Studies in French Cinema Volume 4 Number 1 2004 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/sfci.4.1.

29/0

Neither charm nor sex appeal... Just what is the appeal of Simone Signoret?
Sarah Leahy Abstract
After the war and womens vote, the 1950s was a decade when femininity was in crisis as conservative discourses focused on containing women within the domestic sphere. Franoise Giroud proclaimed in Elle in 1953 that the charm of Michle Morgan offered a preferable type of femininity for women to emulate than the sex appeal of Martine Carol. Arguably, Signoret falls into neither of these two categories, nor indeed any other constructed to define and confine feminine behaviour. Although she frequently played characters such as prostitutes, contemporary reviews of her performances do not describe her as a sexual object. Many of these reviews discuss the way Signoret uses her body as a tool for expressing an inner intelligence of her characters desire. She emerges as an actor who possesses a certain knowledge (and thus power and agency) that was rarely associated with women at this time. This article examines how Signorets disruptive star persona contributed to a renegotiation of femininity at this time of crisis and how this was articulated in the discourses that surrounded her. It argues that Signoret helped to expand the boundaries of the culturally intelligible in Butlers words, offering spectators a proliferation of feminine identities.

Keywords
Signoret stardom gender Casque dOr femininity 1950s

Contributor details
Sarah Leahy is Lecturer in Film and Television at Northumbria University. She has published numerous articles on stars in French cinema. She is currently working on a book-length study of Casque dOr. Other research interests include contemporary European film and cinema and the city. Sarah Leahy, Northumbria University, School of Arts and Social Sciences, Lipman Building, Sandyford Road, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST E-mail: sarah.leahy@unn.ac.uk

SFC 4 (1) 2940 Intellect Ltd 2004

29

Article text
The 1950s in France was a decade characterized by remarkably conservative discourses surrounding femininity, as the work of Claire Duchen, and Noel Burch and Genevive Sellier among others has shown (Duchen 1991 and 1994; Burch and Sellier 1996). The years which followed the long overdue awarding of the vote to women in 1944 were marked by a renewed emphasis on womens traditional domestic roles as wife and mother. At the same time, French cinema of the 1950s reveals an extraordinary preoccupation with female sexuality, and the portrayal of women as sexual objects (Doniol-Valcroze 1954; Burch and Sellier 1996). This apparent contradiction in these two constructions of acceptable female behaviour in dominant discourses, suggests that femininity was in crisis during this decade. After a period of relative emancipation for women during the Occupation and the Liberation, femininity was being forced back into a place where it no longer fitted, and was having to negotiate a new position in society. As the work of Evelyne Sullerot and Claire Duchen has demonstrated, womens magazines played an important role in the construction of desirable and acceptable forms of femininity in this period (Sullerot 1963 and Duchen 1994). This is shown by articles such as the one published in Elle in 1953 by Franoise Giroud, entitled Charm or sex appeal? I choose charm. Girouds chosen charming role models were Greta Garbo, Michle Morgan, Yvonne Printemps, Madeleine Renaud (actresses), Louise de Vilmorin and the Duchess of Kent (great ladies); while those representing sex appeal included Rita Hayworth, Sylvana Mangano and Martine Carol. Articles such as this reveal the collusion of many womens magazines with patriarchal discourses which were concerned with the containment of female sexuality and thus erase feminine identities which could pose a challenge to existing structures of gender. They clearly indicate a class bias, too, exhorting the middle-class readership of Elle and Marie-Claire to be charming and elegant - to strive for the kind of aristocratic refined beauty of Michle Morgan or the Duchess of Kent, rather than the more proletarian earthiness embodied by Marlene Dietrich or Sylvana Mangano, seen as representative of a different kind and different class of woman. This paper will focus on Simone Signoret, who tellingly appears in neither of Girouds categories. Signoret is an interesting figure in the 1950s - it seems that no sooner had she achieved major stardom with her role in Manges/The Cheat (Allgret, 1950), which she then built on with roles in Casque dOr/Golden Marie (Becker, 1952), Thrse Raquin (Carn, 1953), and Les Diaboliques/The Fiends (Clouzot, 1955), than her star began to wane in France, and she was passed over in favour of younger stars such as Franoise Arnoul and Brigitte Bardot. Indeed, it was to be her international success in the British film Room at the Top (Clayton, 1959), that brought her back into the public eye in France at the end of the decade. Several reasons have been advanced for this temporary decline in Signorets popularity in the latter part of the 1950s. One is given in her own autobiography: she famously and unsuccessfully attempted to give up cinema before making both Casque dOr and Thrse Raquin, out of a desire to spend more time with

30

Sarah Leahy

her husband, Yves Montand (Signoret 1975: 11314 and 12021). The second reason is more political: in 1956, both Signoret and Montand embarked on a tour of Eastern and Central Europe in the weeks just after Kruschev had sent Soviet tanks into Budapest. Though in fact they were never members of the PCF, this high-profile tour meant they were increasingly associated with the Communist Party by a certain sector of the rightwing press in France (Cannavo and Quiquer 1981: 195200). However, there is also a third reason for Signorets erratic popularity in the 1950s, and that is to do with the kind of femininity she embodied. This paper will focus on how Signoret did not fit in with the feminine ideals of the time, and argue that she offered a rare example of female subjectivity expressed through desire and knowledge. It will look first at certain discourses that emerged surrounding Signoret in contemporary reviews and then examine her performance in Casque dOr in relation to these discourses. The most frequently highlighted characteristics of Signorets star persona in contemporary reviews are authenticity, intelligence (or knowledge) and subjectivity - key elements of Signorets star persona which, it would seem, allow her to escape traditional concepts of femininity without attracting the opprobrium that was heaped upon other women who challenged norms of female behaviour in this period, such as Bardot or Simone de Beauvoir (Fallaize 1995: 56; Bardot 1996). At a time when female stars were most commonly judged by their looks and whether they suited the role physically, Signorets performances were more commonly described in terms of her authenticity, intelligence and the expression of desire, qualities which enabled her to exceed the narrow boundaries of 1950s definitions of femininity. For the purposes of this article, I will be most concerned here with the way Signorets star persona is constructed in relation to notions of intelligence, or knowledge, and how this is connected to her agencing of desire in her performances. In spite of the fact that Signoret often played prostitutes, gold-diggers or neglected wives - recurring tropes of literature and film, more usually depicted as the other against which the male subject defines himself - she is never in danger of objectification.1 The fact that critics recognize these characters not as prostitutes first and foremost, but as individuals with emotional and psychological depth suggests that Signorets performances achieve a subjectivity not seen before in the portrayal of such characters and thus challenge stereotypes of femininity which hark back to the 1930s but which still dominate French cinema in the late 1940s and 1950s. As Jacques Siclier put it: There is not much to distinguish Simone Signoret, brothel girl in Dde dAnvers from Viviane Romance in 1936. Not much except for psychological truth (Siclier 1957: 12224). Signorets magnetizing screen presence, put down to the authenticity of her performances, is rooted in a paradox: an ability to embody her character to the point of erasure of the star body. Richard Dyer has argued that contradictions are at the heart of stardom (Dyer 1998: 43): in Signorets case, her star persona is based on her becoming her character, becoming other, by allowing her characters to use or inhabit her body. This is frequently remarked upon by contemporary critics, and the effacement of Signorets star body inevitably becomes a part of her star persona, an

During this early part of her career she played prostitutes or gold diggers in Macadam/The Back Streets of Paris (Tourneur, 1946), Dde dAnvers/Dde (Allgret, 1948), Manges/The Cheat (Allgret, 1950), La Ronde (Ophuls, 1950), Casque dOr/Golden Marie (Becker, 1952) and La Mort en ce jardin/Death in the Garden (Buuel, 1956).

Neither charm nor sex appeal... Just what is the appeal of Simone Signoret?

31

For example, see Simone Dubreuilh on Thrse Raquin: Simone Signorets Thrse is her strongest role. Without make up, without false humility in the costume, she is Thrse from the beginning to the end (Dubreuilh 1953). Indeed, this effacement of her star body is an important reason why Signoret was able to reject the term star (Signoret 1975: 313). See, for example, Magnan: this luminous and vibrant actress who knows how to express everything in a remarkably economical way (Magnan 1959); and Frank: her smile has the wit which Beckers dialogue lacks, and her beauty the brightness which Beckers direction lacks (Frank 1952).

important aspect of the authenticity she is said to possess and which is achieved by not being herself, but by becoming her characters.2 Signoret herself talks about this phenomenon of being inhabited by her character as ddoublement, a process she describes in her account of the filming of Casque dOr: ... it wasnt me I was dressing, me, Montands wife, Catherines mother - it was Marie, who was already thinking about what she would wear that night to go out with Manda ... (Signoret 1975: 116). This physical equation of the star with the character can be seen again in Jos Zendels account of his visit to the set of Thrse Raquin, the profile I look at in turn through the window [...] is Thrses profile, and for the moment I couldnt say it belongs to Simone Signoret (Zendel 1953). It is not only Signoret identifying with her character, but outsiders also make the connection, suggesting that her performance does indeed give an outwardly discernable sign of her inner understanding of the character. Signoret argues that Thrses transformation from unfulfilled, extinguished wife to passionate lover is not achieved through physical movement - a particular look or gesture - but comes from an inner knowledge of the character which she expresses through her body: this metamorphosis of Thrses inner being, Im very careful not to express it externally, by somehow changing my physical appearance ... (Zendel 1953). It is interesting that when Signorets physical characteristics are evoked it is most often her eyes or lips and the messages that she conveys with them - her body remains a tool of communication rather than the focus of attention.3 Signoret uses her body to channel and express the desire of her character, in a way that gives the spectator insight of the knowledge (intelligence) which drives her. Thus we dont focus on Signorets eyes or lips as isolated, fetishized body parts (as for example Carols breasts, Bardots legs or Morgans eyes), but rather for the desire they are communicating to us. This expression of female desire was seen as uncomfortable by some critics, notably those who were positioned on the Right, as shown by Herv Lauwicks comments on Casque dOr and the famous waltz scene in particular:
At the beginning of this film, [Signoret] executes a little waltz in front of Serge Reggiani without taking her eyes off him [...] at all times, following the directors orders, her head is turned towards Serge Reggiani. This is the most astounding and vertiginous scene we have seen in 1952. [...] It isnt necessary for her [Signoret] to stare at a gentleman that way in order to make her intentions clear. (Lauwick 1952).

From a man, Signoret/Maries insistent gaze would not be thought out of place, but it does not conform with what the conservative Noir et Blanc considers to be suitable feminine behaviour. It is interesting to compare the communist Les Lettres Franaises view on this film, which picked up on the way Signorets performance challenges dominant discourses on feminine behaviour and on the position of women in society. Signorets role in Casque dOr combines stunning beauty and a reminder of womens situation as patriarchal objects of exchange:

32

Sarah Leahy

In love in a milieu where women are bought and sold, Casque dor encourages the bidding but escapes being sold [...] Even in the worst subjection, she remains a free person, which without doubt is a great compliment to the real Casque dor [...] However, the truth of this character is topical, in this film made a few months ago. (Boussinot 1952).

Signorets role in Manges had already provoked Georges Sadoul to denounce the misogyny of the film (Sadoul 1950). This misogyny was common at the time in French cinema but rarely commented on, let alone criticized as Burch and Sellier have pointed out (Burch and Sellier 1996: 24577). Signorets performance in Casque dOr as a desiring subject who positions herself as mens equal (even if they do not all see her that way) draws attention to the representation of women as objects in French cinema and to the treatment of women more generally in 1950s society. This goes against the preferred rhetoric of dominant discourses (which proclaimed sexual equality in difference, thus disguising the more common reality for many women who faced oppression within the family and discrimination at work), revealing that womens liberation is very much a contemporary issue. Indeed, as Andre Lehmann points out, in spite of the constitution of 1946 which was supposed to guarantee equal rights to men and women, husbands could still prevent their wives from working up until 1965 (Lehmann 1965: 7). Agencing desire, then is a key way in which Signorets knowledge of her characters is expressed, and one of the major ways in which she is seen to challenge ideals of female behaviour and gender identities. Indeed, Signorets star image was seen as so different from her female predecessors and contemporaries that she was explicitly compared to Jean Gabin, conferring on her a very masculine status (Dutourd 1953, cited in Monserrat 1983: 88). Interestingly, though, where Gabins characters of the 1930s were seen as being marked by fate, for Signoret it is her experience of life that has left its traces - and in her case they are physical ones. Even when Signoret was at the height of her beauty, she was seen as bearing the scars of life: pathetic, A slightly worn-looking face surrounded by a halo of unruly hair, as if life had already prematurely left its marks on her (Anon. 1950, my emphasis). This review of Manges was written in 1950, long before any signs of her rapid and premature ageing in the 1960s (Hayward 1995: 6263), and describes how, even at this time, Signoret conveyed a knowledge of life which marked her face and body through her performance. It is arguably through her physical expression (performance) of this experience (knowledge) that Signoret came to be associated with the post-war period so closely, as the star who most embodied the ambiguities left over from the Occupation and whose performances expressed the mental scarring of Frances recent history. I would argue that it is this embodiment and performance of a certain knowledge of life that makes Signoret such a powerful agent of desire - it is clear that she knows what she wants, and even if she does not always succeed in getting it, she will risk everything in the attempt. We can see from this discussion of contemporary discourses surrounding Signorets performances how important the elements of knowledge, experience and intelligence are in her star persona. I would now like to turn

Neither charm nor sex appeal... Just what is the appeal of Simone Signoret?

33

There is an important exception to this in Signorets career and that is La Ronde (Ophuls, 1950), where she plays the archetypal prostitute, existing solely in her function as the site where the round of love directed by the narrator (Anton Walbrook) begins and ends - a function of which she is ignorant.

to the work of Michel Foucault relating to knowledge and power and the inscription of power and knowledge on the body in order to explore how these elements can inform our readings of her performances in the context of shifting positions in the relations of power, and of a renegotiation of gender identities that was happening throughout the 1950s in France (Foucault 1990). Signorets knowledge is not cerebral, but embodied Signoret knows her desire (whatever Lacan might say) and this is located in and expressed through her body in performance. This knowledge is linked to power at the point of oppression through dominant patriarchal discourses (in this case on femininity) and at the point of resistance (Signorets failure to conform to those discourses). For reasons of space, I will concentrate on her role as Marie in Casque dOr (Becker, 1952), but this argument can also inform our readings of other films, such as Manges (Allgret, 1950), Thrse Raquin (Carn, 1953) or Les Diaboliques (Clouzot, 1955).4 Signorets corporeally expressed knowledge - of her characters, of dominant discourses on femininity and of how to negotiate her position in the relations of power - recalls Foucaults concept of the body as material yet socially and culturally constructed, a concept which offers a key to discussing performance and positioning in terms of power relations, allowing an alternative to the Freudian notions of active masculinity and passive femininity which clearly do not apply to Signoret. Foucault has placed the body at the centre of the power-knowledge nexus as matter which is marked with cultural and social discourses. He outlines this paradox of the material body which cannot be known prior to its inscription by the social and cultural influences which act upon it:
Deployments of power are directly connected to the body - to bodies, functions, physiological processes, sensations, and pleasures - far from the body having to be effaced, what is needed is to make it visible through an analysis in which the biological and the historical are not consecutive to one another, as in the evolutionism of the first sociologists, but are bound together in an increasingly complex fashion in accordance with the development of the modern technologies of power that take life as their objective. (Foucault 1990: 15152)

It is only the experienced body (of self and other) that can be known. This knowledge of self and other as we experience them corporeally, is mediated through relations of power. So sex, for example, whilst having a material existence located in the body, is also imbued with cultural meaning, which is experienced corporeally as well as psychologically. Foucaults concern to situate so-called truths in their historical context, led to a re-evaluation of the universal application of psychoanalytic theories of the development of gendered subjects (Foucault 1990: 15253). The emphasis then shifts from a theory which traces a normalizing (heterosexualizing) trajectory towards a gendered identity (albeit unstable) to a concept of subjects and bodies constantly (re)produced - and reproducing their selves - within shifting relations of power. Feminists such as Lois McNay have found some of Foucaults concepts problematic, in particular those of docile bodies and the insistence on individuals as bodies (McNay 1992: 4045).

34

Sarah Leahy

Paradoxically, though, McNay also finds that that many feminists fascination with Foucaults work stems from his concept of the body as matter which is culturally and socially constituted (McNay 1992: 17). When the body is considered in this way, other elements that constitute subjectivity (such as legal definitions or intellectual activity) become indivisible from the body-as-subject. This also enables us to consider power relations in terms of the law, which can guarantee as well as restrict freedoms,5 but also in terms of more subtle operations not defined by the law, in flows and exchanges between individuals (Foucault 1990: 9798). Star bodies can offer important illustrations of these operations of power, since as spectators of a film we can witness the diegetic power relations, while as subjects we are also part of the flows of power between star and spectator. To come back to Signoret, I would argue that she offers an example of how specifically female bodies can and do resist oppression, and that her star body is not the site of oppression but of the crossing-over of many multidirectional operations of power. Thus Signorets role in Casque dOr exemplifies the star body as both product of power relations and site of resistance. Signorets performances offer women the spectacle of a female body which, although subject to sexual oppression, is anything but docile - and which, far from being defined solely in terms of charm or sex appeal, makes use of the many avenues of resistance available: masquerade, the agencing of desire and of the gaze, the refusal to experience her body as subject to discipline and the assertion of her freedom through the corporeal expression of her intelligence. Casque dOr tells the story of the love between Marie Casque dOr (Signoret), a prostitute belonging to the underworld of Belleville apaches (gangsters) where Flix Leca (Claude Dauphin) is the dominating figure, and Manda (Serge Reggiani), a reformed criminal who now leads a quiet life as a carpenter. Manda is made to fight for Marie, killing her pimp Roland (William Sabatier) in a knife fight. Marie and Manda enjoy a brief pastoral idyll in Joinville, but Leca has denounced them, and Manda is forced to give himself up. With the help of Marie, Manda is able to escape from prison just long enough to avenge himself and his old friend Raymond (Raymond Bussires), by gunning down Leca. The film ends with an extraordinarily powerful sequence as Mandas execution on the guillotine is watched over by Marie. Her head bows as the blade drops, but this grim scene fades into an image of their enduring love - the couple waltzing into the distance. Womens position in the world of the apaches as objects of exchange and sources of revenue is clear. Marie belongs to Roland; Lecas offer to buy her gives her no hope of freedom. What is surprising about the film is that Marie behaves as if she were free, making her own choices and pursuing her desires. The triangle in this film (Leca-Marie-Manda) is very different from the oedipal narratives evoked by Ginette Vincendeau with regard to 1930s French cinema (Vincendeau 1988: 7174). Dudley Andrew makes much of the oedipal content of Casque dOr in the figure of Manda and in the context of the making, projection and reception of the film (Andrew 2000: 114). He traces Mandas trajectory as he leaves behind his carpenters job and his patron to pursue Marie and eventually to kill Leca, the father. However, Andrews interpretation does not consider the active role

For example the right to vote, and the right to birth control or abortion.

Neither charm nor sex appeal... Just what is the appeal of Simone Signoret?

35

It is also worth mentioning that the real Casque dOr, Amlie Hlie, achieved a mythical status in the history of Paris and of Belleville in particular. It seems that Roland always needs the assistance of the group: later at the Ange Gabriel, he invites a wealthy tourist to dance who also refuses until pressed by her companions. The same sigh of general approval meets his eventual success on both occasions.

of Signoret/Marie, preferring to confer on her the status of myth: She is the mythical destiny of popular romance, over whom father and son will lose their lives (Andrew 2000: 114) and It is certainly [Signorets] most mythic role. She is introduced immediately as the golden treasure of Lecas band (Andrew 2000: 115). From the importance the role is accorded in Signorets obituaries - Marie Casque dOr is often cited as the role which encompasses her early career (Alia 1985, Bouguereau 1985 and Mingalon 1989) - and from the way that the film has gained in stature as a classic (Andrew 2000: 112) - it is arguable that Marie Casque dOr enjoys a mythical status in the history of French cinema.6 Imbued with nostalgia for a certain period (the belle poque, the post-war years) she nevertheless exceeds her historical and narrative contexts. The myth is further reinforced by the fact that Signoret almost gave up the role, preferring to stay with Montand who was filming Le Salaire de la peur/Wages of Fear (Clouzot, 1952). The fact that she was persuaded only at the last minute to make the film, when Becker told her he would have no problem engaging any number of actors to fill her shoes, lends the film an aura of fate - that it was meant to be (Signoret 1975: 11314). However, I would argue that Marie does not occupy a mythical place within the film text. She is far too active, and too much of a subject to be constructed in this way by the other characters and for the spectator. I would argue that for the female spectator at least, Marie does not represent destiny, rather she is a figure to identify with and to desire (Stacey 1994: 17273). Signoret/Marie puts a spanner in the oedipal works, for she does not take on the role of either phallic mother or castrating other. Far from being defined solely in relation to men, she is a subject too, and we follow her desires and passions just as much as if not more than those of Manda. They are both positioned as fully sexual subjects at the beginning of the film - Marie through her obvious contempt for her pimp, Roland, and because she rows him to the guinguette even though none of the other women are rowing. Manda too has a history, having renounced the world of crime for that of work. It is their status as already subjects that throws the law of the father into doubt - Flix Leca may have absolute power over the members of his gang, but Marie feels able to walk out on him (Flix, Im off ) and Manda does not merely kill him, he reduces him to a snivelling wretch begging for mercy. All of the characters are defined by their positioning in the relations of power which operate across many interlinked worlds - that of the apaches, that of the law (these two worlds meet in the character of the corrupt police inspector in Lecas pay), the world of prostitutes and their pimps and the world of lovers. Marie is the only character who crosses between all of these worlds and her positioning shifts accordingly in the hierarchy, but remains consistently one of resistance to oppression. So we see her making a mockery of pauvre Roland at the guinguette, only dancing with him when she is pressed by the rest of the group, yet asking Manda herself (Can carpenters dance?).7 Indeed, Marie marks Manda out as her object of desire with her insistent gaze during her dance with Roland, which is perpetuated in her dance with Manda. She pursues him and it is she who initiates the first kiss.

36

Sarah Leahy

Maries love for Manda, then, enables her to easily dispose of Roland and to resist Lecas oppressive power - at first through the masquerade. But even when, in her attempt to rally support to save Manda, she has to give into Leca sexually (rape is more than suggested), she remains free in other ways. It is she alone who helps Manda to escape from prison, physically preventing the guard from catching him and later, when he has been recaptured, it is she who goes to watch over his execution. Marie and Manda are equals, and this is perhaps the most unusual aspect of the film for its time. This is not the usual heterosexual story of the male, active subject pursuing the passive female object of desire. Here desire is reciprocal, as made clear from the beginning of the film in the exchange of looks between Marie and Manda, initiated, as we have seen, by Marie. This is reiterated several times in the film with Beckers use of close-ups on their smiling faces gazing at each other: first on Marie and then on Manda. These shots are used most strikingly during their first meeting and their dance but recur throughout the film as expressions of their mutual desire. These shots function almost to remove the pair from their social context, albeit temporarily, thus permitting them to love as equals, and this impression is reinforced by the final shot of the film. This immediately follows Mandas execution, and it fades in as the camera tracks in on Maries lowered head. It portrays the lovers waltzing into the distance, alone this time, in the guinguette where they met. That Marie is fully aware of her shifting positions in the relations of power is conveyed through Signorets body. The scene when Leca proposes to buy her from Roland is a particularly interesting one to examine her corporeal expression. With Leca standing at his window, we watch Marie walk with a firm step up the garden path, ahead of the two gangsters sent to find her. One of them pushes her into the room in an attempt to assert authority which, as an errand boy, he does not possess, but she places her hand on her hip and smiles mockingly at them, preferring to deal with the chef, Leca. She then turns her head to watch them leave the room, still with her hand on her hip, before perching herself on Lecas desk, allowing her scoop-necked blouse to slip off her shoulders. At this point there is a high-angled shot from Maries perspective of the seated Leca, who grins inanely as she quite openly sizes him up. She borrows a knife (which is later used to kill Roland) to cut some cheese, which she first eats with her hand but then straight off the blade all the time watching Leca. Without putting the knife down, she removes his wandering hand from her breast, and hitches up her blouse. The close-up on her non-committal, ironic smile when Leca propositions her mirrors and contrasts with those of her looking at Manda, when her smile is suffused with desire and passion. Maries smirk as she watches Leca throw Roland out reveals her pleasure in his humiliation. The combination of matter-of-factness and sensuality of Signoret/Maries gestures shows her awareness of her position in relation to Leca - she has power in the sexual sense, which she can maximize through body language and a certain amount of impudence, but also by withholding the goods. This scene is a masquerade (Doane 1982 and 1991): Marie puts on the mannerisms and behaviour of a prostitute this is her job and Leca is her boss. She plays along with him but at the same time retains her position of resistance by not committing herself, and by turning the gaze back on him, as we have seen above.

Neither charm nor sex appeal... Just what is the appeal of Simone Signoret?

37

The sequence that follows offers a sharp contrast to this masquerade. Marie visits Manda at his atelier. Interrupting the family lunch, she sends a message for him to meet her outside. She wordlessly leads him by the hand, puts her hands on his shoulders and kisses him. When Mandas fiance follows them, though, Maries gestures become brusque and harsh - even violent when she is insulted by the fiance and she ends up slapping Manda and storming off. We see not the professional Marie but the passionate one here: her body expresses her feelings and her desire but is also marked by her marginality and exclusion from society as a prostitute. Georges Sadoul revised his at first favourable opinion of Casque dOr because of what he perceived as the unfavourable portrayal of the working class in the figure of Manda (Signoret 1975: 117). However, if one considers the role of Signoret/Marie in the film, it becomes a forceful denunciation of the oppression of women, as well as offering spectators a powerful example of healthy female sexuality to set against the garces so prevalent at the time. Burch and Sellier situate Casque dOr in opposition to the dominant misogynist current [of the post-war period] as exemplary of the films which are truly feminist in the modern sense of the word [which] attempt to reveal the workings of patriarchal oppression by showing that it weighs on men too ... (Burch and Sellier 1996: 18). The strength of the film lies in the equality of the two main characters throughout the evolution of their relationship from passion and desire to more conjugal love and responsibility. They are both figures of resistance in a system of power that is ultimately, in the destruction of Leca, shown to be crumbling. The shooting down of Leca by Manda in the police station, the place Leca assumes will guarantee him protection (in more than one sense of the word) suggests that the patriarchal system of power relations and the institutional frameworks that exist to protect them are no longer able to function when faced with Marie and Mandas partnership. Through a focus on Signoret/Marie Casque dOrs positioning in the network of power relations, the range of feminine identities that she embodies becomes clear, offering fully rounded female protagonists who exist in relation to many different characters and in many different contexts (and not only as the dislocated partner of the male lead, defined solely in terms of her sexuality) and, as such, approximate womens own experience. For example, discourses on female employment in France in the 1950s were extremely ambivalent: there was an increase in the number of working-class and lower middle-class women in work, who would have had to juggle either full- or part-time employment with looking after their home and family (Duchen 1994: 7982, 10812 and 15859). Simultaneously, single wage benefits actively discouraged women in lower-income families from participating in the labour market (Larkin 1997: 206). In the context of this ambivalence, Signorets role in Casque dOr can be seen as offering a representation of the multidimensional nature of womens lives, and as presenting the spectators with a woman who behaves differently in different situations, who develops and evolves. Marie Casque dOr is just one example of how Signoret embodies women who are not solely defined according to their sexual difference from men, but who are affected by class, work, relationships with men and

38

Sarah Leahy

with other women, and who, as a result, challenge traditional constructions of femininity. Signorets star persona fascinates because, like most women, she doesnt fit Girouds categories of either charm or sex appeal. Her appeal lies in her agencing of desire - a desire of which she is fully aware and which enables her to perform a whole range of feminine identities, pushing back the boundaries of what is acceptable behaviour for women in 1950s France. Works cited
Alia, J. (1985), Comment on devient Signoret, Le Nouvel Observateur, 25 January. Andrew, D. (2000), Casque dor, casquettes, a cask of aging wine: Jacques Beckers Casque dor, French Film: Texts and Contexts (eds. S. Hayward and G. Vincendeau), London and New York, Routledge, 2000, pp. 11226. Anon. (1950), Une Vedette: Simone Signoret, Unifrance Film, 4 (June). Bouguereau, J.-M. (1985), Simone Signoret, 19211985: La Nostalgie quandmme, Libration, 1 October. Boussinot, R. (1952), Simone Signoret dans Casque dor, Les Lettres Franaises, 20 March. Burch, N. and Sellier, G. (1996), La drle de guerre des sexes du cinma franais, 19301956, Paris: Nathan. Bardot, B. (1996), Initiales B.B.: mmoires, Paris: Grasset. Cannavo, R. and Quiquer, H. (1981), Yves Montand: Le Chant dun homme, Paris: Robert Laffont. Doane, M.A. (1982), Film and Masquerade: Theorising the Female Spectator, Screen, 23: 34, pp. 7487. (1991), Masquerade Reconsidered: Further Thoughts on the Female Spectator, Femmes Fatales: Feminism, Film Theory and Psychoanalysis, New York and London: Routledge, pp. 3343. First published 198889. Doniol-Valcroze, J. (1954), Dshabillage dune petite bourgeoise sentimentale, Cahiers du Cinma, 31, pp. 214. Dubreuilh, S. (1953), Un trs grand film franais Thrse Raquin et un trs mauvais film amricain Niagara, Libration, 15 September. Duchen, C. (1991), Occupation Housewife: The Domestic Ideal in 1950s France, French Cultural Studies, 2: 1/4, pp. 111. - (1994), Womens Rights and Womens Lives in France 19441968, London and New York: Routledge. Fallaize, E. (1995), Reception Problems for Women Writers: The case of Simone de Beauvoir, in Women and Representation (eds. D. Knight and J. Still), London: WIF, pp. 4356. Foucault, M. (1990), The Will to Knowledge: The History of Sexuality, vol. 1 (trans. R. Hurley), London: Penguin. First published 1976. Frank, N. (1952), Casque dor par Jacques Becker, Arts, 1 May. Giroud, F. (1953), Charme ou sex-appeal? Je choisis le charme, Elle, 27 July. Hayward, S. (1995), Simone Signoret 19211985: The Star as Sign - The Sign as Scar, in Women and Representation (eds. D. Knight and J. Still), London: WIF, pp. 5774. Larkin, M. (1997), France since the Popular Front: Government and People 19361996, Oxford: Clarendon Press. First published 1988.

Neither charm nor sex appeal... Just what is the appeal of Simone Signoret?

39

Lauwick, H. (1952), Casque dor, Noir et Blanc, 30 April. Lehmann, A. (1965), Le Rle de la femme franaise au milieu du vingtime sicle, 3rd edn., Paris: Edition de la Ligue Franaise pour le Droit des Femmes. Magnan, H. (1959), Les Chemins de la Haute Ville, Combat, 3 June. Mingalon, J.-L. (1989), Signoret, la vie belles dents, Le Monde, 26 July. Monserrat, J. (1983), Simone Signoret, Paris: Editions PAC. McNay, L. (1992), Foucault and Feminism: Power, Gender and the Self, Cambridge: Polity Press. Sadoul, G. (1950), Grues mtaphysiques: Manges, Les Lettres Franaises, 9 February. Stacey, J. (1994), Star Gazing: Hollywood Cinema and Female Spectatorship, London and New York: Routledge. Sullerot, E. (1963), La Presse Fminine, Paris: Armand Colin. Vincendeau, G. (1988), Daddys Girls, Oedipal Narratives in French Films of the 1930s, Iris, 8, pp. 7081. Zendel, J. (1953), La mtamorphose de Thrse Raquin, Les Lettres Franaises, 27 August.

To cite this article:

Leahy, S. (2004), Neither charm nor sex appeal... Just what is the appeal of Simone Signoret?, Studies in French Cinema 4: 1, pp. 2940, doi: 10.1386/sfci.4.1.29/0

40

Sarah Leahy

Copyright of Studies in French Cinema is the property of Intellect Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.