Are old Femme Fatale thrillers fake in this sense?

Post Reply New Topic

I like old film noir femme fatale thrillers from the 40s and 50s. My friend says he doesn't like these movies because they are fake, and says that back then women did not have power over men like that and could not manipulate them like that, and it's too fake and historically innacurate for him. But what do you think? Is he right, or is he exagerrating then men could not be fooled by an attractive woman back then, or find them attractive, if they were behaving too naughty for their tastes back then?

Virtually all movies are fantasies - especially thriller, horror and romance ones are often totally unrealistic.
The purpose of a movie is usually to be an enjoyable fantasy. You can differ from your friend on what you enjoy. That's natural.

When it comes to manipulative women in old times - well, if you are gifted with intellect and strong will but live in an environment not giving you many opportunities to use them openly, what is left other than to become manipulative?

One of the problems with history is that its reductive, the dominant narratives are the ones that survive. So while your friend may be correct that in general women of the 40s had less agency, that doesn't mean they all were like that.

When it comes to noir thrillers, the whole point is that these women are exceptional, they aren't the norm at all. And the idea that men of the past were less vulnarable to manipulation by women is frankly laughable.

I think your friend has a reductive and, without wishing to cast aspersions, idealised views of both gender and history.

Oh okay, he was saying that even if women had to be more manipulative back then, that it wouldn't have worked, because men wouldn't have taken their manipulation attempts, seriously and not have thought of the attempts as much.

There were many smart women in the old days who were able to transcend the limitations placed upon them by their society.

There were certainly, truly, "femme fatale" types. And there still are today.

Ever had the feeling your brain sort of stopped when enountering a woman you find extremely attractive? And then made a fool of yourself?
That happened throughout human history, including the 40s and 50s, and if the woman was living in an oppressive society she'd have enough incentive to take advantage of that effect on men.

Or as an ex-girlfriend of mine put it bluntly: "beautiful girls can get stuff"

Movies are all fake, and everything in them is fake. Even if you simply record a street corner there is so much else you could have chosen to capture, the specific time of day, the angle used, etc. Such a recording is still not "reality" only a representation.

Which isn't to say that women couldn't manipulate men back then, or today, or any day. Women can seduce and manipulate men, man can seduce and manipulate women. Femme fatales are archetypes, and usually are superhumanly good at what they do, like many characters in genre fiction. So in that sense they are fake, because femme fatales are exaggerated fictional characters. But if your friend simply means that women in the 40s and 50s were delicate wallflowers that were incapable of doing things like that then he is simply wrong. Frankly, the stereotypes of the "delicate wallflower" and the "femme fatale" are two sides of a sexist coin. Women in a lot of culture are portrayed as either naive, innocent, and ineffectual, or they are manipulative, slu*ty, and greedy. Both stereotypes are false.

Oh my friend didn't think they were delicate wallflowers back then. He believed that femme fatales would have tried back then, but feels that their efforts would not have worked because men did not think highly enough of women to take their manipulation efforts seriously enough. Or so that's what he thinks. But I buy the guys being manipulated in those movies and in those times.

From my experience: With someone who appreciates your intellect, reasoning works better than attempts of manipulating. With someone who underestimates you and over-estimates themself, you can get everything with the right flattery.
Sorry, I'm a pattern thinker.

Well it's a result of men internalizing sexist narratives about women. There's actually a good deal of academic writing on the dynamic I'm referencing which is called the "Madonna-wh**e dichotomy." Basically, there is a fear of women's sexuality in our culture. So men will, according to traditional values, put women into either the category of the "Madonna," the pure, chaste, and submissive woman or the "wh**e" the debased, promiscuous, and aggressive woman. This attitude is changing, but there are still plenty of men out there who subconsciously do this and view women in this way.

The two characterizations of women exist to put all the women in boxes, encourage one and shame the other. Basically a social/cultural method of reinforcing patriarchy. Not done deliberately of course, but it evolved out of hundreds of years of historical and cultural influences into the present day. It is basically a means of policing women's sexuality.

Oh okay I see. Do men like the submissive women usually?