The film noir woman – that was real power
This take on Jane Greer sums up what film noir did for women:
Jane Greer was the “real deal”, her sexiness was derived from sheer cunning, she did not rely on the parodistic flirtations so common to the counterfeits of the genre. She possessed the perfect on-screen persona of a post-war desolation angle. By the late 1950s though and into the 1960s, strong, tough, independent women were being replaced by “leading ladies” who, though portrayed as capable and self-reliant had, however, moved well into the background. A prime example is Doris Day in Pillow Talk 1959.
It’s so difficult to explain why Jane Greer was so powerful and irresistible and why someone like, say Angelina Jolie, is such a bore. Jolie’s persona shouts: “Hey, I’m a kick-butt modern female and you better not mess with me,” and the more she shouts it, the less men are interested. The best analogy for her is that scene in Raiders when, after all the noise and drama of the scimitar wielder, Harrison Ford pulls out the gun and shoots him. Seriously, what use is Jolie to anyone?
Greer does it differently. She sets the agenda and drags the man into it through her sheer sexuality. There are many noir women who were not necessarily beautiful but they had that power. He finds himself drawn into her dark plans and suffers her spurning, however she wishes it to be, in a way the modern moaning minnie can only dream of. Yes, they’re only films but those women had something which is so rare to find in women today – mystique … and power over men.
Film noir is a perfect vehicle for holding up a different kind of woman to the multitude we have to put up with today. When they complain that men only want compliant and demure women, they are forgetting film noir and why it was so popular. Compliant and demure? Femme fatales? Come on. I’d love to poll the men as to which type they’d prefer.
Filed under: Arts & culture, Life issues & people
James,
A word to the wise, as they say. Better you, as one ‘getting on a tad’, drop this ’sexiness’ bit – bad for the heart I understand.
Seriously though, it is interesting what ‘appeals’ to the male ‘pysche’. Personally, it is a woman who, sexy as hell, does not know she is or let it be known she knows she is; a woman who, although wearing cosmetics (make-up), does not give the appearance she is.
Now, Jean Simmons – she had ‘mystique’, power, appeal and some!
Thrice married and still not met her. Actually that is not quite true – did once, but she was married! Thereby hangs a tale…….and no it wasn’t Jean Simmons
LMAO
Real men would find the neurotic,manipultive, cunning women whwo have nothing to offer but headgames far less attractive than a woman who stands up for herself and shows bravery and honesty in her words and appeals to men via her confidence[which does not diminish her femininity]
Stop stereotyping women James and do join us in this century, Hob.
WfW – do tell more.
Uber – no, seriously, you’d have to agree it’s not worth being in this century – men with no manners and women with no mystique. Hardly worth living, is it? And the films aren’t a patch on that era.
Have to smile – can you imagine Jane Greer saying to Robert Mitchum, in that film, her arms around his neck:
“Jeff, Jeff, no man can call himself liberal, or radical, or even a conservative advocate of fair play, if his work depends in any way on the unpaid or underpaid labor of women at home, or in the office.”
“Wah…?”
“Yes Jeff, what don’t you lousy motherfuckers understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds, and our families? Oh, and I see on your shitbag website that “Hate Crimes Bills” are one of your priorities.”
“What the…?
“Oh yes, Jeff, didn’t you know? Like I said, I am not transgendered, but my gender is certainly transgressive. And rigid gender ideas are the props of the patriarchy. If we start to push the boundaries of gender, we push at the foundation of patriarchal power. I do that, everyday, with my man panties and my men’s deodorant (as if deodorant or underwear have a gender).
But ultimately, what I do that is in opposition to the patriarchy is live, and breathe and be. Men don’t like women (there I go with that reductionist shit again). In fact, men beat, rape and control women.”
“Er Kathie, are you feeling all right?”
“Sorry Jeff, I just had momentary blast from the future. It was as if my name was Steinem. It’s fine, I’m all right now – hold me!”
Er … no thanks, Uber … I’d rather a real woman from that era. Now, if you still have those old values that a woman doesn’t need to hate men and beat them down, that a man is not someone to be competed with and bored to death with feminist diatribes, then we can do business and sail off into the sunset.
James,
Shame on you!
In your world are there only TWO types of women? The feminazi types or the sly ,coy types who manipulate men[which you call mystique] because they can’t gain any sense of self unless it is purring up at a man[or flouncing off as a headgame to emasculate him, by a more covert method than your other stereotype that you parody?]
My old fashioned family values would surpass even yours,but that does not mean a woman can’t also be a modern ‘thinking’ woman who stands up to adversity or object to being treated as many men are wont to do- as if ALL women are objects of either scorn or lust but objects to be toyed with and trivialized, nonetheless.
Your sterotypes are as ridiculous as me trying to suggest there are only TWO types of men- knuckling dragging, raping Neaderthals or quivering,passive aggresssive cuckholds.
Any woman who freezes a man out and waltzes off rather than tackle things head on, is not ‘mysterious’, she is passive-aggressive and wants to jockey for power by reducing him.
Any man who falls for this is a cuckold who cannnot handle a real woman who will meet him as an equal,mainly because whichever stereotype you point too, no woman is equal to him.
Now you know I am too am a lover of Film Noir.
Have you seen Blue Angel? Did Dietrich have ‘mystique’ when she cuckholded and denigrated the besotted professor, or was she a callous viper, bolstering her own sense of self worth at the expense of devouring his[like any good sociopath would do]?
And was he a spineless fool or a old fashioned romantic?
LOL@ you and me sailing off into the sunset…who would push who overboard first? Likely, I would push you, then feel awful at the tragedy, jump in to save you, drowning in the process[although you might drive me to do it on purpose]..whilst you’d climb safely aboard and be ‘alright Jack!’.
Men’s and women’s roles are simple….
No one needs to compete with or club anyone to death.
Men are for gathering the berries sex and to fix/kill things.
Women[ I freely admit and don't have a problem with] are there to keep the homefires burning, the nest tidy and sex[but for HER pleasure too].
Too many Steinem’s and Highams complicate the matter.
* And if you can’t tell the gender difference between men’s and women’s underwear, I am very frightened.
* I opened the champagne early and may regret these comments in the morning[but look how much more carefully I type?]
** Are you mad at me?
Those three quotes above which I had Kathy say in that satire were direct quotes from feminists – not a word added nor taken away. Not my stereotypes at all. Direct quotes, easily googled.
Now, my question to you is – are those “the words of a woman who stands up for herself and shows bravery and honesty in her words and appeals to men via her confidence”, as you said yourself above or are they, as you also said – “neurotic, manipulative, cunning women who have nothing to offer but headgames”?
Remember – none of those words were mine. The feminists who said those things do not seem to me to be the former. No thanks, I prefer women not to be manhaters like that. I prefer women who can appreciate men who care, rather than being so totally engrossed in their own selves.
It works better that way. Have a good night.
So,I guess you are mad.
[and I know I am going to pay for it tomorrow, but in the meantime... 
]
Hob, You chose to parody one stereotype to justify the [non]relevant other,and missed my entire point.
Neither of these stereotypes [whether it is the man-hating harpy or the manipulative vamp wanna-be],whom you insist are the only examples of womanhood, are representative of the majority of real women.These two extremes are disliked by women probably even moreso than by men.
In any event, my response was to your stated opinions[which you prove by your statements AND extreme examples to justify your views] which allows for no deviation from these types.
I am going to bed now.
Oh, and both of your stereotypes are self engrossed women who can’t appreciate a man who cares. They just use different weapons to overpower him….
Your words, I believe…’..Jane Greer was the “real deal”, her sexiness was derived from sheer cunning…’ and further, ‘…She sets the agenda and drags the man into it through her sheer sexuality. There are many noir women who were not necessarily beautiful but they had that power. He finds himself drawn into her dark plans and suffers her spurning, however she wishes it to be….’
Does this not sound like a self engrossed, manipulative,woman who sees men as victims of her ‘cunning’,exploited for her own ego and sense of sexual validity?
Where’s the appreciation for the ‘man who cares’ in that?
And do remember, Film Noir was borne in the 1930s.
All of this is entirely missing the point of the post, made by film critics and I’m glad you’ve given me the chance to clarify that here.
First up, we’re speaking of the younger woman here or the one still influenced by trends – that’s a given. So when I mention women, in the context of style and fashion, that’s whom I mean – the trendsetters.
If you follow the links, you’ll see that it traces the development of woman’s role in film, why noir died out and so on. It didn’t get hijacked into attacking Steinems and Highams because it didn’t like the truth.
And that truth was that these were strong, independent women though manipulative and driven. Show me a woman who is not manipulative. Show me anyone, male or female who’s not. However, the point was not about that or about kookiness, the point was about allure and as so many film critics have said, women have lost that allure now.
The onslaught of feminism and postmodernism has produced a female whose allure is like the Brave New World styling of Jacques Tati’s Mon Oncle’s house. Now you could say that that’s just today’s fashion and a woman who put that bit of lace over her hairline, as in the lower photo above, along with those furs, would look out of place commuting to the office today.
Well, she would and she wouldn’t. In London and NY, yes but in Paris, no. Paris still recognizes allure and women make an effort. If you look at how that woman’s dressed herself and the expression, you’ll see what I mean.
“Oh and you think I’ve got time to look like that for you, do you?” says the modern woman.
“Well no,” says I, “I don’t expect the modern woman to make any effort whatsoever to be alluring. It would be nice but no … I’d not expect it.” I’d then go on and say, “Look at the role models – Posh, Britney Spears, Jolie [whom so many women model themselves on] who rely on the face shape and body parts alone to do the job. To make an effort for the man is below these new pomo icons. A man is a nothing in her eyes so why bother?”
Now, into a room full of these bores comes a real woman – a Greer or Bacall or Beart and all male eyes go to them. They’ve made themselves look wonderful, either in simplicity, like Greer or in voluptuousness, like Beart. The key is that these latter women have something which has died today – style, allure, mystique, that femmes fatale quality.
That’s all I was saying. I wasn’t making two categories – that was your own strawman, your own construct, dear Uber. I was pointing out the loss of allure.
Test – go into the streets of Manchester any working day and observe. I did. Where would you see a femmes fatale? We went to Paris a few years back and were surrounded by them. Feminism must take its share of the blame for this phenomenon in the Anglo-Saxon west, as part of the overall nasty political thrust we see going on.
“Oh, you say. You’d take women back to the dark ages.”
No, I’d lift them into a new golden age where men opened doors and doffed hats, where the clothing, even for men, had style, where a lady was seated by the man at the restaurant table, where the woman was adored and revered, instead of ignored as a whining creature. I’d like to see women regain the power with men they’ve thrown away today in this mad grasp at overequality and the loss of moral compass in day to day decencies, especially in the young.
Age is a huge factor here. Obviously, the older generation haven’t lost this and I see some of these women most days – charm and sophistication is what I see there – the incentive for a man to make an effort, rather than expecting the bonk will come no matter what so why bother.
Yet the style which still existed say, in hair, was still there in the 50s but was then lost. You might say it’s just changing fashions. Yes, a change for the worse. Our eyes are lowered these days, trendwise.
The Oxford bags are still popular as a fashion item in certain circles, more broadly becoming chinos a decade and a half ago _ that was a hat tip to those days. If a woman really wants to do the works on herself, to which model does she turn? To the femmes fatale, not to the Posh Spice. Look at how Eva Green dresses, Sophie Marceau.
This was part of the popularity of the Poirot series and Jeeves and Wooster on TV, as a counterpoint to the awful reality TV types, with their complete stylelessness.
Actresses were interviewed for the publicity material and over and over said it was partly the chance to “dress up” which appealed. Why did it appeal?
Simple. It was redolent of the days when men were gentlemen in dress and manner and where women were ladies or femmes fatale. Bring back those days.
UPDATE: Even today there is an article on precisely what I’m saying:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/13/AR2009111301393.html?hpid=features1&hpv=national
[...] today, titled “Graceful in all that she did” because this is what I’ve been debating with the lady for the old values, Ubermouth. The article is about the life of Grace [...]
More stereo typing of women I see. And everything boils to that just under the surface sexuality for a woman to be powerful in a man’w world. How sad men must be.
That is not true. We are extremely happy with life in general and don’t worry too much about how things are.
Men and women will never understand each other but the difference is that we can’t be bothered worrying about it.
I’ve answered this over at the new post, so no point duplicating here, people.