To me what really stands out about Portrait of a Lady on Fire is the director’s focus on the female gaze. There are barely any men in the entire film, and those that are, have roles like the rowboat captain or mailman. Similarly to what we discussed in class, Sciamma can use the Kuleshov effect to subvert expectations. In the opening scene Marianne is instructing children, she talks about her figure and “really” looking at the subject, the film starts to lead you in the direction of something more traditionally associated with the male gaze and then completely pulls back that lens. Take Heloise and Marianne talking on the cliffs/beach in the beginning:
The two main characters are completely spatially isolated from not only men but from everyone else in their world. And yet, only in this isolation are our characters able to truly relate, despite personal differences. Consider the rule of thirds at the same time. In both of these shots above Heloise and Marianne are the focal point each being directly in line with the 4 natural intersections.
The scene when Marianne starts Heloise’s portrait and the two recall how much they’ve learned about one another reveals more cinematic insight. The scene starts and we see Mariane in a medium closeup. She stops painting and the shot pulls out to a medium-long shot which then reverses to Heloise.
As the two sit together and talk intimately for the first time our camera dollies in. The camera mimics Mariane’s own perspective by looking back and forth at Heloise while painting and then finally getting to see the greater picture in context when the pair realize how closely they’ve been watching each other.
Overall this week’s screening relates a great deal to composition/mise en scene as well as cinematography and editing.
Source:
https://www.vox.com/culture/2020/2/19/21137213/portrait-of-a-lady-on-fire-celine-sciamma-interview
I also really enjoyed watching how this film was able to truly capture the female gaze. As you said, rather than focusing on physical intimacy, the most profound moments of connection between Marianne and Héloïse occur when they are spatially separated; and, it is in this very separation that they are able to emotionally connect on a deeper level. Even during the act of painting, Marianne stands at a distance from Héloïse to capture her essence, emphasizing that their bond is built on observation and understanding rather than close proximity.
While the male gaze prioritizes immediate physical attraction or passionate, overt displays of affection to form a connection, in Portrait of a Lady on Fire, the female gaze is expressed through the gradual development of an intellectual and emotional bond, where intimacy grows slowly as each woman learns to truly see and open up to the other. The film beautifully conveys how love can flourish in quiet moments of contemplation and shared glances and in the act of carefully studying someone from afar. This slow burn reflects a connection that feels deeper and more authentic, built on the mutual discovery of each other’s heart and soul rather than just physical attraction.
Your comments on the use of spatial orientation between Heloise and Marianne during the painting scenes to capture the female gaze really resonated with me! I had similar ideas regarding those scenes as well! Another way that I think Sciamma captures the female gaze is through the incorporation of pregnancy and abortion. In comparison to the male gaze, which is primarily focused on physical attraction and the act of sex as Victoria mentioned, the female gaze focuses on, well, female experiences such as the development of deeply intimate relationships and of course, pregnancy. By including the subplot of Sophie’s abortion, I believe that Sciamma pushes a core aspect of the female gaze to the forefront in a such a way that, honestly, might be uncomfortable to some viewers–especially men. And it should be. In a world where the male gaze has controlled narratives, Sciamma’s subversion of the status quo comes as a shock. I mean, even Marianne is taken back; she does not look at Sophie’s abortion procedure until Heloise forces her to observe it. To those accustomed with to the male gaze, including Marianne (think about how she does not look at the abortion and how she has to submit her paintings under her father’s name), the female gaze’s ideas and images are disorienting; however, you must look at them nonetheless if you are to undo that unconscious suppression of the female experience.
I also was really intrigued by the idea of female gaze in this film. I really noticed it in their makeup and hair. Their hair is never well done, always frizzy and with fly aways in a way that to women seems very free and exciting but would not be seen as attractive to men, nor is it the beauty standard. Similarly, they never have any makeup on, or at least not any that is detectable to us, their faces instead present in a natural and bare way which to a women watching may be reassuring and they would see beauty in what a women’s face actually looks like instead of the typical Hollywood “natural makeup” that actually significantly “enhances” features. Also, in terms of costuming I noticed there is a lot more coverage with these dresses compared to other period pieces, even in their most intimate moments their underclothing is quite frumpy and while to the male gaze that may not be appealing to the female gaze it seems much more comfortable and in turn beautiful. Similarly to makeup they are existing as they are without corsets manipulating their body. I also think the intimate moments in general exhibited the female gaze. We never actually see the characters having sex, not because the film shies away from showing the naked body but because their is this sense that intimacy is more than sex and really it is the other moments that are important.
I find it very interesting that you mention the rule of thirds, because that is something a lot of artists know about. I feel like the beauty and artistic set up of most of the shots in the film serve as a constant reminder that the story is told as the memories of Marianne, an artist.
I also disagree with the notion that the first scene makes the film seem like it will use more of the traditional male-gaze. I think the fact that it starts with the drawings of Marianne, then cuts to close up faces of the artists, then to a medium shot of Marianne that includes her face and doesn’t sexualize her figure is very different from a film shot with the male gaze in mind. She is also asking the students to “really” look at her, and I think that is so they can accurately portray her and see her the way an artist would (focusing on tonality, shadows, contours, bringing out emotion, etc.), rather than just observe her looks the way the male gaze tends to do (focusing on figure and beauty standards, not anything beyond the surface). I think this is emphasized in the last art class scene, when Marianne is talking to the student and asks why she looks sad. If the first scene had been set up to show the male gaze, the emotion would not have been carried into the portrait. Therefore, I think the film was set up with the female gaze and artist’s gaze in mind from the beginning.