prestige. Mizoguchi and Ophuls were 2 male directors who centred exquisitely beautiful films on (often tragic) women. Many critics are wary of anything inclined towards melodrama, favouring instead austere unsentimental minimalism as the antidote to Hollywood (testeosterone-filled) rollercoaster excess. Ophuls is not considered serious enough by some, but deserves more credit as a great director
Madame de… is a great film. But I’m one of those guys who loves Letter from an Unknown Woman even more. And I reckon that the latter is even more of a “feminine” film.
Art doesn’t always have a gender orientation.
“Art doesn’t have a gender orientation.”
Fixed it for you.
“Letter From An Unknown Woman”. I swoon!
i’m with Blue K, i really like Madame de, but love Letter from an Unknown Woman. Many of my favourite films have female protagonists, gender stereotypes of viewers can be misleading
I love Madame de…, Letter From an Unknown Woman, and to throw a bolt in your engine, La Ronde all equally. I like La Ronde, because of the fun it seems that Ophuls is having with the film.
Kenji: I agree, he’s wonderful. I’ve only become familiar with his films pretty recently, but he’s quickly becoming one of my favorite directors.
Blue K: ‘Letter from an Unknown Woman’ is completely heartbreaking. I think I prefer ‘Madame de…’ and ‘La Ronde’, but ‘Letter…’ is definitely a fantastic film. I really wish Louis Jourdan had done more quality films; in a good role, he could be really wonderful.
Of course, I realize that most men here are less likely to be turned off by typically “feminine” films, or to even make gender distinctions in films at all. However, even among intelligent, informed film-lovers, it often seems that men prefer more “masculine” directors like Godard over someone like Ophuls. It’s neither good nor bad, just something that I’ve noticed.
ah could there be an element of cool intellect v heightened emotions, in gender preferences?
I throw in my hat with Kenji and Blue K. I enjoy Madame, but I love Letter. Hint-hint to the folks at Criterion btw…….. ;)
Is it really a feminine film? It has splendid male characters, too. I especially like the husband who is so much more than the typical boring husband à la Madame Bovary or Anna Karenina. Besides, it would be awful if we could only relate to something very close to ourselfs. I would considder the whole setting and period of time and social enviroment of Madame de just as alien to me as – being male – the woman thing. Also, it simply is a very funny film.
@ Shelley,
Yeah, I recognize the greater technical achievement that is Madame de…", but *Letter from an Unknown Woman just makes my soul melt. And Louis Jourdan is perfect in that role, as is Joan Fontaine. When at the end, he doesn’t recognize her at all and is still up to his same old tired game, the viewer’s sense of pity shifts from the woman to the man. He is such a wretched character, having been incapable of forming anything but the most superficial of bonds.
Shelley, for what it’s worth, I agree with you about there being a general tendency to value “masculinity” in film more highly than “femininity”. A certain preference for abstractness and larger universal themes as well as a more emotionally distanced and kinetic understanding of the world than the more lush and personal emotionalism often associated with the feminine. It’s a difficult thing to quantify exactly, but if one looks at the “most popular” movies on the site, they tend to be films I would think of as exhibiting a traditionally masculine worldview or method of approach than a feminine one. Partly I imagine this has to do with the predominance of men in both the industry and the critical community as well as the heretofore greater economic power of male consumers. I think this is changing somewhat, but as much in the direction of women following the lead of Pauline Kael and other female critics in championing the masculine as it is in the feminine becoming equally relevant to the critical community and general film loving public.
At least there is the counter tendency posed by the gay movie going crowd and the comparatively large amount of gay directors of talent to help reshape this historical trend, but this attitude seems to have taken root more in Asian cinema than here in the west so far.
None of this is to say that my shorthand definitions are in any way monolithic or can be applied as objective understandings of either the differences, such as they are, between masculine and feminine films, but it is more just an ongoing concern of mine that I think still needs to be more fully addressed.
I’m also with you on Madame de being my favorite Ophuls film, I love Letter, Lola Montes and La Ronde, but Madame de still holds pride of place in my world. It would be hard not to with that cast. Boyer, De Sica and Darrieux? How can you beat that? Mix in the sublime camera work and subtle emotional shadings and you’ve got an easy winner.
Although I also agree with Blue that the end of Letter just kills me every time…
“A certain preference for abstractness and larger universal themes as well as a more emotionally distanced and kinetic understanding of the world than the more lush and personal emotionalism often associated with the feminine” Yes, Greg, i think there’s quite a bit of truth in that, and it’s a significant issue
Anyone seen this:
Letter from an Unknown Woman
Yi ge mo sheng nu ren de lai xin (2004)
On a wintry night in 1948 Peking, a writer receives a letter from a dying woman he doesn’t know. In the letter, the woman tells of her lifelong love for the man across the stirring backdrop of wartime China. Director and star Jinglei Xu reimagines Max Ophüls’s 1948 classic with breathtaking photography and a quietly feminist spin. Xu won a Best Director award at the San Sebastian International Film Festival
dp
The ending of ‘Letter…’ is incredible, but I think my favorite part may be the moving panorama scene. The way this romantic scene is interrupted by showing the operator starting it up again – those little details are what make me really love Ophuls.
Thorsten: I agree, the men of ‘Madame de…’ are marvellous. De Sica is wonderful, but Boyer’s is probably the best thing I’ve ever seen him do.
And thanks, Greg. You said everything that I meant to, but far more eloquently. I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that men couldn’t relate to the film, or that there was one “feminine” sort of film and a different “masculine” sort of film. I just meant that ‘Madame de…’ has many qualities that are traditionally identified as “feminine” (heightened emotionalism vs. distancing intellectualism; intimacy and attention to detail vs. broad themes and grand ambitions, etc.), and that the film community often seems to value the intellectual, ambitions films a bit more.
Robert: Thanks for the recommendation; that film sounds fascinating!
I’d like to hear some examples of both “masculine” and “feminine” movies.
Btw, I love both Madame de… and Letter from an Unknown Woman. Madame is terrific, a kind of classic film that doesn’t get as much attention as it deserves—although I first heard about it from Entertainment Weekly, which listed it as the fifth best non-American film of all-time. Still, I do think Citizen Kane deserves more attention (whatever that means)—i.e I don’t think the disparity has to do with sexism per se.
Madame de…’ has many qualities that are traditionally identified as “feminine” (heightened emotionalism vs. distancing intellectualism; intimacy and attention to detail vs. broad themes and grand ambitions, etc.), and that the film community often seems to value the intellectual, ambitions films a bit more.
Yes, Shelley, that’s what i was trying to say too, and it’s such high time traditional feminine values were er valued more highly. It’s notable that the first woman to win Best Director Oscar did so in a traditional male genre, and with a career of male genre films, while Pauline Kael didn’t make her name by being a sensitive shrinking violet focussing on female-oriented films. Grand ambitious films do tend to get more prestige and attention (or else critics now look to austere minimalism), and it’s time also for mastery of mise-en-scene to be more highly valued. Film studies and discussions tend to overlook the more intricate and less obvious hows of film-making. David Bordwell is one writer on film with real expertise but grand theorisers and critics who delve into fascinating psychological issues often get attention instead. Citizen Kane is a prime example of a film asking for superlatives (and deserving many) while less ostentatious masters like Satyajit Ray, Renoir and Mizoguchi aren’t given sufficient credit, never mind some top female directors.
There’s also a suspicion of beauty in some quarters, and many do seem wary of films that get close to powerful emotions, preferring instead the more intellectual approach, e.g Godard.
Despite what most of these foaming social constructivists have said, I agree with your original post. Ophuls always had such a knack of injecting very strong feminine aspects into his work (to the point where they often dominate). Today the guy would probably be called a feminist. Anyways I’m glad you liked the film because I saw it recently for the first time and thought it was one of the best ever. Perhaps you’ve uncovered part of what makes his films so indescribably beautiful – they are gushing with so much femininity. Maybe that’s what good art is really about: masculine compositional strategy combined with feminine desire/expression (I know I am really stretching here, but annoying the hippies is worth it).
Btw, I think there’s more men than women who love that film and frequent this site because you’ll almost always find more men interested in culture. Not sure why that is, but I haven’t met many women hunting down old films or who are well-versed in music or what have you. It’s almost like culture is a flight away from feminine passion/nature, an attempt to create something artificially harmonious.
Kenji: I agree completely. That’s how I often feel about Godard/Truffaut comparisons. It seems that a lot of people rate Godard higher because Truffaut was more concerned with human relationships and beauty, and less likely to approach things in such an overtly intellectual way. I don’t necessarily think that Truffaut was greater, either. I just think it’s silly to diminish his (considerable) achievements simply because his work didn’t always seem as immediately impressive.
Elston: I agree with a lot that you say, but I would argue that even his composition could be seen as traditionally feminine. The elegance, grace, and fluidity of the camera, the perceptiveness and attention to detail…I think that one could argue that his composition is one of the main ways in which he comes across as a more “feminine” director (and, again, I’m talking about traditional ideas of femininity, not trying to suggest that there is one definitive form of femininity). I would have to think about it a bit more to tell you exactly why, but, when it comes to compositional style/theories, I’ve always had the knee-jerk reaction of feeling that Eisenstein was more masculine and Bazin more feminine.
I completely agree that his style is feminine. What I was trying to say is his ability to execute and coordinate all these different techniques to achieve a feminine style – is masculine. Although that does sound absurd and unnecessarily sexist.
Charulata
Wasting time earlier today, I was looking through the fans of this wonderful film on this site, and I must admit that I was surprised to find that the majority of fans were male. (So it seems, at least. I didn’t go through and count.) Despite being directed by a man, I’ve always thought of this as a very feminine film, so it was gratifying to see such a positive response from the men here. Of course, it would be sexist and limiting to suggest that men and women can each only like a certain type of film, but it often seems that men are less likely to enjoy traditionally feminine films than women are to enjoy traditionally masculine ones. So, for people of both genders, do you think the predominance of male fans is simply due to the fact that more men frequent the site, or that there really are more (or at least an equal number of) men who love Madame de…?
On a marginally-related note: Despite the fact that people like Andrew Sarris have labeled it the greatest film ever, Madame de… never seems to garner as much recognition or be ranked as highly as films like Citizen Kane. Of course, this is probably due mostly to distribution problems. I wonder, though, if it’s also partially due to the fact that it is a more “feminine” film, whereas Kane is far more “masculine”. Is that just me?