Femme fatale. What does the term bring to your mind? In the latest movie incarnation of Sherlock Holmes, the sleuth is intrigued and besotted by Irene Adler, a notorious thief with a dubious moral compass. She has a soft spot for Holmes, but you're never sure if she's working for him, or against him. She's perhaps the only woman who could take Holmes' mind off the clues around him, simply because he's so fascinated with her. Irene Adler's interactions with Sherlock Holmes call to mind the femme fatales of old. She may be luring him into a trap, or at the very least, thwarting his plans, but he's too besotted to resist. Ah, the allure of the femme fatale.
In the movie Body Heat, Kathleen Turner’s character Matty Walker might spring to mind. Matty Walker’s seduction and duping of Ned Racine, a hunky lawyer so dunce-like one wonders how he passed the bar, is a classic case of a femme fatale luring a man to think with parts of his body other than his brain.Femme fatale is a French term for a deadly woman. Literally translated “fatal woman”, a femme fatale is a strong-willed, manipulative woman who is as alluring and irresistible as she is dangerous. The femme fatale leads men into danger or compromising situations with her seductive charms. This female archetype is present in mythology and folklore, literature, film, and, of course, history.
How different would the world be without the femme fatale? If Henry VIII were alive, we might ask him that question. Thanks to Anne Boleyn’s seductive charms, the former Defender of the Faith (the title conferred on Henry by Pope Leo X in 1521) began the struggles with the Roman Catholic Church that eventually led Henry to separate the Church of England from papal authority. His desire to annul his marriage and wed a younger, more alluring woman spurred him to sever his ties with a religion he’d staunchly upheld until Anne Boleyn came into his life.
Femme Fatales have been around as long as humans have walked the earth. History documents the talent for romantic liaisons that brought rulers like Cleopatra power and infamous spy Mata Hari the information she coveted. A femme fatale can charm a man into doing her bidding without him giving a thought to the consequences. Unfortunately for the enamored male, love usually has very little to do with the couplings of the femme fatale.
The Bible contains numerous references to femme fatales, including Delilah, the temptress who tricked Sampson into getting his infamous haircut and Salome, a femme fatale whose seductive dance led Herod to order the beheading of John the Baptist. Folklore and mythology is populated with femme fatales such as Helen of Troy, Sirens, and Aphrodite.
The femme fatale is probably best represented in film noir. Movie classics such as Double Indemnity establish the femme fatale as a force to be reckoned with; films such as Basic Instinct and The Postman Always Rings Twice demonstrate the power of a seductive woman that’s used to lure a man into committing a murder that benefits the vamp. Even Chicago’s Roxie Hart is a femme fatale, though not as effective a femme fatale as her fellow jailbird, Velma Kelly.
Femme fatales also occupy a prominent place in literature. Oscar Wilde’s Salome, Dashiell Hammett’s Brigid O’Shaughnessy in The Maltese Falcon, and John Steinbeck’s manipulative, evil Cathy in East of Eden exemplify the use of the femme fatale archetype in English and American literature.
Even comic books have their share of femme fatales. Where would Batman be without Catwoman and Poison Ivy, or Daredevil without Elektra?
While writing this article, I pondered the question of femme fatales in romance novels. I’ve seem femme fatales used as scheming rivals or as villains who would drive a stiletto through the hero’s heart without a second thought, but I cannot recall seeing a femme fatale as the heroine. What are your thoughts on this? What are some examples of novels in which romance authors effectively used the femme fatale archetype as a heroine? Would this engage you as a reader? Would you become sympathetic to the heroine, even if she were a manipulative flirt? Would the author have to transform the character to a more sympathetic type, or would you relate to the femme fatale, flaws and all? I’d love to know your thoughts.
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Monday, March 21, 2011
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Hollywood's View of History
For the most part, writers of historical romance strive for accuracy in capturing historical events and characters. Can the same be said of Hollywood?
I’d suspect that ninety-nine percent of book editors would run screaming from a plot that featured a beautiful, tempting Pocahontas and a very studly Captain John Smith…after all, history tells us that Pocahontas was about seven when Smith and his crew lan
ded in Jam
estown in 1607. The New World, starring Colin Farrell as Captain John Smith (who obviously was not cast due to a striking resemblance to the legendary colonist) highlighted the romantic attraction between Smith and a teenaged Pocahontas, portrayed by a striking young actress, Q’orianka Kilcher.
I’d suspect that ninety-nine percent of book editors would run screaming from a plot that featured a beautiful, tempting Pocahontas and a very studly Captain John Smith…after all, history tells us that Pocahontas was about seven when Smith and his crew lan
ded in Jam
estown in 1607. The New World, starring Colin Farrell as Captain John Smith (who obviously was not cast due to a striking resemblance to the legendary colonist) highlighted the romantic attraction between Smith and a teenaged Pocahontas, portrayed by a striking young actress, Q’orianka Kilcher. Before its release, the studio was said to have deleted several love scenes deemed too steamy between the nearly thirty-year old actor and the fourteen year-old actress. Besides the “ick” factor here, this romance is completely inaccurate. Many other scenes in the movie are historically wrong as well, but the romance is the most glaring example of Hollywood mauling the truth in this film.
Disney’s Pocahontas isn’t quite as bad, but as a teacher who works with children who have to learn the facts about the Jamestown expedition and its key players, it’s difficult to overcome the portrayals of Pocahontas as someone who looks like Barbie’s Native American cousin and Captain John Smith as Jamestown Expedition Ken. At least, that’s a fantasy, complete with the requisite Disney talking animals, and that offers a teaching point about fiction versus non-fiction.
Disney’s Pocahontas isn’t quite as bad, but as a teacher who works with children who have to learn the facts about the Jamestown expedition and its key players, it’s difficult to overcome the portrayals of Pocahontas as someone who looks like Barbie’s Native American cousin and Captain John Smith as Jamestown Expedition Ken. At least, that’s a fantasy, complete with the requisite Disney talking animals, and that offers a teaching point about fiction versus non-fiction.
Hollywood has always taken liberties with the truth...huge liberties, in some cases. He
nry VIII is portrayed as a studly hunk in many films, not a gout-ridden, portly monarch. Of course, some would say that Henry was not always fat and was known to be rather athletic in his youth, but how on Earth did anyone decide to cast gorgeous, dark Eric Bana as the monarch in The Other Boleyn Girl ? The portrait of Henry VIII in his twenties shows a man who certainly would not have made a girl lose her head (yes, I know…such a bad pun) if he were not a monarch.
nry VIII is portrayed as a studly hunk in many films, not a gout-ridden, portly monarch. Of course, some would say that Henry was not always fat and was known to be rather athletic in his youth, but how on Earth did anyone decide to cast gorgeous, dark Eric Bana as the monarch in The Other Boleyn Girl ? The portrait of Henry VIII in his twenties shows a man who certainly would not have made a girl lose her head (yes, I know…such a bad pun) if he were not a monarch. 
Of course, The Tudors casting of Jonathan Rhys Meyers isn’t any more visually accurate, although I think he captures the moods and manipulations of Henry far more convincingly than hulky Eric Bana (yes, another bad pun), who came across to me as a rather dull-witted monarch.
I could go on and on about Hollywood’s historical inaccuracies. Bonnie and Clyde portrayed the notorious bank robbers as lovers on the run, not the cold-blooded killers they were. Braveheart depicts a kilt-clad Mel Gibson even though kilts weren’t worn in Scotland until about three hundred years after William Wallace died. More remarkably, the film depicts Wallace as the father of Edward III, who was born seven years after Wallace’s death (and I thought nine months was a long time to be pregnant). Mel was at it again with The Patriot, in which he almost single-handedly wins a battle that history recorded as a win for the British…a minor detail, I suppose, in the minds of Hollywood. Gladiator’s villain, Emperor Commodus, was certainly not a nice guy, but it’s believed his father died of disease, not at Commodus’ hand. Commodus was murdered after ruling for more than a decade…in his bathtub, not fighting in a gladiator’s ring. I suppose a guy dying in his bathtub would not have created the heroic ending the folks behind Gladiator were looking for, and as I adore Russell Crowe, I’ll forgive this particular inaccuracy.
What about movies that got it right, or at least, close to right? Are there any? Tombstone and Wyatt Earp might have played loosely with the truth and selectively omitted some of Earp’s less than favorable qualities, but both films portray the era with a feel for the times. Plus, Tombstone has Michael Biehn as Johnny Ringo...I just love the actor in that character and root for the villain, much to my husband's chagrin. Cinderella Man is more of an essay about the hardships of the Depression than a boxing movie, and Russell Crowe depicts Jim Braddock with a feel for the desperation of a man during those times trying to keep his family afloat. The Untouchables, while depicting Eliot Ness and his men as almost saintly, does capture the flavor of the times while depicting the truth…all the gun power in Chicago couldn't bring Capone down, but crooked income tax returns did.
What do you think of Hollywood’s view of history? Could authors get away with the gross inaccuracies sometimes found in films? I’m curiously awaiting the new film, Public Enemies, which portrays John Dillinger and Melvin Purvis. Of course, the casting of Johnny Depp as Dillinger and Christian Bale as Purvis (an obvious choice, given that Purvis was about 5’ 4” and looked absolutely nothing like the hunky Bale) might influence my mad dash to the theaters this summer.
I could go on and on about Hollywood’s historical inaccuracies. Bonnie and Clyde portrayed the notorious bank robbers as lovers on the run, not the cold-blooded killers they were. Braveheart depicts a kilt-clad Mel Gibson even though kilts weren’t worn in Scotland until about three hundred years after William Wallace died. More remarkably, the film depicts Wallace as the father of Edward III, who was born seven years after Wallace’s death (and I thought nine months was a long time to be pregnant). Mel was at it again with The Patriot, in which he almost single-handedly wins a battle that history recorded as a win for the British…a minor detail, I suppose, in the minds of Hollywood. Gladiator’s villain, Emperor Commodus, was certainly not a nice guy, but it’s believed his father died of disease, not at Commodus’ hand. Commodus was murdered after ruling for more than a decade…in his bathtub, not fighting in a gladiator’s ring. I suppose a guy dying in his bathtub would not have created the heroic ending the folks behind Gladiator were looking for, and as I adore Russell Crowe, I’ll forgive this particular inaccuracy.
What about movies that got it right, or at least, close to right? Are there any? Tombstone and Wyatt Earp might have played loosely with the truth and selectively omitted some of Earp’s less than favorable qualities, but both films portray the era with a feel for the times. Plus, Tombstone has Michael Biehn as Johnny Ringo...I just love the actor in that character and root for the villain, much to my husband's chagrin. Cinderella Man is more of an essay about the hardships of the Depression than a boxing movie, and Russell Crowe depicts Jim Braddock with a feel for the desperation of a man during those times trying to keep his family afloat. The Untouchables, while depicting Eliot Ness and his men as almost saintly, does capture the flavor of the times while depicting the truth…all the gun power in Chicago couldn't bring Capone down, but crooked income tax returns did.
What do you think of Hollywood’s view of history? Could authors get away with the gross inaccuracies sometimes found in films? I’m curiously awaiting the new film, Public Enemies, which portrays John Dillinger and Melvin Purvis. Of course, the casting of Johnny Depp as Dillinger and Christian Bale as Purvis (an obvious choice, given that Purvis was about 5’ 4” and looked absolutely nothing like the hunky Bale) might influence my mad dash to the theaters this summer.
Monday, April 13, 2009
When a History Teacher Goes to the Movies
When a History Major/Teacher Goes To The Movies.
It can be really tough when a history major/teacher goes to the movies. A basic part of going to the movies is the ‘willing suspensions of disbelief’, that is, you believe what you’re seeing. But I have trouble when I see things in the movies that I’m unwilling to accept as my BA and MA in History and BA in European Studies often get in the way.
First, while I believe Edward I (Patrick McGoohan) was the kind of a guy who would tip his son’s gay lover out the window, he would never send a woman, the princess Isabelle (Sophie Marceau) on a diplomatic mission. Aside from the fact that she would have been a child. Isabelle married Edward I’s son when she was 13 and this was after the execution of William Wallace (Mel Gibson).
The major battle of the movie, filmed on a wonderful big battle field rubs military/history people the wrong way – it’s the battle of Stirling Bridge. The fact the battle was fought on a bridge gave the smaller Scots army the advantage, which is why they won. Ok, it filmed better on a big battle field.
I don’t’ mind a little tweaking to make a better story, but what really bothers the history professor in me is when there’s a total lack of historical reality.
Such was the part that really bothered me is at the end, when the Princess Isabelle goes down to the dungeon to see Wallace (which wouldn’t have happened because she was child). The guard doesn’t want to let her in and she says ‘the king (Edward I) is dead’ meaning that she is now the queen as she’s married to Edward II, and the guard falls all over himself to let her in. At this point I’m trying not to yell at the screen. Everyone knew that Edward II was gay, and had no desire to please his wife. In essence, she just told the guard that she was a nobody and had no influence or authority. Aside from the fact that Wallace was executed two years before Edward I died, and before Isabella married the future Edward II.
Sorry, Mel, but Braveheart is not one of my favorite movies.
I did another double take watching Elizabeth when Elizabeth, (Cate Blanchette) already queen, is dancing with Robert Dudley (Joseph Fiennes) and she’s shocked and angry to find out he’s married. But I knew Dudley married Amy (he needed her families money) before Elizabeth became queen. And Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush) only wished he had that much power and influence with Elizabeth as shown in the film.
But don’t get the idea that I don’t like ‘historical movies’. I really enjoyed Gettysburg. My girlfriend, who’s the Civil War buff, took me and then I took my family. The best part for our family was when the Union Lt. Thomas Chamberlain (C. Thomas Howell) questions some Confederate prisoners and he says “No disrespect to you brave men, but why are you fighting this war?” The Confederate prisoner answers that he’s fighting for his ‘rats’. Lt. Chamberlain is puzzled, as is most of the theater audience, and asks “your what?” But since my husband is from Oklahoma, and has a little southern accent. I could see my son’s understood ‘rats’ as ‘rights’. Oh, and any movie that has Sam Elliot (as Brig. General John Buford) is worth seeing.
Another of my favorite historical movies is Mary, Queen of Scots. I used to show this to my class and then ask them to name three things that they thought were ‘real’ and three things they thought were ‘reel’. Most often one of things listed as ‘reel’, the blood red chemise worn by Mary for her execution, but that was ‘real’ (red being the liturgical color of martyrdom). Most student got the ‘reel’ for the face to face meeting of Elizabeth (Glenda Jackson) and Mary (Vanessa Redgrave) as the film show it to be a ‘secret’ meeting.
My son took me to 300 (three hundred), where I had to keep reminding myself it was based on the graphic novel, not actual history.
It’s not that I don’t like historical movies. Some of my favorites are A Man For All Seasons, Shakespeare in Love, Last of the Mohicans, The Train, and The Longest Day. I even like 1776 where John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson sing.
I can even enjoy a light heart historical even as I point out the inaccuracies. My favorite in this is The Mask of Zorro. While I enjoyed the movie and bought the DVD (not too tough to watch Antonio Banderas) here’s what the whispered conversation between me and my companions during the film.
Scene – the ship bringing Elena (Catherine Zeta-Jones) back to California lands in the middle of now where
Me (whispering) – why are they in the middle of nowhere? No town, pier, or anything?
Companions – shush!
Scene - where Captain Love (Matt Letscher) the American Army officer appears.
Me (whispering) – why is an American military officer acting with authority in Spanish Mexico. A military presence in a foreign county is like an invasion.
Companions – shush!
Scene – they go to the gold mine, all those cells and tunnels
Me (whispering) – they didn’t mine gold like that in California then, it was placer gold panned or washed out of stream beds.
Companions – shush!
Scene – in the fight at the mine there is a wagon load of gold bricks.
Me (whispering) – where did the gold bricks come from? There has to be a smelter to turn gold ore into bricks
Companions – shush!
Yep, life it tough when a history major goes to the movies.
So, what about you? Can you or do you have the necessary ‘willing suspension of disbelief’ when you see ‘historical’ movies? What are your favorite historical movies?
PS - sorry there are no illustrations - technical diffuculities (me) kept me from uploading.
It can be really tough when a history major/teacher goes to the movies. A basic part of going to the movies is the ‘willing suspensions of disbelief’, that is, you believe what you’re seeing. But I have trouble when I see things in the movies that I’m unwilling to accept as my BA and MA in History and BA in European Studies often get in the way.
First, while I believe Edward I (Patrick McGoohan) was the kind of a guy who would tip his son’s gay lover out the window, he would never send a woman, the princess Isabelle (Sophie Marceau) on a diplomatic mission. Aside from the fact that she would have been a child. Isabelle married Edward I’s son when she was 13 and this was after the execution of William Wallace (Mel Gibson).
The major battle of the movie, filmed on a wonderful big battle field rubs military/history people the wrong way – it’s the battle of Stirling Bridge. The fact the battle was fought on a bridge gave the smaller Scots army the advantage, which is why they won. Ok, it filmed better on a big battle field.
I don’t’ mind a little tweaking to make a better story, but what really bothers the history professor in me is when there’s a total lack of historical reality.
Such was the part that really bothered me is at the end, when the Princess Isabelle goes down to the dungeon to see Wallace (which wouldn’t have happened because she was child). The guard doesn’t want to let her in and she says ‘the king (Edward I) is dead’ meaning that she is now the queen as she’s married to Edward II, and the guard falls all over himself to let her in. At this point I’m trying not to yell at the screen. Everyone knew that Edward II was gay, and had no desire to please his wife. In essence, she just told the guard that she was a nobody and had no influence or authority. Aside from the fact that Wallace was executed two years before Edward I died, and before Isabella married the future Edward II.
Sorry, Mel, but Braveheart is not one of my favorite movies.
I did another double take watching Elizabeth when Elizabeth, (Cate Blanchette) already queen, is dancing with Robert Dudley (Joseph Fiennes) and she’s shocked and angry to find out he’s married. But I knew Dudley married Amy (he needed her families money) before Elizabeth became queen. And Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush) only wished he had that much power and influence with Elizabeth as shown in the film.
But don’t get the idea that I don’t like ‘historical movies’. I really enjoyed Gettysburg. My girlfriend, who’s the Civil War buff, took me and then I took my family. The best part for our family was when the Union Lt. Thomas Chamberlain (C. Thomas Howell) questions some Confederate prisoners and he says “No disrespect to you brave men, but why are you fighting this war?” The Confederate prisoner answers that he’s fighting for his ‘rats’. Lt. Chamberlain is puzzled, as is most of the theater audience, and asks “your what?” But since my husband is from Oklahoma, and has a little southern accent. I could see my son’s understood ‘rats’ as ‘rights’. Oh, and any movie that has Sam Elliot (as Brig. General John Buford) is worth seeing.
Another of my favorite historical movies is Mary, Queen of Scots. I used to show this to my class and then ask them to name three things that they thought were ‘real’ and three things they thought were ‘reel’. Most often one of things listed as ‘reel’, the blood red chemise worn by Mary for her execution, but that was ‘real’ (red being the liturgical color of martyrdom). Most student got the ‘reel’ for the face to face meeting of Elizabeth (Glenda Jackson) and Mary (Vanessa Redgrave) as the film show it to be a ‘secret’ meeting.
My son took me to 300 (three hundred), where I had to keep reminding myself it was based on the graphic novel, not actual history.
It’s not that I don’t like historical movies. Some of my favorites are A Man For All Seasons, Shakespeare in Love, Last of the Mohicans, The Train, and The Longest Day. I even like 1776 where John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson sing.
I can even enjoy a light heart historical even as I point out the inaccuracies. My favorite in this is The Mask of Zorro. While I enjoyed the movie and bought the DVD (not too tough to watch Antonio Banderas) here’s what the whispered conversation between me and my companions during the film.
Scene – the ship bringing Elena (Catherine Zeta-Jones) back to California lands in the middle of now where
Me (whispering) – why are they in the middle of nowhere? No town, pier, or anything?
Companions – shush!
Scene - where Captain Love (Matt Letscher) the American Army officer appears.
Me (whispering) – why is an American military officer acting with authority in Spanish Mexico. A military presence in a foreign county is like an invasion.
Companions – shush!
Scene – they go to the gold mine, all those cells and tunnels
Me (whispering) – they didn’t mine gold like that in California then, it was placer gold panned or washed out of stream beds.
Companions – shush!
Scene – in the fight at the mine there is a wagon load of gold bricks.
Me (whispering) – where did the gold bricks come from? There has to be a smelter to turn gold ore into bricks
Companions – shush!
Yep, life it tough when a history major goes to the movies.
So, what about you? Can you or do you have the necessary ‘willing suspension of disbelief’ when you see ‘historical’ movies? What are your favorite historical movies?
PS - sorry there are no illustrations - technical diffuculities (me) kept me from uploading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)