Note on Nana and femmes fatales
In this entertaining episode of her web series, film writer Lianne Spiderbaby discusses the connection between film noirs, with their nefarious and inscrutable femmes fatales slinking about in the shadows, and shifting gender roles brought about by the Second World War. This got me thinking about Zola’s Nana, who we recently discussed, and whether that particular soft trap should be labelled (with a Skull and Crossbones) “Femme Fatale”.
First, let’s try to define the “femme fatale”, in order to better understand her mating habits. To some extent, I think every woman is understood by men, or at least by a great many men, in terms of the fantasies they have projected upon her. The chasm separating the genders is roughly as wide as the gap between fantasy and reality. The femme fatale is, thus, all at once: a particularly fertile ground for fantasies, in reality, nearly the precise opposite of those fantasies, and actively a conscious manipulator of those dreaming men for her own ends.
So, I think Nana does fit the bill. The men who are enraptured by her beauty are destroyed in ways social and psychological, although interestingly not venereal, because she is nothing like they imagine her to be; and while she is not actively trying to destroy them, she does see them as essentially meal tickets, an understanding of others that is the unavoidable result of her being brought up in dire poverty.
A theory: the femme fatale character has little power or resonance outside of a structurally patriarchal society. A society that seeks, through laws and social norms, to regulate female sexuality will, paradoxically and unwittingly, invest a surprisingly great deal of power in women who transgress those regulations. A man in a patriarchal society may be well-heeled, wealthy, politically connected, and powerful; but, if she strays, he’s a cuckold and humiliated in the eyes of his society. Even Napoleon met his Waterloo Josephine.
But patriarchy is another fantasy about female sexuality that western civilization has gradually woken up from; the paradox is that individual sexuality is now another personal quirk or a Facebook interest a harmless hobby, while it was once a highly magnified source of illicit power under societies that feared it so intensely that they built entire structures and systems to regulate it. The femme fatale is no more because she banked on a coin that has been devalued.
I don’t get it. We’re not talking about conservative art any more?Report
Whoops! I sort of tuned out on that discussion yesterday.
Uh, okay, let’s say femmes are liberal and fatales are conservative. Or vice-versa.Report
Okay, I feel grounded again.
The femmes are ruining this country! All we need is a true fatale to turn things around!Report
Dude, I tuned out on it also.Report
“A society that seeks, through laws and social norms, to regulate female sexuality will, paradoxically and unwittingly, invest a surprisingly great deal of power in women who transgress those regulations. ”
This is a really interesting point. To generalize, I feel that anytime “society” heavily favors any sort of system of values, those who successfully transgress those values are valued. For example, I have a particular thesis about Japan that for all its harping on harmony and stability, Japan secretly values free spirits and individuals who force social change – just as, for all America’s harping on diversity and freedom of expression, we secretly value stoicism and composure in emotionally-serious situations. It’s the idea that, if we restrict a certain class of behaviors, then those who make it through the restrictions are especially strong.Report
I buy that whole bit, CC. And OTOH, it also seems that a real-life Paul Kersey or John Rambo isn’t really what we want either, as big as their appeal is in the fantasy world.Report
A bit more on: “A society that seeks, through laws and social norms, to regulate female sexuality will, paradoxically and unwittingly, invest a surprisingly great deal of power in women who transgress those regulations. ”
What I’m thinking of is a genuinely (structurally) patriarchal society, such as, well let’s call them the “honor killing societies” in the contemporary context. It’s amazing to me that, on one hand, women have no political power in them, and on the other hand they have invested so much psychological power in them that they’re like meteors threatening the earth. People have sex, but to set up an entire social structure so that, if the female does so in an unregulated sort of way, it dishonors the entire family? There’s something insane about giving someone that much power- which of course is a slightly more provocative way of saying there’s something insane about being so afraid of female sexuality.
This is a really interesting point. To generalize, I feel that anytime “society” heavily favors any sort of system of values, those who successfully transgress those values are valued. For example, I have a particular thesis about Japan that for all its harping on harmony and stability, Japan secretly values free spirits and individuals who force social change – just as, for all America’s harping on diversity and freedom of expression, we secretly value stoicism and composure in emotionally-serious situations. It’s the idea that, if we restrict a certain class of behaviors, then those who make it through the restrictions are especially strong.
Yours is also an interesting point. I think we prefer not to see any behaviors as being verboten, but of course all societies function by way of restrictions. Stoicism is any interesting transgression. I’ve been fascinated with the old Victorian idea of character as something one builds over time through behavioral exercises. I noticed when watching a play from the era how uncomfortable the idea made the fairly fashionable young audience, which actually surprised me a bit.
Young people, of course, are pretty good meters for these things because they’re still intensely conformist. What would be the real taboo behavior among my average, working class students? They really seem to hate the students who ask a lot of questions about the subject or express too much curiosity. Disinterest seems to be de rigueur. I’d take it personally, but most of my colleagues complain about the same thing.Report
” – just as, for all America’s harping on diversity and freedom of expression, we secretly value stoicism and composure in emotionally-serious situations.
I must be the exception. I openly and blatantly value stoicism and composure.Report