To desire differently : feminism and the French cinema

351 Pages·1990·45.957 MB·English

by  Sandy Flitterman-Lewis

To Desire Differently
m
f9. c
T-
' 3^
t
I-
SANDY FLITTERMAN-LEWIS
To Desire
Differently
Feminism and the French Cinema
University of Illinois Press
Urbana and Chicago
For my parents,
Anita and Phil Weisbaum
and to the memory of my Dad,
David Flitterman (1917-88)
Society for Cinema Studies annual dissertation award winner.
Publication of this work was supported in part by
a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.
®1990 by the Board ofTrustees of the University of Illinois
Manufactured in the United States ofAmerica
1 2 3 4 5 C P 5 4 3 2 1
This book isprinted on acid-free paper.
Library ofCongress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Flitterman-Lewis, Sandy, 1946-
Fo desire differently : feminism and the French cinema/Sandy
Flitterman-Lewis
p. cm. —
Originally presented as the author’s thesis (Ph.D. University of
(California, Berkeley).
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
ISBN 0-252-01654-8 (cloth : alk. paper). ISBN 0-252-06086-5 (paper : alk.
paper). —
i. Feminism and motion pictures. 2. Motion pictures France.
1. Title.
PNl995.6.W6F6 1990
791.43'082—dc20 89-31664
CIP
—
6
Contents
Acknowledgments ix
ONE / Introduction 1
TWO / Germaine Dulac: First Feminist of the Avant-Garde 47
THREE / Dulac in Context: French Film Production in the Twenties 78
FOUR / From Fantasy to Structure of the FantasmiThe Smiling Mme
Beudet and The Seashell and the Clergyman 98
FIVE / Marie Epstein: A Woman in the Shadows 141
SIX / Epstein in Context: French Film Production in the Thirties 169
SEVEN / Nursery/Rhymes: Primal Scenes in La Maternelle 188
EIGHT / Agnes Varda and the Woman Seen 215
NINE / Varda in Context: French Film Production in the Early Sixties
the New Wave 248
TEN / From Deesse to Idee: Cleo From 5 to 7 268
ELEVEN / The "Impossible Portrait" of Femininity: Vagabond 285
TWELVE / Conclusion 31
Bibliography 321
Index 333
- (\
'(
fe;
71
<»
*' ^ - a
Acknowledgments
IN ORDERTOSITUATE this project historically, let me hrst trace a short
personal history. My interests in feminism and him theory coincided
with my graduate studies at a time when feminist approaches to both
him and literature were in the process of being formulated. In fact,
my interest in feminist analysis of cultural forms grew out of my
graduateworkincomparativeliteratureatthe UniversityofCalifornia
at Berkeley. As fascinating and compelling to me as the study of the
traditional literary canon was, I began to realize that there were other
modes of inquiry, other textual voices that spoke profoundly of (for
want of a better term) “women’s experience.’’ At the same time, I
became actively involved in editing two journals that saw as their
project the feminist analysis ofthe cinema. In 1973, I was an associate
editor of Women andFilm, the hrst magazine devoted specihcally and
entirelyto theconcernsofitstitle. Itwastherethat I published myhrst
article of feminist him criticism, a biographical portrait of Germaine
Dulac. In 1974, I, along with three other women, founded Camera
Obscura: A Journal of Feminism and Film Theory, and I worked with
thejournal until 1978. We conceived of our activity as a theoretical
intervention in an area that had somewhatcomplacently assumed that
the simple conjunction of the words women andfilm would automati-
cally imply a feminist held ofinquiry. Itwas the aim ofCameraObscura
to provide a critical investigation and theoretical rehection on the
construction and representation of gender, not only in the cinema,
butinotherculturalformsaswell.AsIstatedintheinauguraleditorial,
“It is important to know where to locate ideology and patriarchy
X / Acknowledgments
withinthemodeofrepresentationinordertointerveneandtransform
society, todefineapraxisforchange. Crucialtothefeministstruggleis
anawarenessthatanytheoryofhowtochangeconsciousnessrequiresa
notion ofhow consciousness is formed, ofwhat change is, and how it
occurs.” This is a concern that has guided all of my writing on the
cinema, and one which suggests the profound social implications of
any feminist-theoretical enterprise.
The original form of this book was as a Ph.D. dissertation for the
DepartmentofComparative Literature atthe UniversityofCalifornia
atBerkeley. Itreceived thefirstdissertationawardgivenbytheSociety
for Cinema—Studies, and I am deeply grateful to the members ofthe
committee E. Ann Kaplan, Douglas Gomery, and Brian Hender-
—
son for selecting me for the prize and for their helpful comments
regardingrevisions. Because partofthe award was acontractwith the
UniversityofIllinoisPress, theproblemofrevision fromthesistobook
immediately emerged; three relatively separate monographs needed
to be joined into an internally coherent argument about feminine
authorship. The first step, a title, came easily, for when I thought of
ToDesireDifferently in early 1985, it seemed to suggest exactly how the
connections could be made between the work of Germaine Dulac,
Marie Epstein, and Agnes Varda. The rest, as time suggests, was a
little moredifficult, and theprocessofrevision wascomplicated by the
appearance ofsignificant new material (in the caseofDulac), access to
more films (in the case ofEpstein), and continued productivity which
forced me to revise my earlier conclusions (in the case of Varda).
I am indebted to my dissertation director, Bertrand Augst, notonly
for his energy and originality, which have been a constant inspiration
to me, but also for his sustained attention to my project both in its
thesis stage, and more recently, as abook. When I was workingon the
thesis,a Regents’Eellowshipfromthe UniversityofCaliforniaRegents
partially funded my work. I was also extremely fortunate to have the
opportunitytodopartofmyresearchwhileattheCentreUniversitaire
Americaindu CinemaetdelaCritiquea Paris, wheretheenvironment
forfilmscholarshipisunusually productiveand rewarding, and where
I was able to take courses with Christian Metz, Raymond Bellour, and
Jacques Aumont, among others. Also during the dissertation stage,
several people made archival and research materials available to me:
Bernard Eisenschitz,Jonathan Rosenbaum, Richard Abel, EsterCarla
de Miro, Reynold Humphries, Dugald Williamson, and Carlos Clar-
ens. I am also grateful to Charles Silver of the Museum of Modern
Art and Ann Harris ofthe Cinema Studies Department at New York
University, both of whom were especially helpful in numerous ways.
Acknowledgments
/ xi
Carol Pippolo also provided invaluable assistance at the dissertation
stage.
The beginning of the transposition process from dissertation to
bookwasgreatlyeasedbytheinsightfulandusefulcommentsprovided
by several readers ofthe manuscript: Richard Abel, Dudley Andrew,
Alan Williams, Ernest Callenbach, and Michael Silverman. Financial
assistance came in the form ofa Rutgers University Research Council
SummerFellowship,andtimeforwritingwasalsoprovidedbyRutgers
through a Faculty Academic Study Program leave; I am extremely
grateful to Rutgers for both. To Stephanie Holm (of International
Film Exchange, Ltd.), Albert Gabriel Nigrin, and Patricia Santoro I
am thankful forassistance with research materials, and to Philip Lewis
I owe a special thanks. When it came to illustrations, a number of
people were extremely helpful: Cathy Holier and Ann Harris of the
NYU Cinema Studies Department, Julio Fierro of Ben-Ness Photo
Studio, David Speer of the International Center for Photography,
Bertrand Augst, Ron and Howard Mandelbaum of Photofest, Mary
Corliss and Terry Geesken ofthe Museum of Modern Art, Stephanie
Holm of International Film Exchange and Varda’s production com-
pany, Cine-Tamaris.
Deborah Linderman, Flissa Greenwald, and Lynn Joyrich gave me
considerable and much-appreciated help on portions of the manu-
script through their incisive comments, suggestions, and critiques.
Throughout all of this, Joan Copjec has been an inspiring source of
intellectual and emotional support, and 1 am truly grateful for our
many working conversations. I am grateful, too, to my colleague,
Miriam Hansen, whose generous and perceptive readingofthe entire
manuscript provided me with not only suggestive critical commentary
but with the beneht of her excellent scholarship as well. Lhere are a
number of friends who, through encouragement and interest in this
project, helped me focus my thinking and shape my arguments: An-
drea Slane, Kathryn Kalinak, Maria Marewski, Susan Ellis Wolf,John
McClure, Ibex and Emo Bumpas, David Kingand Sharon Flitterman-
King.
Of course the opportunity to interview both Marie Epstein and
Agnes Varda has been invaluable, not only for the obvious material
reasons, but also for the enduring energy and inspiration that each
one of them generates. Marie Epstein was exceedingly helpful and
gracious, and her shrewd observations about a wide range of topics
have continued to be a source of great interest to me. Agnes Varda
generously provided me with extensive documentation of her work,
and with illustrations as well, and her enthusiastic support of my
Acknowledgments
xii /
project (in both its dissertation and its book form) has been a great
encouragement.
At the University of Illinois Press, Lawrence Malley combined pa-
tience with enthusiasm and sustained a supportive interest in the
project that was essential to its completion. Mary Giles provided valu-
able assistance in copyediting and Lyall Bush deserves thanks as well.
Linda McKenna’s contribution is immeasurable, for she conhdently
managed the word-processing for an author still unable to confront a
computer and thus to enter the modern age; at times she did the
impossible under pressure.
Therearewaystoonumeroustomentioninwhich my husband,Joel
Lewis, provided help, nottheleastofwhichwashavingtheforesightto
buy an air-conditioner for the summer of’88. His contribution to this
work is inestimable, for which 1 owe him endless thanks.