Some of my thoughts on Portrait of a Lady on Fire.
One of the most poignant scenes was when Marianne points out the little quirks of Heloise and she replies, ‘We’re in the same place. When you look at me, who do I look at?’ and then begins to point out her quirks she has been noticing. That one sentence could sum up the entire movie. At that moment, there is no distance between the two. Héloïse rejects passivity and puts them on equal footing. Marianne, once comfortable in her position as the spectator, is shaken by the realization that she is capturing a subject who sees her, too. The painting isn’t just a work of Marianne’s; it’s every bit Héloïse’s as well.
It is turning the tables on an archaic tradition of The Muse as a means to establish the passivity of women as mere objects in their great work of art by men. But Celine Sciamma gives the fire and blood back to the historic women who were more than silent spectators but they could look back. The movie made deliberate attempts to equalize their relationship despite the inherent historical power dynamic of the artist muse relationship.
As the two lie in bed one morning, Marianne sketches her lover, and Héloïse laments the asymmetry of their situations: When Marianne eventually leaves, she’ll have images of Héloïse by which to remember their time together. Héloïse, meanwhile, will have nothing that evokes the painter’s face. Marianne remedies this imbalance by bridging the gap between artist and muse once more.
So, in the film, the portrait becomes a collaborative act between artist and subject, Héloïse’s thoughts and gestures shaping and informing the finished work. Perhaps why Marianne finishes the portrait and goes against her desire to destroy it despite the fact that ‘through it she gave her to another’. Their art was created at a heavy personal cost and despite them blaming each other for not being brave enough, it truly showed enormous strength on their parts. At Least this way they were in control of their story.
It’s the democracy of love. The celebration of the female gaze where there is no voyeur. The gaze is only for one, whom it is meant for. Even the audience watching it does not feel like they are peeping in but are invited into their world.
Even the depiction of the abortion is meant to tell the untold, unrepresented stories from women’s lives. It takes out a page from women’s intimate lives and puts it on display as a deliberate attempt to reclaim the missing fragments of feminine history. The scene is also replete with symbolism as Sophie lay on the bed getting an abortion while being stared at by a toddler who is her only source of comfort in that moment.
Another distinction in this movie is that they love with purpose and intent,
‘I know the gestures. I imagined them all waiting for you.’
The intentionality in itself accords them both an agency that is often missing in romance with women. The chase is deliberate and not accidental or passive. From a psychoanalytic view, it is brought to the consciousness and not the unconscious where it can be hidden.
Another striking imagery was the apparition of Heloise that Marianne would envision. It was an embodiment of her biggest fear: Heloise in her wedding gown. While this brought an uncharacteristic Gothic element, it could also be seen as representing the patriarchy and heteronormativity, like a ghost which neither of them can truly escape.
The movie progresses much like a flower blooming. There is incredible restraint in the first half, no music, no smiles and a portrait that fails to capture the essence of its subject but gradually it comes alive as the desire grows and intensifies in each of their hearts until it becomes much too heavy to carry. Then comes the Bloom with booming music but that ends far too quickly much like nature itself. As Marianne sketches both their images to preserve in their memories, they both make the artist’s choice and decide to pluck the blooming flower if only as a safekeep to carry in their memories. And so it never wilts through the passage of time.
“At one point you’ll see her when you think of me” Heloise points out. As reflecting on memories of her will alter them and that each time they indulge in a memory of their time to feel closer, it will only take them farther away from the reality of their shared past and distort the vision of the other. That begs the question, would you wish to preserve your love in memory or face it again in reality? The unfortunate truth is that if Marianne and Heloise indeed stayed together, their story would probably not remain the greatest love story. That is why the memory of love is always fresher because it is unattainable and untouchable. It stays intact and is not marred by reality.
And perhaps they fell in love as deeply as they did because they knew their parting is inevitable. That made every emotion, feeling, thought that much more intense because they were running on a clock. It’s the eventual parting that perhaps made the memories sweeter.
Marianne sees Heloise only twice more in her life after their affair ends, but both times she watches her former lover from afar, and she watches her still so emotionally moved by the language they once shared. Whether it’s by the page in the book Marianne painted herself on for Heloise, or by the music Marianne showed Heloise, both of these things still move Heloise enough to leave secret messages for Marianne or to bring her to tears at the mere memory of it.
I believe that the reason why this movie resonates with the audience is because by the end much like Marianne and Heloise, we too see ourselves as being a part of the narrative because the female gaze is inviting and not restricting.