Beauty has been a central element of the cinema since shortly after it began yet it's a subject that film writers tend to tiptoe around today, for fear of seeming either sexist or low-brow. Beauty after all is the subject of countless populist celebrity magazines, pleastered all over their covers. We don't often stop to ask why.An appreciation of the power of human beauty is the one thing that unites every type of feature filmmaking, every film making culture, whether Chinese or Indian, American, French or Spanish. This is regardless of whether the director is male or female, straight or gay.
That iconoclast Luis Bunuel boasted of deliberately turning his camera away from picturesque landscapes, as if to demonstrate the purity of his filmmaking, yet when it came to beautiful women he wasn't so quick to turn away, building films around Catherine Deneuve and Carole Bouquet
Most directors are hetereosexual males and female beauty is naturally high on their list of fascinations, yet note the way the perfectly gay-credentialled Pedro Almodovar fixates on Penelope Cruz.
Feminist theoretician Laura Mulvey's once influential formulation of "the male gaze", in which cinema was said to be created essentially from a voyeuristic male point of view for a male viewer's pleasure, now seems naively ideological and wrong-headed
The power and uniquity of the female gaze has always been something that even the most chauvinistic Hollywood males have had to build into t
heir calculations. It's not that Hollywood and other film industries aren't guilty of sexism, but good-looking males are just as common in mainstream cinema as are attractive women - think Johnny Depp and George Clooney. Or Clark Gable, Marlon Brando and Paul Newman.I started thinking about this subject after watching the upcoming French film Coco Chanel and Igor Stravinsky, which is released in Australian cinemas in April. Anna Mouglalis (pictured right), the French actress and model who plays Chanel, makes an extraordinary impression on screen, not so much for her acting (though it is flawless) , as for the striking beauty of her face, her remarkably feline body, and the elegant perfection with which these two go together.

The film shows Stravinsky (played by the himself rather beautiful Mads Mikkelsen) becoming obsessed with Chanel the moment she steps into the same room for the first time. Mouglalis makes this instant sexual obsession seem utterly logical - who could resist it?
Below are some of my favourite female screen beauties of recent years - the women who always glue me to the screen. All are good actresses - their looks are never something they rely on but part of an irresistible package that we call screen presence. Why women, and not men? Because I'm male and heterosexual and not the best judge of what makes a male iresisitibly good-looking. (Pictured top: Valeria Bruni-Tedeschi; Anna Mouglasis with Mads Mikkelsen in Coco Chanel and Igor Stravinsky. Below: Scarlett Johansson, Daniel Day-Lewis with Marion Cotillard, Eva Green, Julie Delpy and Maggie Gyllenhaal)



7 comments:
gazes at screen... for some time...
huh? wha? what was your point again?
A focus on beauty is neither sexist nor exclusively male. In fact, women are more concerned with female beauty than are males, hence the vast array of women's beauty magazines which vastly outnumber men's magazines (ie, porn). This is a deep subject that cannot be done justice with a couple of paragraphs. Put simply, beauty is power for women just like money or strenth are power for men.
There's nothing new in my statements. Women long ago abandoned en masse the feminist doctrines of the 60s and 70s that demonised the objectification of women and female beauty. The 90s (typified and perhaps pioneered by Madonna) and 00s have seen women exploiting their beauty and sexuality to get what they want.
I like your reference to Almodovar, which demonstrates that fetishism is independent of sexual orientation. Both sexes, and all orientations seem to have a similar obsession with female beauty.
FWIW, I prefer my beauty to be accompanied by intelligence. Natalie Portman and Melanie Laurent come straight to mind. Irene Jacob (The Double Life of Veronique) was pretty amazing, too.
I'm going to return to this subject in an attmept to work through some ideas and hopefully prompt some debate and discussion.
What am I getting at here (perhaps inadequately)? That any discussion of the way cinema works without confronting the notion of human beauty is not even beginning to understand the medium. Yet that is how much - though thankfully not all - serious film criticism proceeds.
So much of what is powerful about cinema is about sexual attraction and sensuality - and the point where they intermingle with personality.
Point 2: your comment, "gazes at screen...for some time". Kinda says it all. Something very powerful going on here.
Paul: agree with everything you say (though add caveat that there's probabaly as much male -oriented porn on the net as there are female-oriented beauty tips - but your point still stands).
Melanie laurent - yes, absolutely. I thought she was remarkable in Ing. Basterds - that combination of physical attractiveness with strength of character was devastating.
A few thoughts...
Beauty aids the process of empathy and identification not simply through attraction but by being the means whereby the flesh presents no barrier to an empathetic vision of the character's soul. In this instance beauty is simply clarity.
Beauty is the large part of the making of a star. We'll spend 2 hours in the dark with crusty old stalwart actors if we know them and they've shown us a good time in the past, but someone we don't know on the poster or the DVD cover? They better look good somehow, and the most obvious way to do that is to be effing gorgeous.
A third way to consider beauty on the screen is almost demanding of silence. It's something best embodied for me by the camera looking into Anna Karina's eyes in Vivre Sa Vie - not because it's my favourite thing but because it's Godard saying without hesitation, we are going to gaze at Anna for a moment now. And she will gaze back. It's just what we do. I don't think Godard's unconventionality wanted to resist this, rather he used it again and again to get away with other unconventionalities while remaining watchable.
I agree with the choices of all women involved, Lynden, except maybe Scarlet Johannsen (although that's more roles than personal charisma).
I would probably add to it: Maggie Cheung, Faye Wong, and Carina Lau, among WKW's muses.
Among men: Tony Leung.
Michael, I agree with you on Johannsen. I thought she was something special in Lost in Translation, but has disappointed in everything since.
And if you're going to mention Tony Leung, you can't ignore Andy Lau, one of the most effortlessly sexy and cool actors around.
Post a Comment