What's up with Rohmer and the young girls?

Out of line? Surely far less so than insidiously and baselessly suggesting that a filmmaker is a paedophile. That's out of line.

Firstly: a paedophile, by definition, is not attracted to teenagers. A hebephile is primarily attracted to pubescent or early post-pubescent teenagers, whereas an ephebophile is someone primarily attracted to older teenagers — that is, boys or girls between the ages of 14 and 19. Clearly, given the ages of the girls in question (see below), we are referring to ephebophilia in the worst case scenario. Here's what wikipedia has to say about ephebophilia:

Because mid-to-late adolescents usually have physical characteristics near (or in some cases, identical) to that of full-grown adults, some level of sexual attraction to persons in the age group is common among adults. [...] Generally, the preference is not regarded by psychologists as a pathology when it does not interfere with other major areas of one's life, and is not listed by name as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), the ICD-10, or as a paraphilia. [...] It is concluded that "few would want to label erotic interest in late — or even mid — adolescents as a psychopathology".

So, the question becomes: was Eric Rohmer an ephebophile? For those who wish to humour this scurrilous line of questioning, what evidence do we have for or against the accusation?

1) Two of his 25 films feature references to older men attempting to seduce teenage girls. In Claire's Knee, it forms a central part of the story; in Pauline at the Beach, it's very peripheral.

2) There is nothing in the films to suggest that Rohmer approves of the characters' behaviour.

a) In Claire's Knee (1970), the interactions between the male protagonist and the two teenage girls (Beatrice Romand, 17 and Laurence de Monaghan, 15) are very mild. There is a scene in which Jean-Claude Brialy briefly kisses Romand, and another in which he strokes de Monaghan's knee. Neither actress is presented in an exploitative or sexualised manner. The denouement of the film reveals the protagonist to be misguided and too narcissistic to realise that he, as an older man, has no advantage over the girl's teenage lover.

b) In Pauline at the Beach (1984), there is a brief scene in which Henri (Feodor Atkine) is seen trying to seduce a sleeping Pauline (Amanda Langlet, 16) by kissing her foot. Pauline wakes up and kicks him off the bed. Henri is portrayed throughout the film as a womaniser who has little scruples. In keeping with the film's setting, Langlet is often seen in a swimsuit and, briefly, partially undressed whilst in bed with her (teenage) boyfriend. None of these scenes are presented in a sexualised fashion. Langlet's character is portrayed as assertive and uninterested in the older men.

3) If Rohmer had the tendencies that the original poster so glibly accuses him of, surely he would not have missed the unique opportunity as a filmmaker to 'make a move' on his teenage actresses (much as Zeffirelli famously did with Bruce Robinson). If this had been the case, the actresses might well feel misused (if not at that point in time, then later on). On the contrary, Langlet and Romand went on to have major roles with Rohmer as adult women, whilst de Monaghan made a brief appearance in 1972's Love in the Afternoon. Clearly, none of them seem to have borne him any grudges that would suggest he took (or tried to take) advantage of them.

4) The original poster's suspicion is solely founded on the fact of Rohmer's portrayal of (fairly mild) adult-teenager relations in two of his films — this, he erroneously argues, seems to suggest that Rohmer thinks such conduct is acceptable. On the other hand, the remainder of Rohmer's films (including, it should be said, two significant subplots in Pauline at the Beach) depict or imply sexual interest between adults. Under the original posters' flawed logic, we could state that Rohmer thinks adult-teenage relations are acceptable but believes even more strongly that normal adult relations are acceptable. This conclusion is problematic for the original poster because if Rohmer were an ephebophile he would have a preference for depicting adult-teenage relations and presenting them in a positive light. Clearly, this is not the case.

5) It ought to be reiterated that the simple portrayal of an act does not necessarily imply its endorsement. Scorsese's portrayal of gang violence, to borrow an example from earlier in the thread, does not necessarily suggest that he endorses gang violence; Ingmar Bergman's portrayal of rape certainly doesn't suggest that he endorses rape. More to the point, many gay directors (such as Pedro Almodovar, Francois Ozon and Patrice Chereau) have filmed heterosexual sex scenes. Does this make them heterosexual? It may seem an elementary point, but this is what the original poster's argument is founded upon.

In summary, there is little to no evidence that Eric Rohmer had any sexual interest in young girls, let alone a predilection for them. Rather, we have evidence that he treated his actors respectfully and, if anything, used these two storylines to show up the foolishness of adult male fantasies about submissive teenage girls. Otherwise, he spent the vast majority of his career analysing adult friendships and relationships, intelligently exploring the contrasts between our self-perception and behaviour. To practically accuse him of having a problematic sexual desire (along with all the insidious implications that go with it) is highly defamatory and unfair, and I think says far more about the original poster's personal and cultural hang-ups than anything Rohmer might have thought or done.

reply share

add reply

formatting help