To make a story of courtship, it has to be protracted – and within the traditional script that will depend on the woman’s continuing lack of compliance: she has to be difficult to woo. One way to achieve this is to set the story in the past. Dangerous Liaisons takes place in eighteenth-century France, where the grotesque physical displays of the period – the pushed-up breasts, powdered hair, hips in cages – mirror the artifice of the manners; both appearance and behaviour involve a fabulous exaggeration of notions of sexual difference. The plot centres on two seductions. The Marquise de Merteuil begs her friend the Vicomte to seduce and corrupt Cécile, the convent-educated innocent her former lover wants to marry; this is seduction as an act of revenge. The Vicomte then sets out to seduce a pious married woman – Michelle Pfeiffer as Madame de Tourvel, seething with delicately suppressed sexuality. The sadistic thrill comes from the clash between the male and female agendas; for the Vicomte, seduction is an elaborate game, but for the women who are the objects of his sexual interest, it’s a deadly serious thing.
Jane Campion’s film The Piano is also set in the past. Ada, the mute heroine, enters into a sexual bargain with George Baines, her taciturn neighbour: in order to buy her beloved piano back, she’ll do just what he says. He tells her to take off her stockings, then her dress to reveal her marvellously authentic whalebone petticoat, then all her clothes. It’s a formalization of a traditional courtship process that proceeds in stages dictated by the man, in which he gradually undresses and exposes her and learns her secrets; she’s there to be revealed and it’s his initiative that makes that happen. This is a film that strives for authenticity, not just in its relishing of the textures of the period – the lisle stockings with holes in, the greasy unwashed hair – but also in its recognition of the potential cruelty inherent in the gender roles of the time.
As with Dangerous Liaisons, the film’s erotic charge comes from its sadism: it’s the eroticism of male control. Once the bargain has been agreed, the man has all the power. The sadism is only tolerable because we know the outcome – that she’ll come to desire him, too. A lot of women loved it.
Where protracted courtship has a contemporary setting, the goal of courtship can’t simply be the sex. Today people make love too early in the process to allow space for much of a story. To make a narrative of it, the significance of making love has to be changed: there has to be a different consummation.
Pretty Woman gives the courtship theme a clever twist, restoring the kiss to its climactic place in the narrative. This is a Mills and Boon story from a decade or two ago: ‘and then he kissed her …’. Julia Roberts is a hooker whom Richard Gere pays to spend a week with him. She’s fallen for him; will he fall for her? As she’s a prostitute they have lots of sex anyway, but kissing is defined as more intimate than sex – something she doesn’t let her clients do. It’s only when she lets him kiss her that their relationship changes and becomes something more than a business arrangement.
Four Weddings and a Funeral is also about a courtship that proceeds beyond sex. Superficially, the film might seem to challenge gender stereotypes. Charles is a type of the new hesitant masculinity, all fluttering self-deprecation, and his story is a female one – the story of a search for a spouse, while Carrie is quite sexually assertive. But it’s his definition that matters: though they’ve made love twice, it’s only when he asks her to have a relationship with him that the courtship is completed. It all looks quite fresh and contemporary – but it’s really highly traditional. Men define what a relationship is about, men make the arrangements, and women are blameless whatever they do, so long as they remain indirect – however much pain they may cause by their failure to be clear about what they want. Carrie behaves very badly, and her sin is a failure of initiative: when her marriage breaks up, she doesn’t get in touch with Charles, though she knows he adores her: she simply turns up at his wedding.
In each of these films, the end of the courtship process isn’t sex but a re-definition. In Pretty Woman and Four Weddings and a Funeral, a private sexual arrangement becomes a publicly recognized love affair. In The Piano and Dangerous Liaisons, the courtship ends with the person who entered coldly into a sexual arrangement or contract falling in love. So the Vicomte, who seduced the virtuous Madame de Tourvel for the sheer pleasure of making her unvirtuous, falls in love with her, and in The Piano, Ada, as in all the best patriarchal fairytales, falls in love with her oppressor.
These films all supply intriguing glosses to the traditional narrative movement. Yet for all their variety, they only deviate within the conventional parameters. They explore different kinds of male sexual power: the cynical and sadistic power of the seducer, the financial power of the man who uses a prostitute, the erotically explicit control of the man who strikes a sexual bargain that allows him to make all the moves, and, in Four Weddings, the highly tentative and self-conscious instrumentality of Charles the New Man, who finds it such a struggle to do what a man’s gotta do. In all these love stories, it’s still the man who sets the terms of the bargain, makes the arrangements, defines, pursues, seduces. We’re playing around with the script, we’re self-conscious about it – but we aren’t yet going beyond it.
The seeds of change are there – in public and in private. Our favourite public love stories – the films we all go to see – are questioning the traditional roles, yet they rarely transcend them. And when people talk about their own courtship behaviour, they emphasize their deviations from the classic script, as though hungry for things to be different. But mostly it’s still men who make the initial moves. Yet, of course, there are women who initiate and there always have been. Who are these women and what can we learn from them?
‘When Gilgamesh had put on the crown, glorious Ishtar lifted her eyes, seeing the beauty of Gilgamesh. She said, “Come to me, Gilgamesh, and be my bridegroom; grant me seed of your body, let me be your bride and you shall be my husband …” ’
(Epic of Gilgamesh, 3000 BC)
A WOMAN writes erotic letters to a man. In a sexual initiative rare even between the most intimate partners, she shares her highly transgressive fantasies.
She says her imagination runs riot. She hopes he has the same unusual dreams as her. Sometimes, she says, she scares herself with what she really wants. She finds his inner violence a turn-on. She wants to know all about him, to learn his inner secrets.
She urges him to greater and greater intimacies, to an exposure of the depths of his psyche, of the most secret parts of himself. She wants to feel overwhelmed by him, so she’s completely in his power. She urges him to show less control. In fact, she says, she wouldn’t be scared if he’d committed acts of extreme violence. The revelation that he has this potential is something she longs for. ‘In certain ways,’ she writes, ‘I wish you had because it would make things easier for me … That’s the kind of man I want … .’
The woman was the policewoman known as ‘Lizzie James’. The man was Colin Stagg, who was under suspicion for the murder of Rachel Nickell on Wimbledon Common. The sexual letters were an elaborate entrapment technique devised by a forensic psychologist.1
‘Lizzie James’s’ use of a sexuality that has been invented for her in an attempt to elicit a confession from a man suspected of a sex crime is an extreme example of a time-honoured use of female initiative, where women make the first move in order to get men to confess to crimes or to give up their secrets. Mata Hari, the Belgian spy executed by the Germans in the First World War, was perhaps the most celebrated exponent of the art. During the Cold War, both sides recruited