What does that clarify?
The orgasm is the game changer. it’s the random part Robert is talking about, the bedroom scene is not random, is a consequence of something precise and a well defined moment, a seed: the orgasm, which is a kind of a intruder. if you take in account Akerman saying it’s her first then it’s even more disturbing.
@ Savannah Wow, couldn’t disagree with you more. I think it says so much about the thanklessness of ’women’s’ work, the ways people attempt to control emotional/psychological space through obsessive control of domestic space, the objectification of bodies not only sexually but as workhorses of menial tasks. Jeanne is like the silent engine that runs steadily and predictably so her son can change/develop while she stays the same. I found tons of social commentary in this film at every turn.
I don’t think the film is showing you it is thankless – you are making a judgment that it is thankless.
the objectification of bodies not only sexually
She gave sex for money – who in the film is objectifying bodies?
You should know that Ackerman has denied that it was her intent to make a feminist film.
Do you really come to the conclusion that it’s not thankless work, after watching her interactions with the son?
She gave sex for money – who in the film is objectifying bodies?
Jeanne is a sexual object to the men she services. Because she chooses to prostitute herself doesn’t mean she isn’t objectified. She’s also objectified in another sense by the son, who reaps the reward of her labor— the toil on her body in a domestic sense. He never helps her with her chores and offers little to no emotional and/or intellectual stimulation. Their relationship, as presented in the film, is almost entirely one-sided.
Whether Ackerman intended it to be a feminist film or not, it is.
Ackerman’s intention matters because the film is often mis-read.
It IS read as a feminist film, but if one knows her intent it is read differently.She is primarily interested in the temporality of film. Hence the long shots drawn out over three days.
Jeanne is a sexual object to the men she services.
Yes but she is always in control so that she doesn’t meet the definition below.
Something is objectified if any of the following factors is present:
She is not being objectified she is being used, and using the men for money.
“Whether Ackerman intended it to be a feminist film or not, it is.”
I agree with the sentiment that a film may be something different than what it’s maker intended it to be but I think it’s productive in this case to see the film in less reductive terms than feminist or non-feminist. People focus too much on the ending of this and other films as though every moment in these kinds of works is leading us to a conclusion. I think it’s more accurate to see this film in terms of it’s many detailed moments than it’s ending. I get the impression people see the length of the film as an endurance test and the ending as the payoff. To me, the payoff resides in each detailed encounter Jeanne has with her acquaintances and her surroundings. This is immersive cinema not suspense.
Jeanne isn’t just woman, Jeanne is me.
He never helps her with her chores and offers little to no emotional and/or intellectual stimulation. Their relationship, as presented in the film, is almost entirely one-sided.
He is a typical modern single-parent child, what does any of that have to do with feminism?
If you honestly don’t think so, why do you think she even kills the john at the end in the first place?
Again, Ackerman is interested in the temporality of film. As seen in terms of minimalism, the bedroom scene and the routine of her life produce the minimalist maxims: primary structures, multiple repetitive units, and randomness.
In the film, those are:
primary structures = parent child
multiple repetitive units = her day & chores
randomness = the violence
The work is not thankless or thankful it represents the passage of time in an ordered way structured to set up the random act.
Alright, Peabody, if you want to get that technical, I suppose she isn’t being objectified, but the sentiment remains in the film that the men see her as fulfilling one purpose: a sexual one. There is no emotional, intellectual, spiritual exchange or fulfillment. The son sees her in a similarly primal light, as a provider of meals and clothing. Maybe you come from a different background than me, but I don’t find the son very typical. Most kids I know his age (I believe he’s in college?) help out around the house a little, if they still live with their parent(s) at all, and have a livelier exchange of dialogue.
Mike, I’m not saying the film has to be either or. To me, it addresses feminist issues and that makes it feminist. I don’t think it’s only about feminist issues. There are lots of things in it about the simple hardship of a person like Jeanne to connect with humans on a basic level (the scene with the baby who innately cannot stand her and cries whenever she touches him).
The work is not thankless or thankful it represents the passage of time
Why can’t it do both things?
Savannah
The men come to her home, they are well dressed, treat her with respect, she chooses them, she is in control.
There is no emotional, intellectual, spiritual exchange or fulfillment.
That’s right, Jeanne only wants their money. She doesn’t want an emotional, intellectual, spiritual exchange or fulfillment.
if they still live with their parent(s) at all, and have a livelier exchange of dialogue.
The depiction was very familiar to me. If you re-watch he has some vague thing troubling him, but I can’t remember what it was.
What Mike was saying is more on the point. If you view the film in that way, in less reductive terms, the things I am saying will become more obvious.
Ultimately, it is an alternative reading to consider. As I said it IS read as a feminist film by some.
“Mike, I’m not saying the film has to be either or. To me, it addresses feminist issues and that makes it feminist. I don’t think it’s only about feminist issues.”
I hear you and it can certainly be read that way, just as Charles Burnett’s Killer of Sheep can be read as being about African-American life in the 70’s. I just think that approach is less interesting than others but maybe you don’t.
I don’t mean that Jeanne is seeking a deeper relationship with her johns, I just mean to point out that Jeanne’s life is made up of these sterilized, antiseptic encounters: people who see her as a commodity, almost, a provider of either sex or food. To me, it’s impossible to watch the film and not take into account the hollowness of her interactions with people.
I’m not discounting what you’re saying about the film being about the structure/pattern of life. That you guys think a feminist approach to the film is “reductive” and “less interesting” is sad to me.
…not take into account the hollowness of her interactions with people.
Uh yes, that is judgment one can place on her, but I didn’t get the impression she felt that way. There are many scenes that show how ordered she was and I think she found solace in that. If you live(d) in the suburbs you know people that spend hours upon hours manicuring their lawns – as empty as that activity is, I don’t think it portends anything.
“That you guys think a feminist approach to the film is “reductive” and “less interesting” is sad to me.”
I meant to qualify that before this inevitable response. I’m not at all anti-feminist politically speaking. I just think it’s ridiculous to think that a black female can’t relate to any of Shakespeare’s characters except Cleopatra or that a white male can’t relate to the emotions of the women in Moolade. For me, in order to be great or worthwhile a film must be about human concerns first and foremost. That doesn’t mean the situations shouldn’t be specific, and the characters may indeed see their plight as directly relating to their gender or ethnicity, but ultimately the greater human issues should outweigh the time, place and genitalia of the individual or be about the way society attempts to reduce an individual to their outward appearance and resists any movement towards the freedom of the soul.
I didn’t get the impression she felt that way. There are many scenes that show how ordered she was and I think she found solace in that.
I think she found solace too, but I still think her interactions were hollow/unfulfilling. It’s interesting to me that you use the word “solace,” because that’s the word I’d use too; doesn’t “solace” imply that something outside of her chores is bothering her throughout the film, and that’s why she takes comfort in them? What do you make of the scene (scenes? There might have been more than one) with the baby who cries whenever she touches him? (I’m not trying to “bingo” you here, I’m curious how the baby fits into your interpretation.)
Mike, I don’t understand why you think a film can’t be “human” and “feminist” at the same time. And, really, who in this thread ever said that “a white male can’t relate to the emotions of the women in Moolade”? I don’t understand where you’re getting this. I’m not claiming that men can’t relate to Jeanne, or that the film doesn’t have other themes in addition to feminist ones. To me, a good film has multiple interpretations and multiple simultaneous meanings/messages. Your definition, “about the way society attempts to reduce an individual to their outward appearance and resists any movement towards the freedom of the soul,” to me can apply to many films I find feminist.
@Savannah What do you make of the scene (scenes? There might have been more than one) with the baby who cries whenever she touches him?
I vaguely remember the child, but not the circumstances. I remember the folding of clothes though.
This was a pretty good write up:
Also, if a mod could add this thread to the film page:
Jeanne Dielman, A Woman
@ M° the orgasm is the game changer.
There is more orgasm discussion on that thread. ^
^ I added that thread Robert on my best threads collection list.
There is more orgasm discussion on that thread
Now… that’s interesting. It seems the orgasm is not evident. I took it as such and validated with Ackerman’s saying.
Also, I agree there is not a building of tension or anything like that except for what Ralch says. I didn’t feel suspense. It came out of nowhere.
Chantal Akerman has a very distinctive style that can be deeply unsettling, and it may take some time to become accustomed to her work. I have seen two of her films, Jeanne Dielman and Les Rendez-Vous d’Anna. They’re both great films, but the sense of hopelessness and decadence one feels after watching her films may be difficult to stomach at first. You can have to know what you’re in for before sitting down to watch one of her films. She’s a very uncompromising director, and nothing conclusive occurs in either of those films I mentioned. I wondered while watching Rendez Vous if she even had any emotional attachment to her career as a filmmaker. It seemed as though the whole point of both films was that the main female lead was either very depressed or emotionally detached from everything around them. Perhaps Anna was made depressed by the decadent atmosphere of the world she lived in, and she believed all seemed hopeless. Akerman does a stunning job of manipulating the viewer into empathizing with Anna. The film was quite haunting, since you find yourself even being manipulated into seeing the world through Anna’s eyes. It’s a very unsettling experience.
Jeanne Dielman was great too, but I would argue that Anna is potentially a superior film. Jeanne Dielman at times felt like a drawn out exercise. Give me time and I’ll be able to provide a more articulate explanation of my thoughts. Anna seemed more focused and sure of itself.
I’m surprised how much I like this film. As others on here, I’m a great admirer of well-done minimalism and Ackerman’s film is definitely minimalism. It’s well balanced though and rather clever in how it (ever so gently) propels the narrative by way of mundane events – depicted any other way would’ve weakened the final scene. It’s a long film, but I think it’s one of the most re-watchable films as well. Phenomenal acting (well, for the most part, the son is questionable), perfectly composed, edited, all of it really impressed me.
dope fiend willy
Oh, I’ve made films and paintings too.