I like Let’s Stop Buying Crap’s little insight about green in the theatre being associated with prostitution. It’s been a while since I last watched Moulin Rouge, but I think I remember a lot of green in the tango de roxane scene – a nice pale shade that worked well with the red heads . . . oddly I don’t remember nicole kidman wearing green at all – maybe cuz she’s not cheap : )
What confuses me about Fantomina though, is the girl’s extreme naivity in her first adventure, contrasted with the coyness and expertly artistic seducttive talents that she acquires immediately after her first sexual encounter.
there are three important points here: The first is the niavity and innocence associated with a virgin damsel; the second is the sexual appetite and aggressiveness attributed to a sexually aware woman; and the third is the portrayal of the nature of a woman’s vs. a man’s love.
In the first case, this girl is niave to the degree of plain stupidity. She understood why a particular woman in the theatre was such a centre of attention and somehow thought it was a good idea to present herself as a prostitute. So the first night, she enjoyed the attention and easily escaped the consequences of her escapade – that’s one thing. But she went back the next night! She knew she’d have no way out this time – she had promised that she wouldn’t – and yet was upset when the man expected her to follow through on her offer.
I’ll go to the third point next. The guy raped her. And she thinks she’s in love. The only logical conclusion in my head is that it is the woman’s place to receive whatever the man dishes out and return it with infinite, undying love. He tires of her, and she still loves him. He believes himself to be sleeping with other women, and she still loves him. She sets him up to be playing two women at once, knowing that he will, then she is upset that he does!! -And still loves him!!
The man is not required to love her. It is expected that he will tire and move on to new women, she plans for it. It is expected that he will have his way with the servant girl, and toss her when he pleases – she plans for that. Several times over, he proves himself to be an unrespectable animal led by his sexual urges alone, and yet this supposedly respectable young woman believes she loves him. Perhaps points one and three are the same.
Finally, there is the matter of her expert scheming. Is this meant to compliment or demean her? Is it meant to compliment or demean the man? the main implication is that sexual awareness transforms a woman into a relentless man-hunter. The aggression is on her side, and he is the victim of her sexual advances – even though he raped her twice. and this was written by a woman – which confuses me even further. does she mean to empower women? show the fickleness of men? answer male complaints about feminine tricks by portraying them as necessary?
Can you guess how many times I wanted to throw this book?
