"'Oh, really? I'm in movies too! Have you ever shown, uh, 'I Married Satan'? How about the sequel, 'I Married Satan 2'?- Elvira, Elvira, Mistress of the Dark"
'Since When Is There Feminist Horror?' - articles like this are why Pretty/Scary exists
Sun, 09/13/2009 - 13:17
Check out this 'article' on Horror-Movies.ca (canadian horror news site) entitled 'Since When is there feminist horror?'
http://www.horror-movies.ca/horror_16446.html
Never In my critical life have I thought about horror movies being feminist or misogynist. I’m not saying of course that certain films from both camps don’t exist, I’m simply imploring that this idea had never occurred to me. With Jennifer’s Body hitting theatres soon, the wires are a buzzin’ with article after article about topics such as Will Chicks Want to see the movie and a matter of debate if a same sex kiss was hocked just for publicity. I am very excited to see a genre film get this much press, but why I don’t understand is why suddenly a strong female role in a horror film is getting so much attention simply for existing?
Horror, since its inception was about scaring and shocking the masses. In the beginning it took an almost mythological stance by bringing Nosferatu, Frankenstein, The Mummy, and The Wolfman to the forefront. It was about giving the audience a scare of shock from a far off land that because of its ambiguity, was entirely plausible in the minds of a naive filmgoer. Flash forward to the revolutionary 70s and the shock came at the viewer from a different angle. It was about scaring the viewer by means of discovering the darker side of life to the point of exaggeration. This is when the concept and staple of “The Final Girl” was invented and perfected.
For the uninitiated, “The Final Girl” is exactly what you think it is. Like Halloween (78) and A Nightmare on Elm Street (84), it was the last surviving member of the horrifying ordeal who happened to be a girl. In many ways, she varied from her peers in the film due to her cunning and of course, her preoccupation with anything else besides just getting laid. Although she doesn’t appear like it from the beginning, she is often the strongest character AND the one that is quick to adapt and overcome this week’s bad ass. A lot of the time when speaking about the final girl, the talk about phallic and yonic come into play (as in Behind the Mask: The Rise of Vernon) where as the Final Girl must “arm” herself with something phallic to match wits with this week’s bad ass. As all of you already know, Freudian theory is a bunch of useless garbage used as a cop out to actual intriguing and original theory by pseudo intellectuals to make themselves sound smarter. It should go without saying that we won’t be delving into that cesspool. Also, this isn’t any manifesto against feminism or feminist theory regardless of how I feel about it personally; it is about me trying to understand feminism in a genre that blatantly refuses to acknowledge it.
There are plenty of strong female characters in horror from Nancy in A Nightmare on Elm Street to Ripley in the Alien Saga. It had always felt to me that after the 1960’s, horror was about breaking taboos, re-writing expectations, and absolutely demolishing social boundaries. Usually done for low budgets at secondary film studios, the films could get away with subject matter that no major studio would dare touch because it was too taboo. The rise of steroid injected freakishly large action heroes were counteracted in the horror genre with teenage girls who could survive in extremely harsh circumstances. Eventually the major studios did include Ripley (Aliens) and Sarah Conner (Terminator, T2) but this was long after the change was made and pretty much only to show the boys that anyone can play this game.
What I’m getting to is the idea that I don’t personally see horror films as feminist or misogynistic because they have always been designed to appeal to a certain audience that was trying to find something juicier outside of the mainstream. This are the types of people who know that a horror film will most likely by filled with exposed breasts and visceral killings and therefore think of the misogynist/feminist undertones are inherently worthless. Combine that with the fact that there have been strong horror heroines for years, the fact that simply exist is no longer a valid argument for calling a horror film feminist. No one is excited and enthralled by a strong female main character who takes back their power from a male perspective to ultimately take revenge on them because it’s been done before.
I believe that when you have made the choice to see a horror film, you know pretty well what you’re getting yourself into. Maybe subconsciously you want to see some inherent misogyny and complete exploitation of women by some big bad evil guy hacking their nubile bodies into bits and if so, they hey man go for it. That seems to pretty much be the most understated definition of horror anyway. You want to see an alien burst out of someone’s stomach? Well hell, then go for it. You want to see a woman reenact her revenge on a group of men who raped her in the most horrible way imaginable? We got that too! You want to see a completely tasteless film that plays to the lowest common denominator? Go nuts. The fact is the films are there if you want to see them and no one is forcing you to.
Maybe this topic is being blown out of proportion because Jennifer’s Body is getting so much press. Maybe it’s a matter of perception where the common blogger feels that they need to see the movie because it’s getting much more attention than any other horror film released recently and therefore they are getting downed in it. What do you think? Do you think that horror films are niche enough to not merit a discussion on feminism? Or do you think like I do that the idea of gender, while very pronounced in horror just doesn’t matter anymore? I feel that we are just above that discussion already and if it still exists in horror, then we are so blatantly aware of it that no one cares to make a discussion out of something that’s just been “there” forever. I want to know what you think. Let’s hear it.
I mean, Really?
1) This article is kinda shittily written
That aside,
2) The author seems to be opposed to Jennifer's Body getting 'so much press' because he seems to think it is being labelled as a 'feminist' horror film, when in fact it is getting so much press because dudes like him want to fuck megan Fox.
Is this film being overrated because people are saying it is a 'feminist' film? YES. it is not a feminist film. But is there 'such a thing as feminist horror'? YES. Any film with a female protagonist in horror who does NOT use her sexuality to survive or kill is a feminist horror film because it promotes EQUALITY between the female and male characters in the movie and does not create a situation where women must use or abuse their sexuality in order to have any kind of power.
A film, like Jennifer's Body, or Tamara, or All The Boys love Mandy Lane, or Teeth, or Species, or Ginger Snaps, where women's sexuality is their only asset and usually represents EVIL, or at the least their only means of surviving in a male world, is a completely ANTI-feminist film. I'm really sick of that distinction not being made by horror 'critics' (ahem, lets just call this author a 'fan with a blog' and not a 'critic'.)
Feminist horror includes female characters who are strong or weak regardless of their sexuality and their good or evil or live or dead status results from their choices and personality traits.
Examples of 'feminist' horror, or movies that can be read with a 'feminist' angle include: Terminator 2, The Alien series, The Descent, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (original), Night of the Living Dead (original), The Ring, Whatever happened to Baby Jane, Day of the Dead (original), Misery, Friday the 13th (original), and mildly there are a few more like Wrong Turn, Curtains, and probably many I am missing.
Yes - many of these films have strong women who derive their 'strength' from being 'Mothers' (F13, Alien-s, The Ring) but at least it isn't their sexuality that controlls them, its is their sense of love and protective instincts.
okay, rant over.
Sun, 09/13/2009 - 19:18
#2
Sun, 09/13/2009 - 21:00
#3
I don't think Megan Fox was necessary to attract a draw. Sex sells. There are thousands of extremely attractive women in the Los Angeles area, and likely a great number of them could do fine in this film.
It is true that the film is completely relying upon sex appeal to sell itself though; it doesn't bode well for the overall quality.
__________________
Sun, 09/13/2009 - 21:09
#4
"But is there 'such a thing as feminist horror'? YES. Any film with a female protagonist in horror who does NOT use her sexuality to survive or kill is a feminist horror film because it promotes EQUALITY between the female and male characters in the movie and does not create a situation where women must use or abuse their sexuality in order to have any kind of power."
Sorry Heidi, but that seems like a long answer for a short question. Next time just say, girls kick ass too!
Sun, 09/13/2009 - 23:40
#5
I disagree with a few things. Ginger does use her sexuality, however, the film is aware of this. "Guys get laid, I'm just a lay," Ginger says. It's so aware, it reverses the date rape scenereo by making the guy the victim, which may have been TOO feminist (meaning, a bit heavy handed). But the most glaringly obvious problem with calling Ginger Snaps anti-feminist is that it overlooks the movie's protagonist, Bridget, a plain looking girl who gets by on her wits and her guts. If I remember correctly, she and the "cherry hound" don't even kiss.
You mentioned the Original Night of the Living Dead as being feminist. That's surprising, since in the original Barbara spends the entire movie screaming, fainting, or clutching her face in terror, while in the remake Barbara is a gun-totin, hardcore badass. I'd imagine the remake's version of Barbara is under "feminist" in the dictionary.
But here's the most important part: You said, "Feminist horror includes female characters who are strong or weak regardless of their sexuality and their good or evil or live or dead status results from their choices and personality traits."
See, to me, that just sounds like a NORMAL movie. Susperia comes to mind. According to the above statement, the original Barbara does fit in, but I think 9 out of 10 feminists would rather have the remake Barbara, and would be sickened by the original.
Personally, I think movies where women just act normal are the best way to speak out against discrimination. Trying to put a feminist slant on a movie (like the second half of Death Proof)is overkill, creates division, and in a way almost subverts feminism by trying too hard. Then again, some may argue that feminism in general is "trying too hard", but since I'm not a woman I can't really go there. And in case that offends anyone here, I'd like to add that there is a big and crucial difference between feminism and women's rights. Women's rights are obvious and natural, feminism was manufactured (by men). They needed to get women out of the house and into the workforce because the gov. was tired of only being able to tax half the American population. Ever wonder why, back in the old days, a guy with a normal job could support his wife and children, and now both parents need to work in order to do that and have to put the kids in daycare? Think about it.
Mon, 09/14/2009 - 09:36
#6
I disagree with a few things. Ginger does use her sexuality, however, the film is aware of this. "Guys get laid, I'm just a lay," Ginger says. It's so aware, it reverses the date rape scenereo by making the guy the victim, which may have been TOO feminist (meaning, a bit heavy handed). But the most glaringly obvious problem with calling Ginger Snaps anti-feminist is that it overlooks the movie's protagonist, Bridget, a plain looking girl who gets by on her wits and her guts. If I remember correctly, she and the "cherry hound" don't even kiss.
Point taken! I retract my previous statement. Bridget IS the protagonists and she is a great example of a 'feminist' character in a horror film.
You mentioned the Original Night of the Living Dead as being feminist. That's surprising, since in the original Barbara spends the entire movie screaming, fainting, or clutching her face in terror, while in the remake Barbara is a gun-totin, hardcore badass. I'd imagine the remake's version of Barbara is under "feminist" in the dictionary.
I have heard this argument too. BUT, what I mean by this, is that Barbara is Barbara - she'd be acting the same way if she had been born a man. Most likely, anyway, if you disregard society's conditioning and gender roles. There is no 'sexuality' at play - she doesn't die because she had sex, she doesn't live because she's a virgin.
But here's the most important part: You said, "Feminist horror includes female characters who are strong or weak regardless of their sexuality and their good or evil or live or dead status results from their choices and personality traits."
See, to me, that just sounds like a NORMAL movie. Susperia comes to mind. According to the above statement, the original Barbara does fit in, but I think 9 out of 10 feminists would rather have the remake Barbara, and would be sickened by the original.
YES! You got it!
The real definition of feminism, before it got distoted by weirdos and mysoginists, is the promotion of equality between males and females in economics, politics, and sexuality.
Any film where a woman doesn't display any sexist patriarchally-imposed sexual identity is, in my opinion and in real feminist theory, 'feminist'.
Chicks who like to see women portrayed in an opposite, but still ridiculously distorted way, like to see gun-toting feminists who kick ass and act like men. But acting like a man and having traditional male characteristics doesn't make a feminist icon - a woman who can be a woman, and have an identity separate from her vagina, is a feminist character. That means, she can be a bad person, a nice person, a coward, a liar, a murderer - just as long as it isn't all surrounding her vagina and how men react to it, like MOST horror movies about 'feminist', anti-men, 'kill all men' movies (ahem, Jennifer's Body).
Personally, I think movies where women just act normal are the best way to speak out against discrimination. Trying to put a feminist slant on a movie (like the second half of Death Proof)is overkill, creates division, and in a way almost subverts feminism by trying too hard. Then again, some may argue that feminism in general is "trying too hard", but since I'm not a woman I can't really go there. And in case that offends anyone here, I'd like to add that there is a big and crucial difference between feminism and women's rights. Women's rights are obvious and natural, feminism was manufactured (by men). They needed to get women out of the house and into the workforce because the gov. was tired of only being able to tax half the American population. Ever wonder why, back in the old days, a guy with a normal job could support his wife and children, and now both parents need to work in order to do that and have to put the kids in daycare? Think about it.
I think what needs to be done is an active redefining of the word feminist, to mean 'promoting equality between the sexes' and apply it to movies, and then decide what is sexist and what is not. (There are sexist fiulms with male characters by the way, where men are shown as acting a certain way merely because they have a penis and not because they are the person that they are i.e. think how prevalent the 'asshole, horny male teenager' character is in slashers! very sexist)
Mon, 09/14/2009 - 10:34
#7
Dude, the same people from the same site just posted a new article.
5 Bodies Better for Jennifer Than Megan Fox
Posted By : StoneCypher, Sunday Sep,13
Filed Under : Editorial, ,
The upcoming horror movie Jennifer’s Body has been getting a lot of attention lately, for two reasons : 1) it’s written by Diablo ‘Juno’ Cody, and 2) Megan Fox is in it. It seems that putting Megan Fox in a film right now will instantly get it attention – though very little indicates this is due to her acting talent. Megan Fox is an attractive woman, and it’s refreshing to see a starlet who doesn’t quite conform to expected images. However, it seems to me, anyway, that Ms. Fox’s entire career is based on the fact that she is not only attractive, but sexy, and that she uses that sexuality to garner attention.
I’m not necessarily saying there’s anything wrong with this, but it does get tedious after a while. In Jennifer’s Body Fox plays a high-schooler possessed by a demon, which turns her into a literal man-eater, who must be stopped by her plain-Jane best friend. The first trailer for the film seems to have ‘hit’ written all over it, but I can’t help but think different casting might’ve made that premise more interesting.
Megan Fox doesn’t need fangs or demonic possession to look like a man-eater. With that pout and those eyes, she always looks like she’s about to pounce on the nearest male and, well, no doubt make him very happy. The man-eater look is a big part of Fox’s appeal. Here are my choices of actresses who’d make for more interesting Jennifers.
Ellen Page Ellen Page is the best kind of tomboy – cute. She shot to fame with roles in X3, Hard Candy and, most notably, in Diablo Cody’s previous film, Juno. She has the right amount of sass that makes her appealing but not stand-offish. More likely to kick a man in the nuts than, er, ‘eat’ him, Page would make for a brilliant Jennifer for just that reason – seduction would come as a surprise.
Hayden Panettiere Although Hayden Panettiere could easily pull off the role of a man-eater, her blonde tresses and tiny frame (a mere 5’1”!) make her a far less obvious choice for Jennifer. More cute than sexy, Panettiere has proven her ability to play a cheerleader with a secret a thousand times over in hit TV series Heroes, and I reckon would be perfect for a role like Jennifer.
Evan Rachel Wood A young woman who isn’t obviously gorgeous, there’s an appeal about Evan Rachel Wood nonetheless. An actress who has stuck to more indie fare, she is not traditionally beautiful, however, there’s an edginess to her (which, let’s face it, has nothing to do with the fact that she dated Marilyn Manson) which, in my opinion, would make for a more dangerous sort of Jennifer.
Leighton Meester Perhaps the girl on my list who most resembles Megan Fox, Leighton Meester’s made her name playing a high-school bitch in Gossip Girl, but has a face that can convey sweetness as well as acid. Not only does Meester look more like a high-schooler, she doesn’t look (at first glance) like she might bite your face off.
Maud Forget My left-field choice is the stunning Maud Forget, who plays innocence so well as Eva in the marvellous Frontier(
– innocence, that is, that can handle a shotgun. If Forget could master an American accent, I’m certain she could pull off a cheerleader’s uniform and a demonic possession with a classiness Fox just doesn’t have.
So there are my choices. A short list, yes, and very objective choices, certainly, but here’s a 6th suggestion: Amanda Seyfried. She’s in the film as Needy, Jennifer’s plain-Jane friend who has to destroy her. Personally I think the film would be a lot more interesting if the ‘plain-Jane’ was the one going around seducing and killing boys, while sexed-up Megan Fox has to stop her. That seems to be a role reversal not even Diablo Cody wants to pull off – although, I’m willing to wait and see the film to see what twists she has waiting for us before really passing judgement!
Ugh! I mean,
Megan Fox is an attractive woman, and it’s refreshing to see a starlet who doesn’t quite conform to expected images
Are these people retarded?
And of course, we're basing the 'other actresses' totally on their looks and not at all on acting ability.
I mean, it is shit like this that makes me say sexist things like
'Boys know nothing about anything except for who they want to have sex with'.
can't they keep it in their pants long enough to criticize a film on its own merits (or lack thereof)?
The problem with Jennifer's Body is not, regrettably, megan fox. It is the SCRIPT itself.
Mon, 09/14/2009 - 14:23
#8
Heidi, first off let me say that I totally agree with you now. I think we were both saying the same thing, only we were defining the word "feminism" in different ways. If you were talking about a "pure" definition, meaning like, before it got twisted, then I get it.
Also, maybe I've been on this site too long hanging around a bunch of outspoken girls, but the latest article off those guys site that you posted really offended me! I was reading it and just shaking my head, like, How totally Sexist! That latest article actually proves to me that there NEEDS to be feminism in horror to counterbalance that sort of thing. The only good thing about the article is that it doesn't try to hide that it's sexist - they admit it and are fine with it, which is better and much more healthy than doing it subliminally.
Another good thing the article brought up was Amanda Seyfried. What was that movie she was in, with 9 stories (I think) and a female was the star of each one, and it had Amanda playing the daughter to the crippled dad (the kingpin from Deadwood). Amanda was amazing in that movie. Anyways, it reminds me that Jennifer's Body could have been a good movie.
I think Diablo Cody's script was better than most horror movies out this year in dialogue alone. Personally I don't think Megan Fox is a bad actress - I think she basically does what she's told. Which brings us to the director (again). Horror movies are hard to make right (right = genuinely scary), and hiring the director of Aeon Flux to try to make one just seems like a really bad idea. But it's not all her fault. Cody was around the whole time supervising, so she must have liked what she saw and approved of the movie. At least I think she was - she seemed to be involved when they showed behind the sceens clips in a magazine - something about Cody asking for more blood in a certain scene.
One thing about the movie is that the plot is kind of stupid. It's as if Cody thought to herself, "Who really needs a plot when you can write dialogue as good as me!" Which would be true for an independent film or maybe a personal project, but not really for the follow up to Juno. And that Aeon Flux style directing makes Cody's one-liners sound flat and cliche, and makes Megan Fox look like one of the most annoying people on earth (in a buddy monster movie we need to feel some sympathy for the monster, like in American Werewolf in London or Ginger Snaps).
It's funny because the whole time I'm writing this the ad for Jennifer's body is running at the bottom of the screen.
Mon, 09/14/2009 - 14:40
#9
I know! I'm a sellout.
I think Karyn Kusama's boxing film 'Girl Fight' was a pretty decent indie action movie, but Aeon Flux was misery incarnate and I don't know why she got the job on a new movie with the potential to be just as bad. She's not good at this kind of pop culture-y for-the-kids kind of movie. She should be directing something set in the Carribean about divers who fall in love while finding awesome shells, where there isn't a lot of movement or one-liners.
Tue, 09/15/2009 - 00:23
#10
I'll be honest, I'm confused on what qualifies as a "feminist horror film." Ginger Snaps makes sense. The Descent makes sense. Alien series makes sense. Heidi mentioned feminist horror are those films featuring strong female protagonists who didn't use sexuality to achieve survival or kill. Isn't it just basic human nature to use our sexuality though? If Jennifer's Body is the story of a succubi, then I expect to see sexuality being utilized, in full force. Besides, can't we just enjoy a story about a succubi without being bogged down with labels and social debates?
Yes, I get that equality between the sexes isn't going to be achieved when all horror films feature females doing what men can do. (Girls kick ass too is still the simpler answer though.) 
It's the realization that we don't care which gender is doing what. When we stop saying that's a 'feminist horror film' as opposed to that's a horror film. How can we be mainstream if we separate ourselves from the body of water?
I suppose if we're going to create a list of feminist horror films, let's at least get it right. If Texas Chainsaw is on the list, then so should Halloween. If original Night of the Living Dead is on the list, then so should Dawn of the Dead remake. In fact, you know what was a really great feminist horror film, Frontiere(. *thumbs up*
I can't really comment on Jennifer's Body because I haven't seen it, and I won't be seeing it anytime soon. Some reviews are coming in and they're saying it's not even scary though, making me even more comfortable with my decision. Who cares if it's a feminist horror film?? If it's not scary, it's not even a horror film!
From the trailers, it looked like just another glossed over teenage hormone driven, jump when the music gets loud movie with pretty people who got shit for brains and it doesn't matter cuz they're not reciting Shakespeare anyway. There's nothing new here. The idea isn't new. The plot isn't new. The crackling dialog isn't new. From what I've seen, it's gotten the same amount of press as other horror films. Same commercials. Same posters. Same tabloid stunts, all in the same amount of time I've seen for horror films. So, I'm having a really hard time trying to figure out what people are getting bent outta shape for? I can only conclude it's jealousy or annoyance over Megan Fox or excellent marketing strategy.
If you want Megan Fox to go away, you gotta stop talking about her.
Tue, 09/15/2009 - 06:49
#11
Tue, 09/15/2009 - 13:42
#12
Hellion, I agree with you that we should be able to enjoy a good old succubi film with plenty o' sex in it and lots of women using their sexuality to hurt people.
But we should never then tout it as a 'feminist' horror film, like the press is doing, like Diablo's publicist is doing, and like the director is doing. They should say, 'we made a succubi movie', but they want to get some press out of the fact that it is written by, directed by, and has a female lead character. So they whip out the word 'feminist', and they shouldn't.
Tue, 09/15/2009 - 16:13
#13
Yeah that's what I was thinking further more I always thought the process of menstruation for me as perfectfly said by Emily Perkins playing Bridget. "I was able to connect with Brigitte because when I was a teenager I saw the process of becoming a sexually mature adult as monstrous. I now understand that it is constructed as monstrous by society (e.g. all the products we have for controlling our natural bodies), and that is the "beast" that attacks every girl when she becomes sexualized by our culture." I didn't necessarily think Ginger was using her sexuality as a means to get what she wanted but was just a product what was going on with her body. Plus the metaphor of you changing physically of what she was going through as becoming a monster was one and the samething. Come to think of it many other werewolf movies showed others being very sexual after they become bitten as well. I just really love that movie and for me I personally came to identify the process of becoming a woman as monstrous especially since I was a very early bloomer and I thought Ginger snaps perfectly captured this.
As for a feminist horror movie I would say would be a movie that a woman could be anything but still being a woman to the core. Even a great a example I would say Laurie Strode even though she didn't kick Micheal ass in the first Halloween she was smart and forthright and had a survival instinct inside her. Heidi nailed it perfectly a woman still could be scared, vindictive, all the great traits that we have.
I totally agree with you heidi on that one oh god I have been so sick of hearing feminist horror movie just because its written and directed by women. You know there are other movies that are directed by women and written by women shit American Psycho was written (the screenplay at least) and directed by women did they say that was a feminist movie? No they didn't I know it had different subject matter, but anyways still I mean just because it has women subject matter and its directed by mostly women oh its feminist. Ugh that's so fucking annoying.
Tue, 09/15/2009 - 19:00
#14
A film, like Jennifer's Body, or Tamara, or All The Boys love Mandy Lane, or Teeth, or Species, or Ginger Snaps, where women's sexuality is their only asset and usually represents EVIL, or at the least their only means of surviving in a male world, is a completely ANTI-feminist film.
Perhaps the others, but I'm not so sure about Ginger Snaps. Her enhanced sexuality from turning into a werewolf wasn't her only asset; it was actually eclipsed from the asset of being able to turn into a three hundred pound mass of muscle and teeth.
I'm only nit-picking because I particularly like that movie.