I was quite intrigued by
the piece on Brigitte Bardot, the Femme fatale of the last
century. It was interesting to read more into how she was portrayed in film as
seductresses bent on destroying the lives of the men around her, luring them
in and breaking them down. Bardot was never one to play a typical loving
housewife loyal to one man, but jumped between lovers to get what she wanted
while she left a trail of broken hearts in her wake, and I found it odd to read
about how women were portrayed to have so much power in only so far as they could
tempt men with their looks. It was as the devil had tempted Eve to sin with the
idea of getting something so beautiful but forbidden by eating the apple. It
made me wonder how this idea of women as devilish and selfish came around, as
if men were trying to give women power but in such a way that they seemed
dangerous with it. I believe that sexualizing women to have a lustful control
makes them weaker, because it gives others a reason to dominate the woman and
lash out when the woman acts in this sexual way. Of course, a submissive wife loyal
only to the husband and the house is no better because then she has no control
over herself at all, but neither portrayals really makes a woman "fatal" at all.
They are all just playthings molded to appeal to the desires of a man and
nothing more.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that such a portrayal has much to despise! Our discussions this week will aim not to judge, however, but rather to try and ascertain what made publics of the mid-1950s and 1960s so eager for this kind of imagery. Why did Bardot become an iconic actress for _And God Created Woman_? (Certainly not for her acting talent.) What does the prevalence of "femme fatale" imagery tell us about that period in the US? Keeping in mind the "sexual revolution" which followed in the later 1960s, are there any connections to be made between the "femme fatale" and the feminist?
ReplyDelete