Cultural complicity and sexual violence

The 49th César Awards ceremony for French cinema held on February 23 was marked by the impact caused by Judith Godrèche's speech.

Her intervention was preceded by the lawsuit of continued abuse and rape that the actress filed on February 6 against the director Benoît Jacquot, with whom she had a six-year relationship.

On February 8, Godrèche filed another complaint for rape against fellow director Jacques Doillon.

What is there in Godrèche's speech and attitude that is worth taking into account beyond French borders?

The importance of the actress's reaction, as well as her complaints, does not lie in its legal implication, given that the alleged violence has expired.

Godrèche, 51, was 14 when she met Jacquot, 15 when she claims to have been raped by Doillon.

Even so, the actress believed it was necessary to “free the word” to encourage other women to do the same, despite recognizing the fear that can cause “losing your job, your subsidies, ending up on the street dressed as a hamster to earn a living.” ”.

Godrèche's revelation has exposed the connivance of a part of the French intellectuals, who chose to remain silent about what they saw on the sets and what was known about certain representatives of culture.

This was the case of the relationship of the writer Gabriel Matzneff, 50 years old, with , 14, and with many other minors.

Springora has testified to them in her famous book

Consent

, published in 2020, where she says that in a moment of desperation she went to ask for help from the writer and philosopher Emil Cioran, whom she knew, and he told her to stop fooling around, since it was an honor to have been chosen by a writer of such renown and concluded: “Often women do not understand the needs of an artist.”

Feminists questioned a sexuality that, although “liberated,” left no room for the affirmation of female desire.

Judith Godrèche's speaking offers us the possibility of constructing a map of confabulations among the Parisian educated class at a time when it enjoyed great international projection: auteur cinema, philosophical trends, literature, fashion.

That is to say, French cultural officials managed to forge a model of values ​​at a time when the world was radically questioning those of the previous generation.

This influence began in May of '68 and continued until the early eighties.

These were the times of sexual transgressions and renouncing or objecting to certain experiences was seen by the progressives of the time, including the Spanish, as a vestige of the “bourgeois reminiscences” still alive in each one.

Feminists, especially the American and Italian ones, produced several important texts in which they questioned a sexuality that, although “liberated,” did not leave much room for the affirmation of female desire.

Women continued to be subjugated.

And they were right, as demonstrated by the testimonies of those who were teenagers in the eighties.

This clan-specific protection allows the permanence of moral codes that are beneficial to them.

Those who question them pay a price for it.

This is what happened to Denise Bombardier, a Quebec writer who dared to confront Matzneff on the program Apostrophes, directed by Bernard Pivot, in one of the March 1990 broadcasts. A few days later, Philippe Sollers publicly insulted her by treating her as “bad.” fucked”, which was followed by the difficulty that the writer encountered in distributing her books in France.

We could continue with a plot of complicity that reaches up to Emmanuel Macron himself, supporting without misgivings a Gérard Depardieu sunk in misery.

Taking the floor, not only that of Godrèche, but that of other women in other countries, implies revealing plots that until now were believed to be unbreakable.

It would be interesting to clear them out.

Some intellectuals are confused, “what was previously seduction is now aggression,” they say.

The youngest, according to recent surveys, complain that the complaints “have gone too far.”

For feminism, a degree of confusion has never been a negative sign, but rather an indication of change.

In this case, to eradicate doubts about what violence against women is.

Consent, certainly, is not without complexity, as Springora admirably states: consent to what you have imagined, especially when you lack experience and are dealing with someone much older and powerful.

The responsibility lies with whoever directs the scene.

It could be said that “the French case” offers us a pattern to think about the plots of power—male—that make up all cultures with regard to abuses perpetrated on women and minors.

A pattern to see and be aware of the silences generated.

In this sense, one day we will also have to confront our terrible prejudices when we allow ourselves to make distinctions in cases of sexual violence against women.

There are no excuses for violence, neither in cases of war, nor colonial conflicts, supposed or confirmed.

Appealing to this distinction is in itself an act of aggression that deserves to be reflected on in the solitude of a dialogue with our own consciences.

Marta Marín-Dòmine is a writer, documentary director and former director of the Born Center de Cultura i Memòria in Barcelona.

You can follow

Babelia

on

Facebook

and

X

, or sign up here to receive

our weekly newsletter

.

Subscribe to continue reading

Read without limits

Keep reading

I am already a subscriber

_