While watching Dr. M's introduction to Le Bonheur and Alex Garland's three films, I found myself contemplating his point about how "modern psychologists and biologists routinely take the edge off of hurtful behavior". This line specifically struck me as I found myself shuffling through a Rolodex in my mind of every true crime special, TikTok deep dive, or form of media where I have witnessed licensed psychologists, in a sense, explain away violent behavior. I also immediately thought of the debate of nature vs. nurture and the implications of how that influences judgment of toxic behavior. I believe robbery, assault, and battery are more likely to be filed under the nurture category. In contrast, more violent crimes such as murder are classified as the perpetrators' nature. Why is it that when crime reaches a different level of violence, the purpose is innate to the person?
When Dr. M was describing Robert Bly’s book “Iron John: A Book About Men,” he pointed out an idea from the work, that “self-discipline and sobriety could coexist with an adventurous spirit,” and then pointed out the connection between this and a man being a good father. I don't often see “being a good father” used as motivation for men’s personal growth journeys, but women are often told that their purpose is to be a mother and that they couldn't possibly be fulfilled without children. While I'm sure this has been said to men too, I don't think it is stressed as heavily. However, even though society often places the stress of parenting onto mothers, there are men who strive to be the best fathers they can be, and all people who choose to have children deserve to have an equal partner in that journey.
In the video, Dr. M notes how Alex Garland’s films have a through line between them dealing with male aggression and vices, leading to toxic masculinity. I found myself recontextualizing these films as I only noticed this theme in Men the first time I saw it, as it's more obvious. Moreover, I always framed Ex Machina in my mind as a danger of technology/A.I. movie, but now I see I need to go back. I find the film to be even more impactful now as it shows I fell into the same false logic the characters did: seeing these complex living machines as a commodity and tool for use, not as a dangerous reflection of the innermost desires and sins of men.
Francois’ quote, which Dr. Marchbanks mentions, “When I love, I can stop,” though meant to be a declaration of his fidelity, actually describes his insatiable need for new, exciting romance. Francois attempts to satisfy himself by having both Therese and Emilie. I think that Varda’s depiction of Francois’ ideals demonstrates the notion that men inherently will always look for the next best thing. Francois’ presentation as a nice, typical family man makes the film more sinister because it shows that no one is safe from men’s natural instinct to pursue women. One troubling message that I often see spread over the media is the harmful idea that women are overly paranoid in their relationships, but Varda’s film demonstrates the precedent that causes women to be constantly questioning. Francois’ manipulation demonstrates why some women nowadays work harder to protect themselves from a betrayal that has been portrayed to them as inevitable.
Challenge fosters growth; with the correct mindset, it plants a seed that matures into a towering redwood, an extravagant flower, or a better person. Without the right outlook, development withers like an uncared-for seedling. Having a partner who seldom disagrees reinforces the notion that you are correct-an attribute that many (but not all) men value when choosing a partner. Due to fragile masculinity, these men seek to create a space of comfort that bypasses growth. For instance, Alex Garland’s 'Ex Machina' and Denis Villeneuve's 'Blade Runner 2049' illustrate fragile masculinity through male interaction with female characters programmed never to dissent. Learning alternative perspectives should be inherent to a healthy relationship. Without receptiveness, one's potential remains limited as a sugarcane seed in the Sahara.
*Le Bonheur* illustrates the disparity in how society values the happiness of men over that of women through the film’s use of a light, cheerful aesthetic that sharply contrasts with its more somber storyline. While more subtle than *Ex Machina* , *Le Bonheur* serves as an effective complement to the latter’s more overt intensity. Both films depict male characters who exploit female characters for superficial, transient joy. Despite François's pretense of caring for Thérèse's happiness, she remains burdened as the sole provider of emotional support in their relationship. Similarly, Emilie's initial interaction with François echoes Eva's experiences, where both women are seen primarily as instruments for male satisfaction.
Le bonheur illustrates a toxic male characteristic, where women are portrayed as replaceable and a commodity, that is seen as socially acceptable through both the conversation between John and the teenager at the carpentry shop. This is seen when John says "Once he has enjoyed one woman he will want many more" as well as through the physical replacement of Emilie in Francois' family after Theresa's death. This suggests that despite Francois portraying men's desires in a positive light, such as through feelings of love and happiness, these desires ultimately reduce women to mere objects, valuing them solely for the pleasure and gratification they provide, thus diminishing women's desire for family and monogamy as less important than a man's desire for pleasure with multiple women.
In a conversation that takes place in a Woodshop in Le Bonheur, John tells a teenager that his mind will shift on monogamy and “once he has enjoyed one woman he will want many more.” As Dr. M states, this ideology places women in a category akin to dolls placed on a shelf. I would add that the men in the film, particularly Francois, only see women in terms of what they add to their lives, rather than looking at them as full individuals. This plays out in the final scene of the movie, as Francois remains stoic about his wife's death. Emile goes on to take care of the children and even sleeps in the same bed Therese did. I see this misogyny still present today, as women are not always recognized for the unique characteristics they hold, and instead people fall in love with a false idea of who they are.
The propagation of toxic masculinity in our culture boils down to influences from our modern cultural environment as well as the environment at home. On one hand, boys look up to hero figures in their lives and model their attitudes towards women with them in mind. Parents also often feel pride rather than joy when their son brings his new girlfriend home. On the other hand, with the advent of dating apps and subsequent “window shopping” future partners, one feels forced to judge another person based on extremely shallow qualities (looks, proximity, etc.). In an increasingly isolated world, the illusion of more possibilities of a partner can greatly strain the ache of feeling alone, causing one to resent the people in their dating pool.
I have interacted with men who consider sleeping with a woman as a sort of trophy, the way a caveman might mount a mammoth skull on his wall. I have even known some men who bragged about taking a woman’s virginity, making the “trophy” even more valuable. Having an intimate moment with another human reduced to a “notch” on a proverbial belt reminded me why we use the term “toxic masculinity”. These interactions cement the objectification of women and disallow any meaningful conversation about male attitudes to sexual activity. Perhaps if society had not dictated to us from an early age that we must be aggressive and powerful, we could redirect our influence to combat these ideas and cultivate an image of healthy masculinity.
You argue that offenses, like theft or murder, are downplayed by “spotlighting extenuating circumstances”. I firmly disagree that environmental and social impacts resulting in an offense diminish its gravity. Revealing decades of systematic abuse, often leading to a crime, is more egregious than the crime itself. Perpetrators are products of their circumstances, and although their crimes cannot be excused, often signal a cry for help. By uncovering the reasons behind an aggressor’s actions, we can address broader societal issues and take deliberate steps to prevent future wrongdoings. When I volunteer in my sister’s classroom, I observe her asking students “why” they behaved a certain way, rather than resorting to strict discipline. This approach helps her students understand their actions and identify triggers prompting their behavior.
Having a companion that never disagrees or denies you is inherently counterproductive to personal growth. My parents, whom I consider having a strong relationship together, are inherently different people, which means disagreements are inevitable. This difference allows them to learn from each other; either new skills or how to do something in a way that the other would never think of. Having someone that would perpetually agree with whatever you say means that you will never grow beyond the current version of yourself. Becoming stagnant like that in a world that is constantly changing is an easy way to fall behind and I would much rather choose someone that will continue to grow with me.
I agree that conflict can cause growth in relationships, however, I don’t believe that it always will cause stagnation. In the film, Francois is in a happy, non-conflicting marriage with his wife. However, he still begins a relationship with Emilie. While this isn’t good growth, he isn’t he isn’t remaining stagnant. Francois even responds to Emilie that his “wife is not a habit” and that there are “surprises every day,” showing how a non-argumentative relationship still offers excitement. Their relationship is portrayed as idyllic, which is highlighted by the absence of harsh arguments. Therefore, with the peaceful relationship of Francois and Therese, there’s still room for change in the individual. I wouldn’t say that the change in Francois is growth, and rather that it is regression due to its immorality, but it still isn’t stagnation.
The question posed about taking a robot over real person is very similar to an ethical debate I had in a different class a few weeks ago. We discussed the pros and cons of the satisfaction you could receive, but we ultimately concluded that the majority of us want something to compare these experiences with. For example, we may not appreciate money if we have an endless flow of it. As a religious person, I believe in the importance of separating made-up interactions with genuine ones. I believe that my God gave us the responsibility to act morally correct with other human beings while allowing us to experience joy and pleasure together. We can create false happiness, but I think there is more to life.
God did not allow us to experience joy and pleasure based on our responsibility to act morally. At times, joy and pleasure come at the cost of morality. Infidelity is something that your god might consider immoral, yet to François in “Le Bonheur”, it brings him joy. When speaking to Émilie, he is happy with her yet becomes sad when she asks him about his wife (00:25:45). Ultimately, he compared his previous moral experience with his newfound sinful entanglement and concluded that he gets joy from the latter. If satisfaction can only be received through comparison to other experiences, why does sin bring joy when compared to virtuosity?
In Agnes Varda's, “Le Bonheur,” the final scene provokes a visceral reaction in viewers, prompting them to question the harsh realities of adultery and societal perceptions of women. Dr. M’s analysis delves into how the character’s objectification of women reinforces the notion of their expendability, likening them to dolls. The depiction of women as objects, displayed in both film and casual conversations, desensitizes society to their emotional complexity as a human before a woman. Fidelity is dismissed as naive through the young man in the film, normalizing rejecting loyalty to one’s spouse. It’s frustrating to recognize how many men are conditioned to view cheating as acceptable and perpetuate the harmful beliefs about women as disposable. “Le Bonheur” serves as a mirror to today’s society, urging viewers to examine the consequences of the attitudes we have placed upon men and women in our modern world.
Hi @maddiekavanaugh44, although the ending to the film does depict a rather instinctive conclusion, I have realized more of an insight on the reality of men which leans on the idea of men's inability to maintain satisfaction in romantic situations. Dr. M emphasizes the sexual desires of men always being heavily chased and therefore risks their intimate relations with partners and others in hopes to find a perfect compatibility with one another (which is non-existent). Throughout the film, it is seen that Francois makes several decisions that would come to lead to the death of his wife, and when he immediately establishes a new family relation with Emilie, he loses the emotional connection of partnering with the woman who bore his children. As we see the new family perfectly dressed and prancing through the woods, there is the proposal that men have continued this cycle of pursuing affairs to find true and full happiness, an issue in all societies that men have yet to overcome and has troubled many individuals with fear and doubt of finding a romantically loyal partner. Varda's film seems to target men's lack of awareness of a lady's emotional well-being rather than claiming women to be objects like dolls, as we are more focused on Francois perspective and interactions in most scenes.
I found myself agreeing with the take that toxic masculinity perpetuates generational struggles, leading to unhealthy family dynamics and misogynistic attitudes. I believe that clear communication is essential in relationships, to avoid misunderstandings and maintain healthy dynamics. This is not helped by the recent representation of media reinforcing toxic masculinity, and thereby derogatory behavior towards women. I believe that depicting this "toxic masculinity" in film requires a balancing act of presentation, that offers opportunities for viewer engagement. All and all though I believe that larger scale interventions are necessary to redefine gender norms and promote healthy expressions of masculinity, addressing the root causes of toxicity.
While I agree that clear communication is crucial in relationships, the issue depicted in the film “ Le Bonheur” was not poor communication, but selfishness. The lead character, Francois, communicated effectively with Emilie throughout their relationship-which may be why their story ended in success-and when confronted by Therese he was honest. He was clear with his intentions but was so consumed with his happiness that he did not consider how Therese and their children would be affected. He created excuses and metaphors, as explained by Dr. Marchbanks, to convince his wife, his lover, and himself that it was in everyone’s best interest for him to be in his happiest state. “Le Bonheur” displayed “toxic masculinity” by capturing rare moments of the female's perspective and emotions while Francois attempted to keep the viewer's attention on him.
The idea of having a non-human partner is scary as it directly correlates to the question: Do you behave due to the consequences of your actions enforced by society, or due to the instilled morals of what’s right and wrong? Society has seen examples across social media of the abuse of robots as they become more advanced, like the constant trashing of autonomous food delivery bots. While robots that are available to the general public haven’t taken a human resemblance yet, the signs and foreshadowing of abuse in the future are prevalent. The question that arises is if a personal robot is deemed to purely satisfy the customer, should there be limitations to those satisfactions?
Toxic masculinity and the actions and restrictions that result from it rob many of happiness. As a sociology student, I tend to emphasize environmental factors as explanations for wrongdoing; however, I agree that sexually violent acts don't deserve this lifeline of "extenuating circumstances". Social constructs that promote toxic masculinity and the objectification of women need societal-level resolution through redefining our concept of gender and re-education. Although, individually, there are consequences resulting from actions correlated with toxic masculinity. Men who seek docile women will not experience authentic love and sexually violent men today are more likely to be ostracized if not incarcerated. Furthermore, rigid gender norms that denounce a deeper connection with emotions and others will lead to unhappiness, dissatisfaction, and ultimately perpetuate harmful behavior.
Toxic masculinity manifests itself within a team setting when the leaders of the group are complacent to perpetuating chauvinistic attitudes. The vile comments deriving from locker room talk by younger players immediately halt when an older teammate speaks up. As an older member of the club soccer team, I’ve often advocated to younger teammates for respectful language that refrains from degrading women. By demonstrating that making demeaning comments wasn’t the ‘cool’ or ‘in’ thing to do, walls of toxic masculinity begin to crumble. When these younger players saw that a person they looked up to could make jokes while still being respectful, it opened up dialogue to decrease their dependence on sexist humor. While seemingly just a single drop in the bucket of toxic masculinity, modifying one’s language toward a respectful lexicon is an important first step in the right direction.
Agnès Varda’s Le Bonheur is horror at its most sarcastic. The audience is dragged through seventy-nine minutes of a man’s carnivorous pursuit of personal pleasure; with each passing scene, it becomes more clear that Varda will not give in to please the morals of the audience. Every part of the film’s composition, from the flashes of lurid color to the depictions of idyllic countryside, forecasts happiness. But this is a myopic vision: it does not see past the film’s supposed protagonist. Importantly, almost no screen time is given which would allow for the expression of the feelings or considerations of any other character. What a modern audience is familiar with, and what Varda satirizes here, is the ignorant bliss in which womanizing men live in.
In Varda's "Le Bonheur," Francois doesn't seem to realize when he's doing wrong. While this film is decades old, Francois' actions reflect a problem no less present today: subtle toxic masculinity. Francois goes after his own happiness without caring about how it affects his wife. The film explores how society accepts this kind of behavior from men. Men often pursue selfish interests without thinking about how it hurts others in ways so subtle even they don't acknowledge it. Varda's film prompts viewers to consider how toxic masculinity shows up in everyday life. Francois' obliviousness highlights this, prompting a call for greater awareness and accountability in addressing toxic masculinity's damaging effects on relationships and communities in all the ways it is presented.
Matthew, I would agree with you that Francois is pursuing his own happiness and generally not caring about the negative impact that this affair will have on his wife or family. However, I would argue that he is not oblivious to the overall situation, and knows how his wife may feel about it. He withheld telling his wife about Emilie for a little while, and when he eventually did tell her, he tried to downplay the situation and give reasons for his actions. This shows that Francois knew his wife would be upset about finding out about Emilie, and wasn't oblivious to how it could make her feel. In the country scene where Francois told Therese about the affair, he was showing a lot of happiness and sweetness as if to make up for and squash any bad feelings that Therese may have. By bringing up this affair in this manner, Francois again proves that he is not oblivious to how this may make Therese feel. However, even given that he knew his actions could hurt Therese, he still pursued Emilie, and put his own happiness first, as you stated above.
While Francois may seem to demonstrate a subtle toxic masculinity through his oblivious nature, I would argue that he was purposefully ignorant of his infidelity. I believe that in Agnès Varda’s film, Le Bonheur (1965), Francois displayed an illusion of happiness to deceive both himself and Thérèse, in order that he remained a saint during his disloyalty. Throughout the film, both Francois and Emilie discuss their happiness with each other, yet he doesn’t once ask Thérèse about her happiness. I interpret this as Francois utilizing his role as the leader of the family, so that Thérèse will naturally be happy if he consistently says that everything is sunshine and rainbows. Additionally, Francois lied to her about his obligations, such as working during the wedding, so that he can fulfill his sexual desires with another women. I find it skeptical that Francois felt true happiness while manipulating the women he loved so dearly.
I believe Francois does realize what he is doing is wrong. When Francois first meets his mistress for coffee he brings up his lunchbox, which symbolizes his wife, and jokingly suggests giving it to the lions or bears at the zoo-essentially offering to leave her to other men. His mistress goes on to ask about his wife, but Francois answers each question with a simple sentence and quickly returns to flirting with her and looking at surrounding women. This moment subtly reveals Francois' awareness of his betrayal by reflecting his thought process. In his mind, he briefly acknowledges his wife, but each time he ignores her and decides to pursue other women.
Centuries of toxic and harmful masculinity standards were rejected beginning in the 80's, particularly male aggression and commitment to family. Andrew Garland's films explore these vices, but from the extent I realize in this video, does not extend past condemning gender-based violence and objectification through gorey films. Now, society condemns men's emotional and physical abuse making Varda's work much more relevant to the present era and ahead of its time. Her work addresses the underlying misogyny and objectification in men's daily interactions and opinions. In the present era, it is more useful for progressive media to help men unlearn and address their toxic viewpoints and opinions than showing men the gore of sexual and power-based violence.
The claim that offensive jokes, female objectification, and sexual assault hinder the actualization of their potential is regrettably accurate. These circumstances effectively impose a metaphorical glass ceiling upon women. That is to say, “marginalizing” and “minimizing” women through sexism impede their sense of worth, which ultimately and eventually caps their success. In high school, my older sister and I excelled as a debating duo, among the best in the district. Given her seniority, I valued her guidance on presentation. She advised me at the start of my freshman year to maintain a calm demeanor and temper my passion, cautioning against the perception of women as overly emotional, which could affect our scores. It was disheartening to realize that while men could be assertive and aggressive, I had to speak with restraint. Her advice highlighted how toxic masculinity and the marginalization of women limited our potential.
While I agree that our patriarchal society constantly imposes double standards on women regarding their emotions and language, I believe that "Le Bonheur" shows that emotional maturity does not paint a full picture about a man's personality. In the film, we watch as Francois goes from making love with Emilie to going on a romantic walk with Therese within one scene change at (52:40). Francois appears to be completely content and emotionally available with Therese, despite the affair that we just watched him have. This shows that even though society often gives a free pass for men to have aggressive and combative tendencies, those behaviors are not required for men to inflict damage upon women. Sometimes men, such as Francois, use emotional calmness to their advantage to manipulate women.
Although eerie, your claim that malformed sexual impulses frequently lead to toxic masculinity is quite accurate. When men are left without any female scrutiny, sexist patronization and objectification frequently manifests itself. Whether alone, as in Alex Garland’s film Ex Machina, or in groups, as can be seen in the “locker-room talk” propagated by many of my peers, men often store nefarious beliefs in until they can be expressed in a setting that does not discourage them. This, in my opinion, is in large part due to the strong reinforcement in everyday media of a view of women as a means to sexual pleasure. The prevalence of fully nude women in film as a pose to men is only one of many instances supporting this view.
Love is surely not simply a feeling! It obligates joy-filled sacrifice and commitment to another's good, regardless of its reciprocation. In the Bible's notable chapter of love, Paul asserts "It (love) does not insist on its own way... it does not rejoice at wrongdoing," (1 Corinthians 13:5a,6a). In contrast to this definition, Agnes Varda's "Happiness" displays an ugly distortion of "love" that does insist on its own subjective happiness and rejoices at justifying infidelity, behind brightly colored scenes overlaid with a jovial, jarring score. Although easy to point fingers in frustration at the adulterous man's illogical reasoning, I believe the film also ought to cause us to reflect within ourselves and examine the flawed ways we love others.
Although I agree that a version of love portrayed within Le Bonheur (1965), is toxic in practice, using the example of 1 Corinthians is not an end all be all as a description of love. Observing the full passage (1 Corinthians 13:4-8 ESV), one would agree this is a valid way to interpret love, from romantic to familial, but it is easy to misuse this definition. If you asked François if the love he felt towards Thérèse and Émilie aligned with the bible, he would agree. He believes truth negates wrongdoing and he loves both women endlessly. We see François justifying this when he uses the metaphor of having 10 arms for her and extra for his mistress; he embraces the love he feels for both of them while being honest about his affair. Despite his attempted justification in this example and many others, the audience knows his logic is flawed. This is where the theme of toxic masculinity comes in, society does not offer repercussions for these actions therefore he is unable to recognize his version of love is truly flawed. Agnes Varda is showing that his masculine selfishness allows him to think this way without acknowledging that he is harming these women. By pointing fingers at men in the case of Le Bonheur, accountability for toxic masculinity allows us to best understand love personally and how we love others.
Varda displays four male perspectives on differing sexual fantasies disguised as preferences. Empty sexual interactions and flesh-based discrepancies hold no worth; they are merely as empty as the tawdry motives behind them. Suppose the gender roles in Le Bonheur were reversed. Four women speak of multiple docile and self-pleasing partners. Society would scrutinize them for their selfish desires, unlike in the actual everyday lives of most men. Women often seek selfless connection; not inclined to act in desire, they fulfill roles and fall into the arms of men who sacrifice love for ephemeral bliss. Happiness is not derived from pleasure. Pleasure is temporary and self-interested. Happiness isn't invariably romance but can be earned by building a virtuous partnership.
Toxic masculinity’s loyalty to dominance and control shows up in history and our daily lives in different ways; the presentation might not be the same but the impact has power. With the language used in conversation in discussing sex, for example, men do things to women, men f**k women. The context leans toward men being on the voluntary side of the act. The women are not participating, or have control during sex-the slightest change to, men having sex with women, rearranges the impact. More autonomy is given to women and the experience is shared among both parties. This limits toxic masculinity most casually, but altering language is significant for creating safe environments and cultivating a type of masculinity that promotes these healthy dynamics.
Through this film, I think Agnes Varda is trying to express the situation of women in society at that time. She questions whether this situation is reflected through the toxic masculinity of men - whether women truly have control over their lives, or if they are merely treated as accessories by men. Women can either be a fleeting moment in a man's life or a significant presence during that stage. However, when they are absent or do not fit into the periods that men "aspire" to, they are treated as "dolls" whose value diminishes in the eyes of men. They can be discarded at will, even if they remain loyal and committed to the men without any reservations.
Agnès film, Le Bonheur, may be set in a time period more keen to women taking a typical feminine role as portrayed in the movie, but much of what is depicted continues to be timely even in today’s progressive world. Throughout the film the wife of François, Thérèse, is shown performing very typical motherly tasks; Taking care of the kids, making the bed, cooking the food, etc.. François takes a typical fatherly roles by having a labor intensive carpentry job, shaving as his wife gives him a back rub, etc. François comes across Émilie who he describes as “an animal set free” compared to his wife, a “hardy plant,” both of which he admits to loving without shame or remorse in his admission to Émilie. His toxic masculine behavior allows him to admit to wanting both, and feels like it’s completely fine by saying, “I have enough joy for the both of you” to Émilie, with her only reaction being a reluctant smile. After confidently admitting to his wife Thérèse that his heart is big enough for two, she appears to take the news well at first, but later François finds her dead at the river. After her death, François runs back to Émilie who transitions from his secret “wild animal” of a lover, directly into the role his wife held, fully embracing her role by picking the kids up from school, doing the laundry, etc. Today, it may feel like a clear contrast to the time period of the film, but woman and men often are drawn into the same behaviors, whether that’s from generationally learned habits or out of pride. Woman don’t typical feel like it’s their job as a woman to do motherly tasks, but even woman who define themselves as feminists, continue do them because it makes them feel accomplished and gravitated toward.
In Dr. M’s introduction to “Le Bonheur,” he discusses Agnès Varda’s critique of toxic masculinity and the complexities of fidelity within the film. Varda’s lens does not romanticize philandering but rather exposes it as a symptom of societal norms that prioritize male desires and undermine the emotional well-being of women. François’s insistence on loving multiple women without consequence reflects deep-rooted entitlement ingrained in patriarchal gender norms. This is evident when François first indulges with Emelie, and associates momentary elation with true love, leading him to exploit multiple women due to societal permissiveness. This behavior reflects a conditioned male understanding that greed within romantic partners is typical. “Le Bonheur” exposes François’s behavior as a product of patriarchal stereotypes which enable advantageousness in intimacy and perpetuate female submissiveness.
I would agree that Varda does a significant job illustrating male desires in comparison to the feelings of women. However, I would disagree and say that Varda’s film also romanticizes philandering. Throughout the film, we see how François goes about his happy life with his wife while still managing his affair with Émelie. Even after Thérèse confronts François about his recent increase in happiness, François is able to reveal the truth, claiming it as a natural instinct. I believe François's character portrays philandering as part of being a loving man, and this continues with his other love, Emelie, and his kids after the death of his wife. Varda’s lens casts philandering in such a positive light with uplifting scores, yet the audience can see through that lens and understand the true sadness of the story for the women.
Toxic masculinity is a generational struggle. Throughout history, there have been specific expectations in regards to manliness and the portrayal of masculine paragons. For example, men are often praised for “controlling” their emotions, creating an illusion that men are weak if they cry or express sensitivity. However, this detachment makes it hard for men to connect with their wives on an emotional level. These stoic fathers pass their behaviors onto their sons, who grow up watching this conventional yet unhealthy family dynamic. As traditional fathers expect their wives to maintain an inferior role in the household, their sons will adopt this misogynistic attitude, causing the cycle of toxic masculinity to repeat itself.
I do not completely disagree with this comment but I do believe that it takes a far too drastic stance and misdefines toxic masculinity. Toxic masculinity is not good, however I do not believe that the traditional gender roles of a man all fall under this toxic masculinity umbrella term. You claim that the notion that men should control their emotions is toxically masculine and places a divide in their relationship with a spouse. While never letting your emotions present themselves outwardly is certainly unhealthy, I believe men should exercise some degree of control over their emotions in order to experience success in providing for their family. Other men will take them more seriously and will have more respect for them and it is my belief that most women would prefer a man that can manage their emotions more-so than one that lets their emotions fly at any given opportunity. While fully adopting traditional gender roles without regard for this modern and ever-changing wold we live in can be considered toxically masculine, fully rejecting these roles could lead to broken families. Children that grow up without some degree of masculinity modeled for them in their father are provided a disservice.
I recently managed a boy’s water polo tournament. During one dogpile for the ball, an athlete stopped and turned to the referee in rage. “Hey ref, are you gonna call the f*cking foul or what?!” The twelve-year-old was promptly given a red card. As he exited the pool, his mother called out, “We heard you baby, good job!” I pitied him. He was still learning to control his emotions in a high-pressure situation. Judging by his mom’s misplaced reassurance, it didn’t seem like she was much help either. You argue that in the lens of toxic masculinity, controlling one's emotions equates to repressing sensitivity. However, this boy expressed sensitivity by definition. His feelings were hurt because he thought the game was unfair and wasted no time vocalizing it in the form of anger. His emotions were not in control, yet still earned the type of praise that perpetuates toxic masculinity. Francois from Le Bonheur (1965) embodies toxic masculinity while acting sensitive to everyone’s “needs”: his own, Therese’s, and Emilie’s. He validates Emilie by saying he would’ve married her had they met first. He reassures Therese that he’ll leave Emilie if she so wishes. In these scenarios, Francois’s “sensitivity” makes him blind. He speaks so assuredly of himself. He even hops, skips, and jumps down the street to Emilie’s apartment, genuinely unaware of the magnitude of his actions. As seen by these two scenarios, repressing sensitivity is not a direct item of toxic masculinity.
The idea of how to present toxic masculinity requires a tightrope walk in terms of approach. As mentioned in the video, you can go the subtle route or the more obvious way of showing awful cringe-worthy men in films. In the film, Gaslight we see a great exhibition of toxic masculinity in a way that engages the viewer while simultaneously creating a sense of rage and hatred. While in films it is somewhat amusing to show toxicity obviously, it is more thought and feeling-provoking to showcase the behavior subtly. When the viewer has to pay attention to the small details and consider how the affected party is from the behavior more engagement can be attained.
While I agree that “Le Bonheur” addresses a sexist’s “ravenous self-interest,” I think don’t think François actively “refuses to say ‘no’ to its… cravings;” I think he’s unaware that he should refuse, sometimes, for others’ sakes. Thérèse is “‘[a]lways doing what [he’d] like [her] to do,’” caring for the house and kids and taking the sewing jobs he chooses, while François skips social obligations to woo Emilie. Emilie tells him “‘one thing [she’s] afraid of is to take someone else’s place,’” yet the film ends with her going through Thérèse’s same domestic motions as François’s life continues almost uninterrupted. The way he holds both women, clutching and petting their necks, imputes to his love a mindless possessiveness with an undercurrent of thoughtless threat; he wants, therefore he grabs. Francois is oblivious to any suffering and sacrifices he’s wrought upon others, so he never confronts himself; his self-interest consumes everyone’s lives.
Hi @abbydenton7844, while I do like this interpretation of Francois' motivations, I believe he is aware of the consequences of his affair, he simply sees them as a non-issue. One scene that comes to mind is the fact that Francois, when talking with his coworkers about women, chooses to disagree with John about how "once you enjoy one woman, you'll want more." To me, it serves to reveal how, to a degree, Francois knows his affair with Emilie is bad. If he was truly unaware of the consequences of his infidelity, there is no reason for him to position himself against John's statement. In the end, however, he simply does not care enough to stop his infidelity. Why else would he try to convince Therese that his affair is not something to worry about. Simple: it is because he actively wants both women, as to him, that would be his "happiness."
All human actions are driven by the pursuit of self-interest; however, it is in the inability for complex thought beyond the temptations of simple and immediate pleasures that the concept of toxic masculinity lies. Alex Garland’s Ex Machina critiques this idea through the irony that the human male characters are the only ones enslaved to their programming, shortsighted by their sexual and violent biological urges. I believe that Agnes Varda’s Le Bonheur, despite being of an entirely different genre and time period, conveys a strikingly similar message in the subtlety of her film. In the movie, Francois displays a disgusting lack of self-awareness and discipline through his shallow understanding of love as merely a sexual desire to be blindly sought after. As he states it, “when I love, I can’t stop.” However, his attempts to eat his cake and have it too, end with the death of his wife and him struck in the exact same position as he was at the beginning of the film. Through this portrayal of his inability to find true bonheur, Varda displays the harmfulness and myopic greed of the toxic masculine mindset of thinking with one’s boner. Ultimately, both Varda and Garland display how until these organic machines can learn self-consciousness, they are doomed, to the detriment of all, to succumb to “the ravenous self-interest that refuses to say no to its own cravings” (Dr. Marchbanks).
I take some issue with the idea that there must be a “universal truth” towards the handling of relationships in the context of monogamy versus polyamory. The topic generates controversy, as in our modern culture, monogamy is seen as the “correct” choice, when for many it doesn’t quite fit. Part of the problem stems from the culture passed down through the West’s Christian background, but if there is clear communication between all members of a relationship, that can be a healthy one. If a person is interested in “casual sex” and independence, rather than being in a committed relationship, this is also ok as long as that boundary is set. It’s a lack of communication or lying that turns what could be good into bad.
While I agree that there may not be a “universal truth” towards handling monogamy versus polyamory relationships, I don’t think that communication is the only factor that goes into determining whether the relationship is healthy or not. As seen in Le Bonheur, François goes a month without telling Thérèse, his wife, that there is another female in the picture. When he finally does communicate and tell her that he has been having an affair, she ends up dead with a strong implication that she has taken her own life. While learning of the truth is what most likely caused this, the communication and telling the truth by François did not help at all.This polyamory relationship most likely would not have ever worked out even if there was better communication. Le Bonheur tackles the concept of toxic masculinity through the relationships François has. When François puts his own happiness and temptations over that of his wife’s, we see how much this affected her. It is also clear how despite Thérèse’s death, François is able to go on living a perfect life as he “traded” one woman for another.
I disagree, I believe that there are truths in the world, monogamy being one of them. I believe Le Bonheur tries to demonstrate this in how Thérèse takes her own life when she learns that her husband, who she has children with, in in love and has been sleeping with another woman. Aside from an appeal to the Bible, or general human traditions, I would argue that monogamy is right because humans are in a practical sense made for monogamy, based on the need for two committed parents to support offspring for many years until they can fend for themselves. Continuing the movie's example, not only is Thérèse destroyed by François's infidelity, but ultimately their kids will suffer too when they learn what he did. I would further argue that a polygamous lifestyle will always be a detriment to one's kids, as they will lack the stability of having a singular mom and dad who are committed to one another. Lastly, from a moral standpoint I would argue that in a polygamous "marriage" or relationship, fidelity is already gone: what is to stop them from adding another person to the group?
When tackling toxic masculinity in Agnes Vardas, “Le Bonheur,” the trait is portrayed more subtly than in newer films, media, or the current image that it paints. Today, the term "toxic masculinity" is used to describe individuals who regard women as inferior, believe expressing emotions diminishes their manliness, or avoid engaging in behaviors that make them appear less masculine. In “Le Bonheur,” Francois carries an arrogance that puts his own needs at the center of the world, using women to supplement his life. Francois articulates what he is feeling consistently to both Emilie and Terese throughout the film, but his toxic masculinity shines through as the women in his life are used to appease himself, rather than a true partnership.
The culprit at fault for perpetuating toxic masculinity is nobody except for the man himself. Yes, the consequences of toxic masculinity linger and severely impact the women, and other men, around the man who is sustaining this sort of behavior but ultimately the feelings that lead to toxic masculinity have nothing to do with women and everything to do with men. Throughout the film, Francois does not necessarily assume any of the household duties and they are usually left to Therese. A part of toxic masculinity is rejecting "untraditional" gender roles leading to men expecting their wives or girlfriends to care for the home and the children while they go out and work. Men usually also believe that performing the duties usually performed by women emasculates them and that is why when toxic masculinity is showcased, the effects of it are arguably more damaging for the women in their lives than they are for the man himself.
I would disagree that toxic masculinity is subtly portrayed in "Le Bonheur" and rather suggest that its portrayal is the focus of the film and quite easily identifiable. In much of modern media I've noticed that toxically masculine main characters will at least feel some shade of guilt for their wrongdoings to the women in their lives. This is not always the case, but given that Francois does not hold a shred of regret for the unfaithful nature of his relationship after the passing of his wife and nonchalantly breaks it to her before her passing that he has a mistress, I think this film was evidently shining a spotlight on the toxic nature of his character. He does whatever he wants without regard for the impact on the women he holds relationships with. This male utopia that Francois is living in that is driven by personal happiness and is void of repercussions for his actions takes such a strong stance on toxic masculinity, even stronger than that of the films produced in the present, more progressive era.
Sadly, the reality described by Dr. M in Ex Machina is not as far from the truth as we would like it to be. While the exact situation of Ex Machina is true Science Fiction at the moment, the principle of the matter remains. We need not look very far back in history to find many examples of rulers or men of power doing much the same as the designer in Ex Machina. Whether it be the harem of a Turkish ruler or even the popular myth of Droit du seigneur, stories and instances of men abusing their power over women are not rare. While it obviously can not be supposed that these abuses are the natural state of human relations, it does seem like power over others will bring out the absolute worst of abuses in humanity. The phrase absolute power corrupts absolutely, while popular is, at best, a correlation of selective reporting. Power is not an inherently corrupting force, I believe it more to be a revealing one. Any person, given absolute power, will reveal the true nature of their self and their desires. Many have failed that test throughout history, and many more will in the future. I just hope that the first person to create real artificial intelligence in our world does not follow in that same mold.
While Ex Machina certainly finds some poignant truths about society in its discussion about masculinity and AI, I find it a very depressing view of the human condition. Presenting two heterosexual men and the automatons they create, then drawing conclusions about broader society would be inane, even from a statistics mindset. The film specifically mentions that the Nathan Bateman, the billionaire CEO, chooses Caleb Smith, the man he invites to the compound, because of the data collected about his sexual history and preference. Straight men are no longer the only demographic with power and society continues to diversify in order to learn from vast human perspectives.
Le Bonheur subtly portrays toxic masculinity with precision, reflecting a global imbalance where a man's happiness often outweighs a woman's happiness, perpetuating a cultural stigma. Francois prioritizes his own happiness without considering Therese's well-being. This bias is shown in the film, particularly in the aftermath of Therese's death, where others immediately offer childcare duties, exempting Francois. Throughout, Therese assumes household responsibilities, while Francois is not expected to do more than activities with them. Francois' request for Emilie to love his children implies an expectation for her to shoulder Therese's roles without equal effort from him. This dynamic underscores societal expectations that overlook a woman's contributions, continuing an unequal distribution of responsibility and emotional burden.
I agree that Le Bonheur (1965) examines the imbalance and implications of toxic masculinity, but the film’s narrative encourages a deeper reflection of happiness, rather than attributing Francois’ actions solely to societal expectations. Upon his second visit to Emilie, she inquiries about his happiness at home- he replies that he is happy and in love with Therese, but that he also loves Emilie. The compositional contrast displayed in the film reflects the respective emotions he feels with each woman. In scenes with Therese, the use of brighter lighting and calmer colors suggests his comfort and familiarity with their love. When depicted with Emilie, more shadows are apparent in the lighting, alongside more vivid colors, highlighting the appeal of a more wild and passionate love. The divergence of these two styles illustrates the root of his actions as an internal search for an elusive happiness, rather than a bid to conform to the societal image of masculinity. Francois’ quest for love is driven by a deep desire for complete emotional fulfillment, evidenced by his experience of two distinct “happinesses” with each women. His metaphorical comparison of love to an apple orchard reflects his belief that love and happiness are ever-expanding, and that extending his love to two women will satisfy the fulfillment he seeks. This film encourages reflection on the natural human desire to pursue happiness, while simultaneously challenging the way traditional masculine stereotypes may play a role.
While I agree that Le Bonheur portrays the inevitable problems that polygamous relationships present, I do not believe that it perpetuates “cultural stigma”. Francis is shown to be a gracious, gentle, and loving man to his family and friends. He is the "perfect” husband and man to a perfectly happy family. Varda makes it abundantly clear that this affair does not stem from fiendish, sexual, or pervasive masculine desire nor does it come from problems within the marriage. Francois is simply following his heart, and he fails to consider that even if he stays honest his actions may wear away at others emotionally. When Therese dies and others offer to care for the kids this is because Francois needs to continue his work, he still wants to care for the kids. I believe this film explores an often-overlooked idea when thinking about polygamy, and that is the question “If a man were completely honest in his intentions and actions could polygamy work out?” Varda shows us in the death of Therese that polygamy is unnatural and cannot be sustained even by a “perfect” man.
![Lil Uzi Vert - Chill Bae [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/D7F42F_JM3U/mqdefault.jpg)
While watching Dr. M's introduction to Le Bonheur and Alex Garland's three films, I found myself contemplating his point about how "modern psychologists and biologists routinely take the edge off of hurtful behavior". This line specifically struck me as I found myself shuffling through a Rolodex in my mind of every true crime special, TikTok deep dive, or form of media where I have witnessed licensed psychologists, in a sense, explain away violent behavior. I also immediately thought of the debate of nature vs. nurture and the implications of how that influences judgment of toxic behavior. I believe robbery, assault, and battery are more likely to be filed under the nurture category. In contrast, more violent crimes such as murder are classified as the perpetrators' nature. Why is it that when crime reaches a different level of violence, the purpose is innate to the person?
When Dr. M was describing Robert Bly’s book “Iron John: A Book About Men,” he pointed out an idea from the work, that “self-discipline and sobriety could coexist with an adventurous spirit,” and then pointed out the connection between this and a man being a good father. I don't often see “being a good father” used as motivation for men’s personal growth journeys, but women are often told that their purpose is to be a mother and that they couldn't possibly be fulfilled without children. While I'm sure this has been said to men too, I don't think it is stressed as heavily. However, even though society often places the stress of parenting onto mothers, there are men who strive to be the best fathers they can be, and all people who choose to have children deserve to have an equal partner in that journey.
In the video, Dr. M notes how Alex Garland’s films have a through line between them dealing with male aggression and vices, leading to toxic masculinity. I found myself recontextualizing these films as I only noticed this theme in Men the first time I saw it, as it's more obvious. Moreover, I always framed Ex Machina in my mind as a danger of technology/A.I. movie, but now I see I need to go back. I find the film to be even more impactful now as it shows I fell into the same false logic the characters did: seeing these complex living machines as a commodity and tool for use, not as a dangerous reflection of the innermost desires and sins of men.
Francois’ quote, which Dr. Marchbanks mentions, “When I love, I can stop,” though meant to be a declaration of his fidelity, actually describes his insatiable need for new, exciting romance. Francois attempts to satisfy himself by having both Therese and Emilie. I think that Varda’s depiction of Francois’ ideals demonstrates the notion that men inherently will always look for the next best thing. Francois’ presentation as a nice, typical family man makes the film more sinister because it shows that no one is safe from men’s natural instinct to pursue women. One troubling message that I often see spread over the media is the harmful idea that women are overly paranoid in their relationships, but Varda’s film demonstrates the precedent that causes women to be constantly questioning. Francois’ manipulation demonstrates why some women nowadays work harder to protect themselves from a betrayal that has been portrayed to them as inevitable.
Challenge fosters growth; with the correct mindset, it plants a seed that matures into a towering redwood, an extravagant flower, or a better person. Without the right outlook, development withers like an uncared-for seedling. Having a partner who seldom disagrees reinforces the notion that you are correct-an attribute that many (but not all) men value when choosing a partner. Due to fragile masculinity, these men seek to create a space of comfort that bypasses growth. For instance, Alex Garland’s 'Ex Machina' and Denis Villeneuve's 'Blade Runner 2049' illustrate fragile masculinity through male interaction with female characters programmed never to dissent. Learning alternative perspectives should be inherent to a healthy relationship. Without receptiveness, one's potential remains limited as a sugarcane seed in the Sahara.
*Le Bonheur* illustrates the disparity in how society values the happiness of men over that of women through the film’s use of a light, cheerful aesthetic that sharply contrasts with its more somber storyline. While more subtle than *Ex Machina* , *Le Bonheur* serves as an effective complement to the latter’s more overt intensity. Both films depict male characters who exploit female characters for superficial, transient joy. Despite François's pretense of caring for Thérèse's happiness, she remains burdened as the sole provider of emotional support in their relationship. Similarly, Emilie's initial interaction with François echoes Eva's experiences, where both women are seen primarily as instruments for male satisfaction.
Le bonheur illustrates a toxic male characteristic, where women are portrayed as replaceable and a commodity, that is seen as socially acceptable through both the conversation between John and the teenager at the carpentry shop. This is seen when John says "Once he has enjoyed one woman he will want many more" as well as through the physical replacement of Emilie in Francois' family after Theresa's death. This suggests that despite Francois portraying men's desires in a positive light, such as through feelings of love and happiness, these desires ultimately reduce women to mere objects, valuing them solely for the pleasure and gratification they provide, thus diminishing women's desire for family and monogamy as less important than a man's desire for pleasure with multiple women.
In a conversation that takes place in a Woodshop in Le Bonheur, John tells a teenager that his mind will shift on monogamy and “once he has enjoyed one woman he will want many more.” As Dr. M states, this ideology places women in a category akin to dolls placed on a shelf. I would add that the men in the film, particularly Francois, only see women in terms of what they add to their lives, rather than looking at them as full individuals. This plays out in the final scene of the movie, as Francois remains stoic about his wife's death. Emile goes on to take care of the children and even sleeps in the same bed Therese did. I see this misogyny still present today, as women are not always recognized for the unique characteristics they hold, and instead people fall in love with a false idea of who they are.
The propagation of toxic masculinity in our culture boils down to influences from our modern cultural environment as well as the environment at home. On one hand, boys look up to hero figures in their lives and model their attitudes towards women with them in mind. Parents also often feel pride rather than joy when their son brings his new girlfriend home. On the other hand, with the advent of dating apps and subsequent “window shopping” future partners, one feels forced to judge another person based on extremely shallow qualities (looks, proximity, etc.). In an increasingly isolated world, the illusion of more possibilities of a partner can greatly strain the ache of feeling alone, causing one to resent the people in their dating pool.
I have interacted with men who consider sleeping with a woman as a sort of trophy, the way a caveman might mount a mammoth skull on his wall. I have even known some men who bragged about taking a woman’s virginity, making the “trophy” even more valuable. Having an intimate moment with another human reduced to a “notch” on a proverbial belt reminded me why we use the term “toxic masculinity”. These interactions cement the objectification of women and disallow any meaningful conversation about male attitudes to sexual activity. Perhaps if society had not dictated to us from an early age that we must be aggressive and powerful, we could redirect our influence to combat these ideas and cultivate an image of healthy masculinity.
You argue that offenses, like theft or murder, are downplayed by “spotlighting extenuating circumstances”. I firmly disagree that environmental and social impacts resulting in an offense diminish its gravity. Revealing decades of systematic abuse, often leading to a crime, is more egregious than the crime itself. Perpetrators are products of their circumstances, and although their crimes cannot be excused, often signal a cry for help. By uncovering the reasons behind an aggressor’s actions, we can address broader societal issues and take deliberate steps to prevent future wrongdoings. When I volunteer in my sister’s classroom, I observe her asking students “why” they behaved a certain way, rather than resorting to strict discipline. This approach helps her students understand their actions and identify triggers prompting their behavior.
Having a companion that never disagrees or denies you is inherently counterproductive to personal growth. My parents, whom I consider having a strong relationship together, are inherently different people, which means disagreements are inevitable. This difference allows them to learn from each other; either new skills or how to do something in a way that the other would never think of. Having someone that would perpetually agree with whatever you say means that you will never grow beyond the current version of yourself. Becoming stagnant like that in a world that is constantly changing is an easy way to fall behind and I would much rather choose someone that will continue to grow with me.
I agree that conflict can cause growth in relationships, however, I don’t believe that it always will cause stagnation. In the film, Francois is in a happy, non-conflicting marriage with his wife. However, he still begins a relationship with Emilie. While this isn’t good growth, he isn’t he isn’t remaining stagnant. Francois even responds to Emilie that his “wife is not a habit” and that there are “surprises every day,” showing how a non-argumentative relationship still offers excitement. Their relationship is portrayed as idyllic, which is highlighted by the absence of harsh arguments. Therefore, with the peaceful relationship of Francois and Therese, there’s still room for change in the individual. I wouldn’t say that the change in Francois is growth, and rather that it is regression due to its immorality, but it still isn’t stagnation.
The question posed about taking a robot over real person is very similar to an ethical debate I had in a different class a few weeks ago. We discussed the pros and cons of the satisfaction you could receive, but we ultimately concluded that the majority of us want something to compare these experiences with. For example, we may not appreciate money if we have an endless flow of it. As a religious person, I believe in the importance of separating made-up interactions with genuine ones. I believe that my God gave us the responsibility to act morally correct with other human beings while allowing us to experience joy and pleasure together. We can create false happiness, but I think there is more to life.
God did not allow us to experience joy and pleasure based on our responsibility to act morally. At times, joy and pleasure come at the cost of morality. Infidelity is something that your god might consider immoral, yet to François in “Le Bonheur”, it brings him joy. When speaking to Émilie, he is happy with her yet becomes sad when she asks him about his wife (00:25:45). Ultimately, he compared his previous moral experience with his newfound sinful entanglement and concluded that he gets joy from the latter. If satisfaction can only be received through comparison to other experiences, why does sin bring joy when compared to virtuosity?
In Agnes Varda's, “Le Bonheur,” the final scene provokes a visceral reaction in viewers, prompting them to question the harsh realities of adultery and societal perceptions of women. Dr. M’s analysis delves into how the character’s objectification of women reinforces the notion of their expendability, likening them to dolls. The depiction of women as objects, displayed in both film and casual conversations, desensitizes society to their emotional complexity as a human before a woman. Fidelity is dismissed as naive through the young man in the film, normalizing rejecting loyalty to one’s spouse. It’s frustrating to recognize how many men are conditioned to view cheating as acceptable and perpetuate the harmful beliefs about women as disposable. “Le Bonheur” serves as a mirror to today’s society, urging viewers to examine the consequences of the attitudes we have placed upon men and women in our modern world.
Hi @maddiekavanaugh44, although the ending to the film does depict a rather instinctive conclusion, I have realized more of an insight on the reality of men which leans on the idea of men's inability to maintain satisfaction in romantic situations. Dr. M emphasizes the sexual desires of men always being heavily chased and therefore risks their intimate relations with partners and others in hopes to find a perfect compatibility with one another (which is non-existent). Throughout the film, it is seen that Francois makes several decisions that would come to lead to the death of his wife, and when he immediately establishes a new family relation with Emilie, he loses the emotional connection of partnering with the woman who bore his children. As we see the new family perfectly dressed and prancing through the woods, there is the proposal that men have continued this cycle of pursuing affairs to find true and full happiness, an issue in all societies that men have yet to overcome and has troubled many individuals with fear and doubt of finding a romantically loyal partner. Varda's film seems to target men's lack of awareness of a lady's emotional well-being rather than claiming women to be objects like dolls, as we are more focused on Francois perspective and interactions in most scenes.
I found myself agreeing with the take that toxic masculinity perpetuates generational struggles, leading to unhealthy family dynamics and misogynistic attitudes. I believe that clear communication is essential in relationships, to avoid misunderstandings and maintain healthy dynamics. This is not helped by the recent representation of media reinforcing toxic masculinity, and thereby derogatory behavior towards women. I believe that depicting this "toxic masculinity" in film requires a balancing act of presentation, that offers opportunities for viewer engagement. All and all though I believe that larger scale interventions are necessary to redefine gender norms and promote healthy expressions of masculinity, addressing the root causes of toxicity.
While I agree that clear communication is crucial in relationships, the issue depicted in the film “ Le Bonheur” was not poor communication, but selfishness. The lead character, Francois, communicated effectively with Emilie throughout their relationship-which may be why their story ended in success-and when confronted by Therese he was honest. He was clear with his intentions but was so consumed with his happiness that he did not consider how Therese and their children would be affected. He created excuses and metaphors, as explained by Dr. Marchbanks, to convince his wife, his lover, and himself that it was in everyone’s best interest for him to be in his happiest state. “Le Bonheur” displayed “toxic masculinity” by capturing rare moments of the female's perspective and emotions while Francois attempted to keep the viewer's attention on him.
The idea of having a non-human partner is scary as it directly correlates to the question: Do you behave due to the consequences of your actions enforced by society, or due to the instilled morals of what’s right and wrong? Society has seen examples across social media of the abuse of robots as they become more advanced, like the constant trashing of autonomous food delivery bots. While robots that are available to the general public haven’t taken a human resemblance yet, the signs and foreshadowing of abuse in the future are prevalent. The question that arises is if a personal robot is deemed to purely satisfy the customer, should there be limitations to those satisfactions?
Toxic masculinity and the actions and restrictions that result from it rob many of happiness. As a sociology student, I tend to emphasize environmental factors as explanations for wrongdoing; however, I agree that sexually violent acts don't deserve this lifeline of "extenuating circumstances". Social constructs that promote toxic masculinity and the objectification of women need societal-level resolution through redefining our concept of gender and re-education. Although, individually, there are consequences resulting from actions correlated with toxic masculinity. Men who seek docile women will not experience authentic love and sexually violent men today are more likely to be ostracized if not incarcerated. Furthermore, rigid gender norms that denounce a deeper connection with emotions and others will lead to unhappiness, dissatisfaction, and ultimately perpetuate harmful behavior.
Toxic masculinity manifests itself within a team setting when the leaders of the group are complacent to perpetuating chauvinistic attitudes. The vile comments deriving from locker room talk by younger players immediately halt when an older teammate speaks up. As an older member of the club soccer team, I’ve often advocated to younger teammates for respectful language that refrains from degrading women. By demonstrating that making demeaning comments wasn’t the ‘cool’ or ‘in’ thing to do, walls of toxic masculinity begin to crumble. When these younger players saw that a person they looked up to could make jokes while still being respectful, it opened up dialogue to decrease their dependence on sexist humor. While seemingly just a single drop in the bucket of toxic masculinity, modifying one’s language toward a respectful lexicon is an important first step in the right direction.
Agnès Varda’s Le Bonheur is horror at its most sarcastic. The audience is dragged through seventy-nine minutes of a man’s carnivorous pursuit of personal pleasure; with each passing scene, it becomes more clear that Varda will not give in to please the morals of the audience. Every part of the film’s composition, from the flashes of lurid color to the depictions of idyllic countryside, forecasts happiness. But this is a myopic vision: it does not see past the film’s supposed protagonist. Importantly, almost no screen time is given which would allow for the expression of the feelings or considerations of any other character. What a modern audience is familiar with, and what Varda satirizes here, is the ignorant bliss in which womanizing men live in.
In Varda's "Le Bonheur," Francois doesn't seem to realize when he's doing wrong. While this film is decades old, Francois' actions reflect a problem no less present today: subtle toxic masculinity. Francois goes after his own happiness without caring about how it affects his wife. The film explores how society accepts this kind of behavior from men. Men often pursue selfish interests without thinking about how it hurts others in ways so subtle even they don't acknowledge it. Varda's film prompts viewers to consider how toxic masculinity shows up in everyday life. Francois' obliviousness highlights this, prompting a call for greater awareness and accountability in addressing toxic masculinity's damaging effects on relationships and communities in all the ways it is presented.
Matthew, I would agree with you that Francois is pursuing his own happiness and generally not caring about the negative impact that this affair will have on his wife or family. However, I would argue that he is not oblivious to the overall situation, and knows how his wife may feel about it. He withheld telling his wife about Emilie for a little while, and when he eventually did tell her, he tried to downplay the situation and give reasons for his actions. This shows that Francois knew his wife would be upset about finding out about Emilie, and wasn't oblivious to how it could make her feel. In the country scene where Francois told Therese about the affair, he was showing a lot of happiness and sweetness as if to make up for and squash any bad feelings that Therese may have. By bringing up this affair in this manner, Francois again proves that he is not oblivious to how this may make Therese feel. However, even given that he knew his actions could hurt Therese, he still pursued Emilie, and put his own happiness first, as you stated above.
While Francois may seem to demonstrate a subtle toxic masculinity through his oblivious nature, I would argue that he was purposefully ignorant of his infidelity. I believe that in Agnès Varda’s film, Le Bonheur (1965), Francois displayed an illusion of happiness to deceive both himself and Thérèse, in order that he remained a saint during his disloyalty. Throughout the film, both Francois and Emilie discuss their happiness with each other, yet he doesn’t once ask Thérèse about her happiness. I interpret this as Francois utilizing his role as the leader of the family, so that Thérèse will naturally be happy if he consistently says that everything is sunshine and rainbows. Additionally, Francois lied to her about his obligations, such as working during the wedding, so that he can fulfill his sexual desires with another women. I find it skeptical that Francois felt true happiness while manipulating the women he loved so dearly.
I believe Francois does realize what he is doing is wrong. When Francois first meets his mistress for coffee he brings up his lunchbox, which symbolizes his wife, and jokingly suggests giving it to the lions or bears at the zoo-essentially offering to leave her to other men. His mistress goes on to ask about his wife, but Francois answers each question with a simple sentence and quickly returns to flirting with her and looking at surrounding women. This moment subtly reveals Francois' awareness of his betrayal by reflecting his thought process. In his mind, he briefly acknowledges his wife, but each time he ignores her and decides to pursue other women.
Centuries of toxic and harmful masculinity standards were rejected beginning in the 80's, particularly male aggression and commitment to family. Andrew Garland's films explore these vices, but from the extent I realize in this video, does not extend past condemning gender-based violence and objectification through gorey films. Now, society condemns men's emotional and physical abuse making Varda's work much more relevant to the present era and ahead of its time. Her work addresses the underlying misogyny and objectification in men's daily interactions and opinions. In the present era, it is more useful for progressive media to help men unlearn and address their toxic viewpoints and opinions than showing men the gore of sexual and power-based violence.
The claim that offensive jokes, female objectification, and sexual assault hinder the actualization of their potential is regrettably accurate. These circumstances effectively impose a metaphorical glass ceiling upon women. That is to say, “marginalizing” and “minimizing” women through sexism impede their sense of worth, which ultimately and eventually caps their success. In high school, my older sister and I excelled as a debating duo, among the best in the district. Given her seniority, I valued her guidance on presentation. She advised me at the start of my freshman year to maintain a calm demeanor and temper my passion, cautioning against the perception of women as overly emotional, which could affect our scores. It was disheartening to realize that while men could be assertive and aggressive, I had to speak with restraint. Her advice highlighted how toxic masculinity and the marginalization of women limited our potential.
While I agree that our patriarchal society constantly imposes double standards on women regarding their emotions and language, I believe that "Le Bonheur" shows that emotional maturity does not paint a full picture about a man's personality. In the film, we watch as Francois goes from making love with Emilie to going on a romantic walk with Therese within one scene change at (52:40). Francois appears to be completely content and emotionally available with Therese, despite the affair that we just watched him have. This shows that even though society often gives a free pass for men to have aggressive and combative tendencies, those behaviors are not required for men to inflict damage upon women. Sometimes men, such as Francois, use emotional calmness to their advantage to manipulate women.
Although eerie, your claim that malformed sexual impulses frequently lead to toxic masculinity is quite accurate. When men are left without any female scrutiny, sexist patronization and objectification frequently manifests itself. Whether alone, as in Alex Garland’s film Ex Machina, or in groups, as can be seen in the “locker-room talk” propagated by many of my peers, men often store nefarious beliefs in until they can be expressed in a setting that does not discourage them. This, in my opinion, is in large part due to the strong reinforcement in everyday media of a view of women as a means to sexual pleasure. The prevalence of fully nude women in film as a pose to men is only one of many instances supporting this view.
Love is surely not simply a feeling! It obligates joy-filled sacrifice and commitment to another's good, regardless of its reciprocation. In the Bible's notable chapter of love, Paul asserts "It (love) does not insist on its own way... it does not rejoice at wrongdoing," (1 Corinthians 13:5a,6a). In contrast to this definition, Agnes Varda's "Happiness" displays an ugly distortion of "love" that does insist on its own subjective happiness and rejoices at justifying infidelity, behind brightly colored scenes overlaid with a jovial, jarring score. Although easy to point fingers in frustration at the adulterous man's illogical reasoning, I believe the film also ought to cause us to reflect within ourselves and examine the flawed ways we love others.
Although I agree that a version of love portrayed within Le Bonheur (1965), is toxic in practice, using the example of 1 Corinthians is not an end all be all as a description of love. Observing the full passage (1 Corinthians 13:4-8 ESV), one would agree this is a valid way to interpret love, from romantic to familial, but it is easy to misuse this definition. If you asked François if the love he felt towards Thérèse and Émilie aligned with the bible, he would agree. He believes truth negates wrongdoing and he loves both women endlessly. We see François justifying this when he uses the metaphor of having 10 arms for her and extra for his mistress; he embraces the love he feels for both of them while being honest about his affair. Despite his attempted justification in this example and many others, the audience knows his logic is flawed. This is where the theme of toxic masculinity comes in, society does not offer repercussions for these actions therefore he is unable to recognize his version of love is truly flawed. Agnes Varda is showing that his masculine selfishness allows him to think this way without acknowledging that he is harming these women. By pointing fingers at men in the case of Le Bonheur, accountability for toxic masculinity allows us to best understand love personally and how we love others.
Varda displays four male perspectives on differing sexual fantasies disguised as preferences. Empty sexual interactions and flesh-based discrepancies hold no worth; they are merely as empty as the tawdry motives behind them. Suppose the gender roles in Le Bonheur were reversed. Four women speak of multiple docile and self-pleasing partners. Society would scrutinize them for their selfish desires, unlike in the actual everyday lives of most men. Women often seek selfless connection; not inclined to act in desire, they fulfill roles and fall into the arms of men who sacrifice love for ephemeral bliss. Happiness is not derived from pleasure. Pleasure is temporary and self-interested. Happiness isn't invariably romance but can be earned by building a virtuous partnership.
Toxic masculinity’s loyalty to dominance and control shows up in history and our daily lives in different ways; the presentation might not be the same but the impact has power. With the language used in conversation in discussing sex, for example, men do things to women, men f**k women. The context leans toward men being on the voluntary side of the act. The women are not participating, or have control during sex-the slightest change to, men having sex with women, rearranges the impact. More autonomy is given to women and the experience is shared among both parties. This limits toxic masculinity most casually, but altering language is significant for creating safe environments and cultivating a type of masculinity that promotes these healthy dynamics.
Through this film, I think Agnes Varda is trying to express the situation of women in society at that time. She questions whether this situation is reflected through the toxic masculinity of men - whether women truly have control over their lives, or if they are merely treated as accessories by men. Women can either be a fleeting moment in a man's life or a significant presence during that stage. However, when they are absent or do not fit into the periods that men "aspire" to, they are treated as "dolls" whose value diminishes in the eyes of men. They can be discarded at will, even if they remain loyal and committed to the men without any reservations.
Agnès film, Le Bonheur, may be set in a time period more keen to women taking a typical feminine role as portrayed in the movie, but much of what is depicted continues to be timely even in today’s progressive world. Throughout the film the wife of François, Thérèse, is shown performing very typical motherly tasks; Taking care of the kids, making the bed, cooking the food, etc.. François takes a typical fatherly roles by having a labor intensive carpentry job, shaving as his wife gives him a back rub, etc. François comes across Émilie who he describes as “an animal set free” compared to his wife, a “hardy plant,” both of which he admits to loving without shame or remorse in his admission to Émilie. His toxic masculine behavior allows him to admit to wanting both, and feels like it’s completely fine by saying, “I have enough joy for the both of you” to Émilie, with her only reaction being a reluctant smile. After confidently admitting to his wife Thérèse that his heart is big enough for two, she appears to take the news well at first, but later François finds her dead at the river. After her death, François runs back to Émilie who transitions from his secret “wild animal” of a lover, directly into the role his wife held, fully embracing her role by picking the kids up from school, doing the laundry, etc. Today, it may feel like a clear contrast to the time period of the film, but woman and men often are drawn into the same behaviors, whether that’s from generationally learned habits or out of pride. Woman don’t typical feel like it’s their job as a woman to do motherly tasks, but even woman who define themselves as feminists, continue do them because it makes them feel accomplished and gravitated toward.
In Dr. M’s introduction to “Le Bonheur,” he discusses Agnès Varda’s critique of toxic masculinity and the complexities of fidelity within the film. Varda’s lens does not romanticize philandering but rather exposes it as a symptom of societal norms that prioritize male desires and undermine the emotional well-being of women. François’s insistence on loving multiple women without consequence reflects deep-rooted entitlement ingrained in patriarchal gender norms. This is evident when François first indulges with Emelie, and associates momentary elation with true love, leading him to exploit multiple women due to societal permissiveness. This behavior reflects a conditioned male understanding that greed within romantic partners is typical. “Le Bonheur” exposes François’s behavior as a product of patriarchal stereotypes which enable advantageousness in intimacy and perpetuate female submissiveness.
I would agree that Varda does a significant job illustrating male desires in comparison to the feelings of women. However, I would disagree and say that Varda’s film also romanticizes philandering. Throughout the film, we see how François goes about his happy life with his wife while still managing his affair with Émelie. Even after Thérèse confronts François about his recent increase in happiness, François is able to reveal the truth, claiming it as a natural instinct. I believe François's character portrays philandering as part of being a loving man, and this continues with his other love, Emelie, and his kids after the death of his wife. Varda’s lens casts philandering in such a positive light with uplifting scores, yet the audience can see through that lens and understand the true sadness of the story for the women.
Toxic masculinity is a generational struggle. Throughout history, there have been specific expectations in regards to manliness and the portrayal of masculine paragons. For example, men are often praised for “controlling” their emotions, creating an illusion that men are weak if they cry or express sensitivity. However, this detachment makes it hard for men to connect with their wives on an emotional level. These stoic fathers pass their behaviors onto their sons, who grow up watching this conventional yet unhealthy family dynamic. As traditional fathers expect their wives to maintain an inferior role in the household, their sons will adopt this misogynistic attitude, causing the cycle of toxic masculinity to repeat itself.
I do not completely disagree with this comment but I do believe that it takes a far too drastic stance and misdefines toxic masculinity. Toxic masculinity is not good, however I do not believe that the traditional gender roles of a man all fall under this toxic masculinity umbrella term. You claim that the notion that men should control their emotions is toxically masculine and places a divide in their relationship with a spouse. While never letting your emotions present themselves outwardly is certainly unhealthy, I believe men should exercise some degree of control over their emotions in order to experience success in providing for their family. Other men will take them more seriously and will have more respect for them and it is my belief that most women would prefer a man that can manage their emotions more-so than one that lets their emotions fly at any given opportunity. While fully adopting traditional gender roles without regard for this modern and ever-changing wold we live in can be considered toxically masculine, fully rejecting these roles could lead to broken families. Children that grow up without some degree of masculinity modeled for them in their father are provided a disservice.
I recently managed a boy’s water polo tournament. During one dogpile for the ball, an athlete stopped and turned to the referee in rage.
“Hey ref, are you gonna call the f*cking foul or what?!”
The twelve-year-old was promptly given a red card. As he exited the pool, his mother called out, “We heard you baby, good job!”
I pitied him. He was still learning to control his emotions in a high-pressure situation. Judging by his mom’s misplaced reassurance, it didn’t seem like she was much help either.
You argue that in the lens of toxic masculinity, controlling one's emotions equates to repressing sensitivity. However, this boy expressed sensitivity by definition. His feelings were hurt because he thought the game was unfair and wasted no time vocalizing it in the form of anger. His emotions were not in control, yet still earned the type of praise that perpetuates toxic masculinity.
Francois from Le Bonheur (1965) embodies toxic masculinity while acting sensitive to everyone’s “needs”: his own, Therese’s, and Emilie’s. He validates Emilie by saying he would’ve married her had they met first. He reassures Therese that he’ll leave Emilie if she so wishes. In these scenarios, Francois’s “sensitivity” makes him blind. He speaks so assuredly of himself. He even hops, skips, and jumps down the street to Emilie’s apartment, genuinely unaware of the magnitude of his actions. As seen by these two scenarios, repressing sensitivity is not a direct item of toxic masculinity.
The idea of how to present toxic masculinity requires a tightrope walk in terms of approach. As mentioned in the video, you can go the subtle route or the more obvious way of showing awful cringe-worthy men in films. In the film, Gaslight we see a great exhibition of toxic masculinity in a way that engages the viewer while simultaneously creating a sense of rage and hatred. While in films it is somewhat amusing to show toxicity obviously, it is more thought and feeling-provoking to showcase the behavior subtly. When the viewer has to pay attention to the small details and consider how the affected party is from the behavior more engagement can be attained.
While I agree that “Le Bonheur” addresses a sexist’s “ravenous self-interest,” I think don’t think François actively “refuses to say ‘no’ to its… cravings;” I think he’s unaware that he should refuse, sometimes, for others’ sakes. Thérèse is “‘[a]lways doing what [he’d] like [her] to do,’” caring for the house and kids and taking the sewing jobs he chooses, while François skips social obligations to woo Emilie. Emilie tells him “‘one thing [she’s] afraid of is to take someone else’s place,’” yet the film ends with her going through Thérèse’s same domestic motions as François’s life continues almost uninterrupted. The way he holds both women, clutching and petting their necks, imputes to his love a mindless possessiveness with an undercurrent of thoughtless threat; he wants, therefore he grabs. Francois is oblivious to any suffering and sacrifices he’s wrought upon others, so he never confronts himself; his self-interest consumes everyone’s lives.
Hi @abbydenton7844, while I do like this interpretation of Francois' motivations, I believe he is aware of the consequences of his affair, he simply sees them as a non-issue. One scene that comes to mind is the fact that Francois, when talking with his coworkers about women, chooses to disagree with John about how "once you enjoy one woman, you'll want more." To me, it serves to reveal how, to a degree, Francois knows his affair with Emilie is bad. If he was truly unaware of the consequences of his infidelity, there is no reason for him to position himself against John's statement. In the end, however, he simply does not care enough to stop his infidelity. Why else would he try to convince Therese that his affair is not something to worry about. Simple: it is because he actively wants both women, as to him, that would be his "happiness."
All human actions are driven by the pursuit of self-interest; however, it is in the inability for complex thought beyond the temptations of simple and immediate pleasures that the concept of toxic masculinity lies. Alex Garland’s Ex Machina critiques this idea through the irony that the human male characters are the only ones enslaved to their programming, shortsighted by their sexual and violent biological urges. I believe that Agnes Varda’s Le Bonheur, despite being of an entirely different genre and time period, conveys a strikingly similar message in the subtlety of her film. In the movie, Francois displays a disgusting lack of self-awareness and discipline through his shallow understanding of love as merely a sexual desire to be blindly sought after. As he states it, “when I love, I can’t stop.” However, his attempts to eat his cake and have it too, end with the death of his wife and him struck in the exact same position as he was at the beginning of the film. Through this portrayal of his inability to find true bonheur, Varda displays the harmfulness and myopic greed of the toxic masculine mindset of thinking with one’s boner. Ultimately, both Varda and Garland display how until these organic machines can learn self-consciousness, they are doomed, to the detriment of all, to succumb to “the ravenous self-interest that refuses to say no to its own cravings” (Dr. Marchbanks).
I take some issue with the idea that there must be a “universal truth” towards the handling of relationships in the context of monogamy versus polyamory. The topic generates controversy, as in our modern culture, monogamy is seen as the “correct” choice, when for many it doesn’t quite fit. Part of the problem stems from the culture passed down through the West’s Christian background, but if there is clear communication between all members of a relationship, that can be a healthy one. If a person is interested in “casual sex” and independence, rather than being in a committed relationship, this is also ok as long as that boundary is set. It’s a lack of communication or lying that turns what could be good into bad.
While I agree that there may not be a “universal truth” towards handling monogamy versus polyamory relationships, I don’t think that communication is the only factor that goes into determining whether the relationship is healthy or not. As seen in Le Bonheur, François goes a month without telling Thérèse, his wife, that there is another female in the picture. When he finally does communicate and tell her that he has been having an affair, she ends up dead with a strong implication that she has taken her own life. While learning of the truth is what most likely caused this, the communication and telling the truth by François did not help at all.This polyamory relationship most likely would not have ever worked out even if there was better communication. Le Bonheur tackles the concept of toxic masculinity through the relationships François has. When François puts his own happiness and temptations over that of his wife’s, we see how much this affected her. It is also clear how despite Thérèse’s death, François is able to go on living a perfect life as he “traded” one woman for another.
I disagree, I believe that there are truths in the world, monogamy being one of them. I believe Le Bonheur tries to demonstrate this in how Thérèse takes her own life when she learns that her husband, who she has children with, in in love and has been sleeping with another woman. Aside from an appeal to the Bible, or general human traditions, I would argue that monogamy is right because humans are in a practical sense made for monogamy, based on the need for two committed parents to support offspring for many years until they can fend for themselves. Continuing the movie's example, not only is Thérèse destroyed by François's infidelity, but ultimately their kids will suffer too when they learn what he did. I would further argue that a polygamous lifestyle will always be a detriment to one's kids, as they will lack the stability of having a singular mom and dad who are committed to one another. Lastly, from a moral standpoint I would argue that in a polygamous "marriage" or relationship, fidelity is already gone: what is to stop them from adding another person to the group?
When tackling toxic masculinity in Agnes Vardas, “Le Bonheur,” the trait is portrayed more subtly than in newer films, media, or the current image that it paints. Today, the term "toxic masculinity" is used to describe individuals who regard women as inferior, believe expressing emotions diminishes their manliness, or avoid engaging in behaviors that make them appear less masculine. In “Le Bonheur,” Francois carries an arrogance that puts his own needs at the center of the world, using women to supplement his life. Francois articulates what he is feeling consistently to both Emilie and Terese throughout the film, but his toxic masculinity shines through as the women in his life are used to appease himself, rather than a true partnership.
The culprit at fault for perpetuating toxic masculinity is nobody except for the man himself. Yes, the consequences of toxic masculinity linger and severely impact the women, and other men, around the man who is sustaining this sort of behavior but ultimately the feelings that lead to toxic masculinity have nothing to do with women and everything to do with men. Throughout the film, Francois does not necessarily assume any of the household duties and they are usually left to Therese. A part of toxic masculinity is rejecting "untraditional" gender roles leading to men expecting their wives or girlfriends to care for the home and the children while they go out and work. Men usually also believe that performing the duties usually performed by women emasculates them and that is why when toxic masculinity is showcased, the effects of it are arguably more damaging for the women in their lives than they are for the man himself.
I would disagree that toxic masculinity is subtly portrayed in "Le Bonheur" and rather suggest that its portrayal is the focus of the film and quite easily identifiable. In much of modern media I've noticed that toxically masculine main characters will at least feel some shade of guilt for their wrongdoings to the women in their lives. This is not always the case, but given that Francois does not hold a shred of regret for the unfaithful nature of his relationship after the passing of his wife and nonchalantly breaks it to her before her passing that he has a mistress, I think this film was evidently shining a spotlight on the toxic nature of his character. He does whatever he wants without regard for the impact on the women he holds relationships with. This male utopia that Francois is living in that is driven by personal happiness and is void of repercussions for his actions takes such a strong stance on toxic masculinity, even stronger than that of the films produced in the present, more progressive era.
Sadly, the reality described by Dr. M in Ex Machina is not as far from the truth as we would like it to be. While the exact situation of Ex Machina is true Science Fiction at the moment, the principle of the matter remains. We need not look very far back in history to find many examples of rulers or men of power doing much the same as the designer in Ex Machina. Whether it be the harem of a Turkish ruler or even the popular myth of Droit du seigneur, stories and instances of men abusing their power over women are not rare. While it obviously can not be supposed that these abuses are the natural state of human relations, it does seem like power over others will bring out the absolute worst of abuses in humanity. The phrase absolute power corrupts absolutely, while popular is, at best, a correlation of selective reporting. Power is not an inherently corrupting force, I believe it more to be a revealing one. Any person, given absolute power, will reveal the true nature of their self and their desires. Many have failed that test throughout history, and many more will in the future. I just hope that the first person to create real artificial intelligence in our world does not follow in that same mold.
While Ex Machina certainly finds some poignant truths about society in its discussion about masculinity and AI, I find it a very depressing view of the human condition. Presenting two heterosexual men and the automatons they create, then drawing conclusions about broader society would be inane, even from a statistics mindset. The film specifically mentions that the Nathan Bateman, the billionaire CEO, chooses Caleb Smith, the man he invites to the compound, because of the data collected about his sexual history and preference. Straight men are no longer the only demographic with power and society continues to diversify in order to learn from vast human perspectives.
Le Bonheur subtly portrays toxic masculinity with precision, reflecting a global imbalance where a man's happiness often outweighs a woman's happiness, perpetuating a cultural stigma. Francois prioritizes his own happiness without considering Therese's well-being. This bias is shown in the film, particularly in the aftermath of Therese's death, where others immediately offer childcare duties, exempting Francois. Throughout, Therese assumes household responsibilities, while Francois is not expected to do more than activities with them. Francois' request for Emilie to love his children implies an expectation for her to shoulder Therese's roles without equal effort from him. This dynamic underscores societal expectations that overlook a woman's contributions, continuing an unequal distribution of responsibility and emotional burden.
I agree that Le Bonheur (1965) examines the imbalance and implications of toxic masculinity, but the film’s narrative encourages a deeper reflection of happiness, rather than attributing Francois’ actions solely to societal expectations. Upon his second visit to Emilie, she inquiries about his happiness at home- he replies that he is happy and in love with Therese, but that he also loves Emilie. The compositional contrast displayed in the film reflects the respective emotions he feels with each woman. In scenes with Therese, the use of brighter lighting and calmer colors suggests his comfort and familiarity with their love. When depicted with Emilie, more shadows are apparent in the lighting, alongside more vivid colors, highlighting the appeal of a more wild and passionate love. The divergence of these two styles illustrates the root of his actions as an internal search for an elusive happiness, rather than a bid to conform to the societal image of masculinity. Francois’ quest for love is driven by a deep desire for complete emotional fulfillment, evidenced by his experience of two distinct “happinesses” with each women. His metaphorical comparison of love to an apple orchard reflects his belief that love and happiness are ever-expanding, and that extending his love to two women will satisfy the fulfillment he seeks. This film encourages reflection on the natural human desire to pursue happiness, while simultaneously challenging the way traditional masculine stereotypes may play a role.
While I agree that Le Bonheur portrays the inevitable problems that polygamous relationships present, I do not believe that it perpetuates “cultural stigma”. Francis is shown to be a gracious, gentle, and loving man to his family and friends. He is the "perfect” husband and man to a perfectly happy family. Varda makes it abundantly clear that this affair does not stem from fiendish, sexual, or pervasive masculine desire nor does it come from problems within the marriage. Francois is simply following his heart, and he fails to consider that even if he stays honest his actions may wear away at others emotionally. When Therese dies and others offer to care for the kids this is because Francois needs to continue his work, he still wants to care for the kids. I believe this film explores an often-overlooked idea when thinking about polygamy, and that is the question “If a man were completely honest in his intentions and actions could polygamy work out?” Varda shows us in the death of Therese that polygamy is unnatural and cannot be sustained even by a “perfect” man.