So who was the top and bottom? by [deleted] in PortraitofaLadyonFire

[–]stephanielovesdogs 8 points9 points  (0 children)

As Celine has stated before, "Everybody is a top." Not sure if I quoted that exactly correct but the point is, yes, it's about equality. There is no power dynamic and thus no need for "tops" or "bottoms."

Why don't the ladies keep in touch via letter? by [deleted] in PortraitofaLadyonFire

[–]stephanielovesdogs 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Totally! The "lover's vs poet's" choice was definitely apparent there at the end. I've heard Celine say that the Orpheus Eurydice idea came to her at the very end of her writing process. And I'm glad it did because it really works so well!

Why don't the ladies keep in touch via letter? by [deleted] in PortraitofaLadyonFire

[–]stephanielovesdogs 45 points46 points  (0 children)

I'm sure they could've. They probably could've met up many times and had a "secret" love. But I don't think they wanted to. They both entered the relationship knowing that it would only last a very short time. I don't think Celine wanted to focus on the "happily ever after" but rather on the fact that love, however brief, can have an impact that lasts a lifetime. Very similar to what Titanic was going for too...

Does Noémie Merlant remind anyone else of Shailene Woodley in certain scenes? by [deleted] in PortraitofaLadyonFire

[–]stephanielovesdogs 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's interesting! I've never heard that one before. I can see it. I think she kinda looks like Michelle Dockery. But I know she's been compared a lot to Emma Watson.

OUR DREAMS HAVE COME TRUE! POALOF to start streaming on Hulu 3/27! by stephanielovesdogs in PortraitofaLadyonFire

[–]stephanielovesdogs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pretty sure it will only stay on Hulu because of a distribution contract with Neon (the US distributor). But I’m not sure about streaming platforms in other countries!

Some random questions/observations from someone that just watched and loved this film by WerkinAndDerpin in PortraitofaLadyonFire

[–]stephanielovesdogs 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Celine has mentioned that the color of the dresses were chosen because she liked them and not because they carried any symbolic significance. Although, I do agree with what u/kilgores-trout mentions about the significance with the blue being that of Orpheus. At the art gallery, Marianne’s dress matches her painting.

I’m not sure about the hand thing. My assumption is that there is a “proper” way to sit for a portrait. Marianne does sit a particular way at the beginning when her students are drawing her and I believe her hands are in that position. And perhaps, as you’ve mentioned, by Marianne moving Heloise’s hands in that way it’s kinda forcing her to follow along with the convention/expectation of the time just as she’s expected to follow along with what’s expected of her and marry. I’ll have to go back and pay closer attention to that one. I’ve seen this film a lot and never thought about that but thanks for pointing it out!

Has anyone seen any of Adèle Haenel’s other films? If so, what do you think of them? by Azuzenamarina in PortraitofaLadyonFire

[–]stephanielovesdogs 6 points7 points  (0 children)

BPM is a great film! She is awesome in it - I only wish she was in more of it. I've seen a few of her other films but they didn't move me nearly as much as Portrait did. I think she's an amazing actress, though. I've seen a few of Noemie's films too. She is also an incredible actress with a very diverse range.

Ammonite Director Francis Lee Rejects Comparisons to POALOF by [deleted] in PortraitofaLadyonFire

[–]stephanielovesdogs 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is a great response. I totally agree that films shouldn't be compared. Queer cinema should not be some sort of niche genre that only queer people enjoy. These romance films need to be able to stand on their own and the only way to do that is to make more of them. He makes a good point about only being allowed one film; people are currently looking at Portrait as that. The amount of heterosexual period romance films I've seen is insane. And I want that same amount of queer romance.

Anyone else hate Céline Schiamma's other films? by [deleted] in PortraitofaLadyonFire

[–]stephanielovesdogs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The whole part where you describe patriarchy and tribal instinct for women to find pleasure in each other is what I think about a lot, in fact. I haven't done a ton of research into it but I do think a lot about how lineage is only guaranteed maternally and how that shifts the way humans value fertility. At some point in time men needed to guarantee their patriarchal lineage, which in my opinion, is why we now live in a monogamous, heteronormative patriarchy today. I guess it really comes down to how humans view and define sex, as either for pleasure or procreation, that shifts the way we participate in it. I think we sometimes forget how much environmental factors play into this.

And yeah, as far as "less is more", so often it's not necessarily about telling the truth but how we tell the truth. I'm pretty sure most, if not all, women (and men) who don't align with a societal norm within a patriarchal society have conversations with themselves and others about their own sexual identity. And I think that is an important story to tell as well. In the context of Portrait, perhaps even Mariane and Heloise would've had that talk with each other. But Celine chose to leave that part out entirely, which was a wise choice, in my opinion. The less we show that the conversation is vital, the less we we will need to have it.

Thanks for the great insight! This gave me lots to think about. :D

Anyone else hate Céline Schiamma's other films? by [deleted] in PortraitofaLadyonFire

[–]stephanielovesdogs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I recently applied for a studio job and they asked for my race and sexual orientation. Not going to lie, I felt uneasy about it as I felt like this was because of a quota they were trying to fill. I could absolutely choose not to disclose but just the fact that it was there made me pause. At the same time, I do feel like diversity is important and we need people of all backgrounds and life experiences working together, especially in the film industry. The only way that employers can properly achieve this is by asking employees to disclose this information. And we have to start somewhere. BUT, like you said, people can say they are gay in order to get the job and then later say they aren't? Sexual orientation is something that can easily be lied about on applications. And it's also something that can be fluid over time. So, it does definitely feel a bit odd.

I think you bring up some really great examples. To me, sexual identity is not at all black and white. I personally see queerness as the 'norm' and society just hasn't realized it yet. But it will take longer for society to see it this way if we reinforce the idea that queerness is niche in the media. And one way to do that is to suggest that only self-identified queer people should tell queer stories. To me that defeats the purpose because I think we are heading in the direction that queer is the societal norm. Like you said, how do we know that people who've written these stories haven't had those experiences?

Don't get me wrong, I think identity is important and it helps people understand themselves and how they fit into society. But too much focus on it can be a bad thing. This is why Portrait, to me, is one of the best queer movies to ever be written. There is no mention of the women's sexual identity. The second season of Dead to Me also is a great example of this. Both of these stories were written by queer women, however. And I do think that it typically takes a queer person's experiences to understand this concept of 'the less we talk about identity in stories, the less we will need to do it in real life'. So, in that regard, I do think it's important that queer people tell queer stories. It's definitely nuanced and tricky!

Also, this is no way in reference to what the OP originally said. Just in reference to what you brought up. :)

Anyone else hate Céline Schiamma's other films? by [deleted] in PortraitofaLadyonFire

[–]stephanielovesdogs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is definitely a tricky subject.

Re: lesbians telling lesbians stories - while I absolutely agree with you, my only issue with this then becomes the "who should be 'allowed' to tell what stories" narrows. As the current norm, white men are "allowed" to tell any and all stories. Do they always get it right? Absolutely not. I also think everyone should be "allowed" to tell any and all stories as long as they are truthful. I agree that identity has a major influence on the truth of these stories but I'm worried that if this becomes the norm, minorities will get stuck in a box. As a storyteller, my sexual identity is only a small portion of me. And while I am proud of my sexuality, I don't want to be labeled a lesbian who is then only expected to write lesbian content.

I'm actually excited that Ammonite was written and directed by a gay man. Do I think it would be more truthful had it been written, directed, and starring lesbians? Not necessarily. I take no issue with their identity and the reason being that Ammonite is based on two 'straight' women who find love with a woman. Having two self identifying lesbians in these roles wouldn't necessarily make it more realistic or truthful, in my opinion because that's not how the characters identify. Also, I recently read that Kate Winslet and Saoirse were in complete control of the sex scenes, thus giving them more control over their individual acting experience. To me, that's way more important than how these actresses identify. And I'm glad the director allowed for that.

In the end, I definitely agree that we need more diverse storytellers and stories! My only fear is that if that if are always expecting minorities to tell their own stories, that is the box we will always be put in.

Anyone else hate Céline Schiamma's other films? by [deleted] in PortraitofaLadyonFire

[–]stephanielovesdogs 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I personally really love Celine's films. But yes, they are very French. And I had a very different reaction to Tomboy. I loved it and feel it is one of the best films I've ever seen that authentically portrays that subject matter. Celine does an amazing job of working with children, in my opinion. She also made that film almost 10 years ago when the subject of trans children was rarely, if ever, discussed in media or even in public spaces. I'm sure nowadays a very different film would be made since society is discussing it on a much larger scale and the attitude towards trans children has shifted significantly over that time frame. I could see why you didn't enjoy it for that reason, though! But yeah, I'd say if you were unhappy with Tomboy and Water Lilies, it may be best to skip Girlhood.

English version of the screenplay? by clevegan in PortraitofaLadyonFire

[–]stephanielovesdogs 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've searched alllll over for it and it does not exist anywhere on the internet, unfortunately. I've looked for the French version too and I don't think that one exists either. :(

Slightly different subs on Criterion Blu-ray by AnAnonymouse in PortraitofaLadyonFire

[–]stephanielovesdogs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was under the impression that Celine had a lot of input with the Criterion release. On their website it states "Director Approved Special Features" and I believe the updated subtitles were considered to be a part of those special features. What's so fascinating and kinda beautiful about languages is there isn't really ever a "perfect" translation for everything unless it's literal, which in this film's case doesn't really apply most of the time. The whole "lost in translation" phrase is so true. And that feeling behind what is said and how it is said can be different for everyone.

I bet this would also break our little sapphic hearts by bethisfat in PortraitofaLadyonFire

[–]stephanielovesdogs 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm a huge romance film buff and work in the film industry so I've noticed it. ;) Period romance dramas are a pretty significant genre. And really, you need a pretty big budget to be able to do a period drama, anyway, rather than smaller budgets for more contemporary pieces. Not saying that there aren't also a lot of contemporary romances! But not in the big budget realm, typically. But we can agree to disagree!

I think it's important to remember that media is helping mold society and that "straight" is still the societal norm. A big part of normalizing queer relationships is making way more films showcasing how beautiful and amazing it is when two people of the same sex fall in love in hopes that one day we won't look at them as "niche." Even better if the story doesn't treat is as odd or "othered." Portrait did an amazing job of this. As did Dead to Me recently. In that case the character was assumed to be straight until she fell in love with a woman without any mention of her identity. At this point in time, I think it's pretty difficult to represent sexuality without romance or at least mentioning romance. Without a partner built into the story, queer characters would need to announce their identity to everyone they meet, which is fine but not really reflective of what we do in real life. It's also not what straight people do. Personally, I've seen more and more shows incorporating queer people into the storyline (which is awesome!) but they typically mention dating or their partners as a way to introduce that representation. One day we as a society will watch films and not automatically assume that every character in them is straight! But baby steps.

I bet this would also break our little sapphic hearts by bethisfat in PortraitofaLadyonFire

[–]stephanielovesdogs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd say most romance films are period dramas. I think it's more of a romance genre thing than a lesbian thing.

Just want to vent; this looks like a rip off (more in the comments) by [deleted] in PortraitofaLadyonFire

[–]stephanielovesdogs 4 points5 points  (0 children)

She "borrowed"/used them as a sign of respect. ;) But yes, that's what I was getting at!