#phallic symbolism in cinema

[apoloadonisandnarcissus]

Freudian Symbolism: Sauron x Galadriel in Season 1 of "Rings of Power"

There are no sex scenes in “Rings of Power” and never will be. But there’s a lot of sexual symbolism happening. And, as I’ve mentioned in my original post, Freudian symbolism has been widely used by cinema to covey sexual acts, especially in productions that can’t or won’t straight out show it to the viewer.

These sexual acts are taking place within in the narrative. The characters are interacting sexually. But the scenes aren’t graphic in nature, like we are use to nowadays. These narratives devices were very common in past decades, when cinema couldn't show explicit sexual content and the studios had to be creative. So these sex symbols have been widely used, and are recognizable.

Yes, I’m going down this rabbit hole, again, inspired by @princessfantaghiro and @rey-jake-therapist. Might do a post on Season 2, as well.

I’m like Sauron: rubbing symbolically Haladriel sex in Galadriel’s your face(s).

I’ve already discussed the Freudian symbolism of this gesture, several times, and it’s very obvious, too. It is penetrative sex: a crown (clitoral symbol) penetrating a sword (phallic symbol).

I would like to revisit and elaborate on my original post about this subject:

Enduring Headcanons

To get this topic out of the way: if you are still holding on to “Elven sex culture” or “Elvish sex magic” because the Tolkien fandom keeps neglecting context, Tolkien letters and Christopher Tolkien notes, you can find a explanation here.

In short, the “Concerning the "Laws and Customs among the Eldar” chapter in "Morgoth's Ring” is not how Elves actually behave sexually in the legendarium. There is no “magical bound” happening between Elves when they have sex; the “union of souls” the fandom keeps talking about is creating children (not the actual sex act); and for the Noldor sex doesn’t equal marriage, they need more than that to recognize a wedding took place (a tribute, usually a jewel); Ósanwë has nothing to do with sex, it’s telepathy. These are fanon, not actual “Tolkien canon”. By all means have all the headcanons you want, just don’t come crying about it on my posts.

So, yes, it’s entirely possible for Galadriel to have had sex with Halbrand-Sauron in Season 1, without it “breaking the lore”.

Galadriel the Virgin

Just before Galadriel runs into Halbrand-Sauron in the Sundering Seas, she’s evocative of Joan of Arc.

Which is very fitting for her character at the beginning of Season 1: Joan of Arc was put on trial because of blasphemy (wearing men’s clothes), acting upon demonic visions and refusing to submit to the authority of the Church. Galadriel is shipped off to Valinor because of her endless pursuit for Sauron (acting upon demonic visions), and her continuous disobedience of High King Gil-galad’s commands. And like Joan of Arc, we also see her wearing armor (men’s clothes).

Joan of Arc also took a vow of chastity and pledged her life to expel the enemies of France. This also mirrors Galadriel’s husband being presumed dead ever since the end of the War of Wrath, and her vowing to hunt down Sauron (the enemy of Middle-earth).

And now we enter theological territory: virginity (in women, because men are allowed everything, but that’s a question for another time) has spiritual power in many religions. In Catholic-Christian, a virgin body is considered the most sacred shrine of God’s earth, because it has the gift of creation. Joan of Arc was a virgin but she had her virginity questioned and put on trial, too, and was examined twice.

Joan of Arc was burned at the stake (fire) and her ashes where thrown at the river (water). In “Rings of Power”, it appears the Elves enter Valinor through the Sun itself (fire), but Galadriel jumps off ship into the sea (water). This is, yet, another connection between Galadriel’s character and Joan of Arc, only in Galadriel’s case represents rebirth.

Sexual Awakening

In Freudian symbolism, water imagery is, indeed, connected to birth, rebirth, renewal, and transformative experiences in general. Whatever happens to Galadriel next will be a life-changing situation.

Water is also symbolically of wish fulfillment, especially connected to sexual deviation and/or repressed sexual desire. Which is very interesting in Galadriel’s case, because she jumps off ship to continue her hunt for Sauron, but the words that echoed on her mind before her final decision are her brother’s, Finrod: “sometimes we cannot know until he have touched the darkness”. Interestingly enough, ships are also considered clitorical symbols.

"It's me. The object of all of your sexual nightmares.”

In Freudian symbolism, pulling someone out of the water, is meant to illustrate a hypothetical parent, usually mother-child relationship, and, curiously enough the first character who helps Galadriel get into the raft is a woman, but she also rejects her next. Symbolically, this scene is also rejecting this angle of symbolical interpretation. We'll have this meaning later on with Elendil and Galadriel, when he even compares her with his own children.

Who truly “fishes” Galadriel out of the sea is Sauron himself. The object of her obsession, which caused her to be condemned to be “burned at the stake” aka thrown into the sun (return to Valinor), by her “Church” authority, the Noldor. The scene is embracing the sexual deviation interpretation, as we'll see in a moment.

To analyze the Freudian symbolism of the sea we have to go to a philosopher whose work inspired Freud himself: Friedrich Nietzsche. Especially since we are working with the themes of sexual deviance and repression of sexual desire in this scene. And here’s your explanation for Sauron’s unhinged predatory expression when he takes Galadriel out of the water. 

There is also a lot of phallic imagery in this raft design; symbolically Galadriel is also entering Sauron’s sexual domain, here. And she, literally, finds herself surrounded with symbolic penises.

Nietzsche uses the open sea as a metaphor for the unknown and the unexplored, where the traditional molds of morality are abandoned. The open sea is an invitation to embark on a journey into unchartered moral waters: a place where "right" or "wrong" don't exist, a moral grey area, and a breeding ground for moral decay.

For Nietzsche, the open sea represents a Godless world. Which is very fitting for a demon such as Sauron, who turned his back on God (Eru Ilúvatar) and sided with Melkor/Morgoth (Satan), and, at this point of his character arc, is seeking for redemption. In short, the open sea symbolizes infinite freedom and potential depravity; which are characteristics often associated with the Christian Devil (Morgoth), whom Sauron serves. 

The open sea it’s textbook “live dangerously”, where all sort of morally questionable and reprehensible actions can happen. And this idea of the “open sea as a grey moral area” isn’t exclusive to Nietzsche or Freud, we also find it in female poets like Sylvia Plath and Emily Dickinson; where the ocean is a symbol for moral and sexual exploration.

There’s also a storm in these scenes: in Freudian symbolism, storms are representative of emotional repression. Storms, heavy rain and thunder indicate feelings of sexual frustration, anger and sadness. Heavy rain is also associated with renewal, while thunderstorms reflect emotional conflict.  

Galadriel reaches out to Sauron in this scene. What does this mean? Symbolically, she wants to him to take her out her sexual “dry spell” existence. She’s sexually frustrated. and he’s in the same situation. Which makes sense with her unvoluntary chastity vow (Joan of Arc), and him being trapped in a cave being goo for hundreds of years. And he “accepts her plea” and jump into the ocean to rescue her, signaling he shares her want.

All of this symbolism will also echo in Season 1 finale, when Sauron “returns” Galadriel to the raft to pitch his proposal to make her a queen. What Sauron is truly offering Galadriel, on a symbolic level, is infinite freedom of self and raw sexuality.

She refuses his offer and says she “should have left him on the sea”. Galadriel is expressing regret over her own sexual impulses and returning to her chastity vow. Then, we have all of this splashing water around them, framed in a very different way from the scenes in 1x02.  Splashing water has been used as a device/symbol for fulfilled sexual activity in cinema for decades, now. So, yes, they most likely did it. Sauron-Halbrand and Galadriel had sex in Season 1.

"He really seduced her" (Charlotte Brändström)

Galadriel was reborn after she emerged from the sea. She was “fished” out of the ocean by Sauron, a symbol of sexual depravity whose sexual repression mirrors her own (open sea). She enters his sexual domain (raft). Halfway through their interactions, Galadriel reaches out to him, consumed by her own sexual frustration, but she’s conflicted about her feelings (storm). He shares her emotions and is willingly to give her what she needs (saves her from drowning). After the storm comes a calm: they have reached an understanding.

Interestingly enough this symbolic understanding of their mutual sexual desire and needs (clear skies) is them lying down on the raft:

Now, the seduction begins.

And Sauron initiates it by handing Galadriel a bowl of food. This is what Freud called “oral gratification”, connected to his theory about the psychosexual stages of development. Here pleasure is the core theme, associated with emotional and sexual nourishment. Sauron offers food, and Galadriel is emotionally hungry for it, and accepts with no hesitation.  

And he grins. Sauron is pleased with himself because Galadriel accepted his sexual invitation. And also, in Freudian symbolism the mouth is a symbol for the female genitals, while the spoon is a phallic symbol. The act of eating symbolizes sexual intercourse (= interaction between male and female symbols). He’s fantasizing all kind of sexual scenarios here.

In Freudian Symbolism, knifes/daggers/lances/swords (any object resembling the penis in shape or that can be used to penetrate the body and cause injury) are phallic symbols. Meaning, they represent the penis. An erection (in which the penis raises itself against the force of gravity) is usually represented in connection with an air element (it can be ballons, airplanes, missiles, rockets, flying, snakes, etc.).

Symbolically, this is the first sexual interaction between Galadriel and Halbrand/Sauron. He has an erection, and she is touching it.

That's symbolic handjob, for you.

In the same episode, the Númenórean smiths tease Sauron, and ask how close is he with the "she-elf". This Maia is eating ("sexual intercourse") clams, here. Worldwide, the clam is a clitoral symbol, meaning it represents the female genitalia. What does this means? Eating Galadriel out is, probably, what Sauron wants. 

In 1x05, after some flirtation happening between Galadriel and Sauron, she’s handling a bunch of swords (phallic symbols) right in front of him. Literally. She’s training the Númenoreans and is surrounded by men eager to… learn from her, and at awe by her. She’s very skilled with those swords.

Sauron decides to peacock and assert his dominance in this scene: the only “sword” Galadriel will be handling around here is his, and he’s the best at it, too. 

Speaking of objects representative of genitals: the roles are reversed in Galadriel and Sauron’s characters in Season 1. Galadriel is the one who carries the phallic symbol (dagger), while Sauron carries the clitoral symbol (pouch). But they do exchange these objects a few times throughout the season. In Freudian symbolism, the interaction of male and female symbols represent sexual acts.

“Come with me to Middle-earth and I’ll give you this… pouch.”

In 1x05, they are back to the ocean, aboard of a clitoral symbol (ship). And Galadriel climbs stairs to reach Halbrand. Staircases are one of those classic and universal cinematic devices to signal female sex appeal. Every man on board is at awe of her, but she only has eyes for Halbrand-Sauron.

But stairs, especially climbing, also have a well-established sexual meaning in cinema: they represent the sexual act.

However, we aren’t shown any interactions between these two characters on the ship, on a voyage that lasted from 1 to 2 weeks, depending on the weather conditions.

The only “clue” we got is that they were, at one point, awake at the same time, and that Galadriel has been up for at least one hour, as she tells Isildur, in 1x06. Sauron doesn’t need to sleep, but Galadriel does (even though not as much as if she belonged to the race of Men).

Galadriel has her hair braided, which is the first time we see this hairstyle on her in “Rings of Power”, because in 1x01 she had her hair down. Indeed a braid is more practical for battle, but braids also have Freudian symbolism attached to them. Braids are a phallic symbol, and Galadriel on a clitoral symbol (ship), meaning we have two sex symbols interacting, indicating sexual intercourse.

The next scene Galadriel and Sauron share together is their chasing after Adar, when they prevent each other from killing him. We know that Galadriel has some darkness within her since 1x01, but Adar tells her something interesting, that resonates with other lines in Season 1:

Halbrand (1x05): “What do you know of darkness?” Adar (1x06): “It would seem I'm not the only Elf alive who has been transformed by darkness.” Sauron-Finrod (1x08): “Touch the darkness once more”.

Is this an indication that Galadriel got “transformed” by the “darkness” (Sauron) somewhere in the middle of these events?

Because, as @rey-jake-therapist correctly pointed out, we underestimate the importance of the “touch the darkness once more”. This implies Galadriel has already “touched the darkness” and Sauron is asking her to do it again.

Back to 1x06, after the Adar business, we have the “I’ve felt it too” scene, where Sauron expressed his desire to bind them together. And if we remove the “fighting” (which is also be a symbol for sexual intercourse), Sauron’s quote sounds very intimate and romantic: “at your side, I... I felt... If I could just hold on to that feeling, keep it with me always, bind it to my very being, then I...”

But after Halbrand-Sauron is summoned by Queen Míriel, Galadriel has an intriguing scene all by herself. She cleans the black blood (Adar’s) from her dagger, and looks ashamed and guilty doing it. And she does this after saying "I've felt it too".

The subtext of this act can be very sexual, especially if we take into account her previous invocation of Joan of Arc (virgin), the black blood/seed (the same color as Sauron’s) and the symbolic penis (dagger). Symbolically, this can indicate she’s attempting to keep her sexual rendezvous with Halbrand-Sauron a secret. A dirty secret she’s deeply ashamed of.

And for my Half-Maia Celebrían enthusiasts out there: after the volcano eruption, in 2x07, the first place of her body Galadriel touches is her lower stomach, her womb. Why?

When she’s finally able to get up, she searches for Halbrand. And we also see her acting maternal with the angsty kid in town, Theo, next. After an episode where Adar mentioned “Halbrand’s” “woman” and “child”. You all know I’m not a believer in Half-Maia Celebrían theory but there are some intriguing clues on both Season 1 and Season 2. 

Next, Sauron pretends to be injured and Galadriel takes him to Eregion. In my opinion, the injury wasn’t fatal. I think he really wanted to be near Galadriel, even though he didn’t know for sure she would take him to Eregion and Celebrimbor, because Sauron doesn’t have the gift of foresight. Anyway, it was clear Sauron indented to forge two wedding rings, one for himself and the other for Galadriel.

On my original post I made the case for “sexy time” happening for the first time at Eregion, but now I’m convinced it might have been sooner. Sauron was there for three weeks, as that’s the time Gil-galad gives Celebrimbor in 1x08. Galadriel became suspicious of him the day after their arrival, probably. While something might have happened there, too, from the symbolism we got, it might have happened sooner than expected.  

[medievalandfantasymelee]

THE HOT MEDIEVAL & FANTASY MEN MELEE

QUALIFYING ROUND: 118th Tilt

“Man With Snake”, Edward II (1991) VS. King Philip II, The Lion in Winter (1968)

Propaganda

“Man With Snake”, Edward II (1991) Portrayed by: Barry John Clarke

“Credited simply as "Man with Snake" for his brief appearance in Derek Jarman's glowing, homoerotic re-imagining of Edward II, a golden thong- and crown-clad Clarke performs a languid dance with a snake coiled above his shoulders and— only five minutes into the film— becomes an iconic figure of New Queer Cinema. It's a powerful moment that invites the audience to watch Edward's diversions through an explicitly gay gaze. He's probably less of a set character than he is a symbol of desire and danger entwining, but I'd still like to plead his case. (Cont. Below the cut)

Philip II, The Lion in Winter (1968) Portrayed by: Timothy Dalton

“I will forever and always have a crush on Timothy Dalton on this movie. Philip is definitely a side character in it, for sure, but it's still a great performance (especially considering it was Dalton's film debut!) and he's also so cute.”

Additional Propaganda Under the Cut

Additional Propaganda

For Man With Snake:

"Jarman counters the trope of homosexual theft visually with the triumphant figure of Man with Snake. The Dantesque merging of snake and thief is replaced by an erotic dance in which the gilded youth raises his phallic partner above his head and seductively kisses it on the mouth [...] Jarman clears away all overdetermined theological meanings to revel in the purely aesthetic impact of the phallic dancer. All the ghosts from Dante’s snakepit are conjured away in the film and replaced with the solid presence of a single gorgeously spotlit male body." (from James Miller, ‘Man with Snake: Dante in Derek Jarman’s Edward II’, in Metamorphosing Dante: Appropriations, Manipulations, and Re-writings in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries)

TLDR, iconic hot gay snake man. Fun fact, the snake's name is Oscar! (As in Wilde?)”

For Philip II:

“I confess that I haven't actually watched The Lion in Winter, but I don't have to recognize that young Timmy Dalton is a total babe in it. Those eyes! That jawline! Real royals *wish* they were this hot.”

[meloncolliemovies]

QUEER (2024)

Director: Luca Guadagnino

Cast: Daniel Craig (Lee), Drew Starkey (Eugene)

4.5/5

Luca Guadagnino’s queer is a spectrum of imagery. It pushes the boundaries of what we know as “queer”, it disembodies it. It is so unusual to see a film with mlm couples where they are not in love and deeply romantic, because even in 2025 people are still uncomfortable with male on male sexuality. In fact, so much so that a woman behind me in the cinema couldn't stop laughing at this film, believing it comedic instead of the art it is.

I have always admired Guadagnino’s filmmaking for it's visual symbolism. I watched Bones and All last year and it is honestly one of my favourite films for imagery still. I personally loved the use of snakes and centipedes, evoking phallic, poisonous imagery, reminding viewers of how this film is rife with the unfortunate toxic masculinity that surrounds queer communities still today. The snake eating itself, in infinity, forever is a consistent reminder that we must escape the cycle as queer people and be honest with ourselves. The film also featured some fantastic bodily imagery, I've never been so upset at seeing a pair of boobs on my screen.

The acting is undoubtedly amazing. Casting Daniel Craig as the film noir Humphrey Bogart he always should've been, and shooting it so. Every concrete alley, every shadow, every superimposition was reminiscent of that 50s Hollywood, hard boned romance star. Yet, Daniel Craig is far from that in this, I'd go so far as to argue he's the opposite. He's vulnerable, but in the way that men expect they should be, he trods around his desperation until he simply cannot hide from it anymore, and then he begs and stalks. “I want to talk to you…without words”, he wants to emotionally connect, somehow still such an unusual concept for men. And then there's the ashamed, silent lover, Eugene, played by Drew Starkey and it's a fantastic role. I've never seen Drew Starkey in anything before and he blew it out the park for me. Their relationship, unlike many queer films I've seen especially featuring wlw relationships, demands rather than yearns. It is not just that Eugene and Lee want each other, it's that they demand and order. “Mas, mas, mas” They want more, and both cannot reach that, until they quite literally superimpose their bodies together and become one, and it all becomes too much.

The cinematography and mise en scene was also stunning. I loved the opening shots, the story told in objects. I loved the windows, because Guadagnino loves a window so I do too. It is shot so purely, sunlight through the blossoms, cobbled streets, unnamed buildings and bars where the queer people have to hide away from the rest of the world. Yet, Guadagnino has built a community in this world. The Green Lanterns, a safe space for queer men to express freely, and it makes me joyous to see that represented. Also, that fucking score. Trent Reznor is a genius and the Nirvana needle drops were all anyone could ask for, it was a symposium of sounds which make you think, does this match the aesthetic? But it does, it truly does. It brings us the seediness and hidden identities which visually are not shown.

After composing my thoughts a little, I can honestly say that Queer is a reminder of how far cinema has come. I would describe my feelings as I left the cinema as joyous. The film was beautiful. I absolutely love seeing men on screen, exploring vulnerability and breaking boundaries. Yet, I also love how they are so masculine that they can barely escape it. It's just wonderful to finally see unconventional queer relationships. I can't remember who said it, but a review I read said that "Sexuality is as individual as the fingerprint" and that's more than true. The film literally only lacks half a star because I got freaked out when their hearts fell out of their mouths, but honestly that's just me.

I would watch again, and again. I want more!

p.s I'm rewatching I Saw The TV Glow soon, be prepared for a huge review.

[stillsmybeatingheart]

[d1onys1an]

i am jack’s broken heart.

haruki murakami :: jen mazza :: wally lamb :: user @normal-horoscopes :: david fincher ( fight club, 1999 ) :: kerri maniscalco :: sarah kay :: the front bottoms ( twin size mattress ) :: david fincher ( fight club, 1999 ) :: ada limón.

[trash-gobby]

Roddy and Frank in They Live are gay for each other and you can't change my mind no matter what the fuck you think

[tearblossom]

I think Halloween II is an abomination and a horrible movie. I was really disappointed in it. The director has gone on and done some other films and I think his career is launched now. But I don’t think he had a feel for the material. I think that’s the problem, he didn’t have a feeling for what was going on. - John Carpenter, interviewed by Jim Whaley for Cinema Showcase (1984)

I will say that what got me through writing that script was Budweiser six pack of beer a night, sitting in front of the typewriter saying, “What in the hell can I put down? I have no idea.” We’re remaking the same film, only not as good. - John Carpenter, Halloween - A Cut Above the Rest (2003)

The Daily Beast Interview with John Carpenter (2018)

You and Debra Hill wrote Halloween II (although you didn’t direct it), and now, the new film “erases” it, and all the subsequent sequels, from the timeline. I assume you were okay with that?

Sure. I’m happy with it. I think it’s great. - John Carpenter

In erasing Halloween II, Green’s movie also does away with the long-standing idea that Laurie Strode is Michael’s sister. Did you always object to that twist?

Well, okay. Here's how it was. I made Halloween, and then Halloween was sold to NBC to show it. But it was too short—they needed it to be a certain length. So I had to go back and shoot some more footage to make it longer. And I was absolutely stuck. I didn't know what to do. I mean, the movie is the movie—I don't want to touch it. But everybody will be happy with me, and they'll make money, and that's great. So I had to come up with something. I think it was, perhaps, a late night fueled by alcoholic beverages was that idea. A terrible, stupid idea! But that's what we did. - John Carpenter

To your mind, did any of the sequels get close to the feel or effectiveness of the original?

Let’s stop talking about these silly sequels, will you please? I beg you. - John Carpenter

This was as good as I’ve seen since we did the first movie. - John Carpenter, Halloween - A Look Inside (2018)

The teenagers that are victims are the more sexually active. But that misses just the essential point of the film. The movie is about the revenge of the repressed. And Jamie Lee (Laurie strode) has a connection with the killer because she’s repressed too. - John Carpenter, Halloween - A Cut Above the Rest (2003)

The one girl who is the most sexually uptight just keeps stabbing this guy with a long knife. She's the most sexually frustrated. She's the one that's killed him. Not because she's a virgin but because all that sexually repressed energy starts coming out. She uses all those phallic symbols on the guy. She doesn’t have a boyfriend ... and she finds someone—him. - John Carpenter, The Rough Guide to Horror Movies (2005)

Attacking him is like losing her virginity, as she thrusts a knitting needle into his neck. It’s a phallic act that she repeats with the stab of a metal hanger and a knife, the ferocity of sex and penetration crashing over her like a wave of blood. The hungry chase that ensues is like an inverted courtship between young lovers, with Laurie reaching a fateful, shuddering climax as Myers falls from the bedroom window. Laurie doesn’t survive Halloween because she’s pure, but because she’s now tied to Myers. She comes out of the film changed, a sexual being dressed as a lamb. And as Halloween slashes its way into cinemas, Laurie loads her gun in anticipation. The person who meets us now isn’t a wounded girl, but a woman who followed the monster into his lair and recognized his face. - Little White Lies, Exploring the Monstrous Desire Between Michael Myers and Laurie Strode (2018)

Though its first sequel would fall into the early '80s habit of retconning franchise characters as brother and sister, the original Halloween does flirt with the idea of Michael Myers, Death himself, being something of a warped suitor for Laurie. This happens when Annie pulls ahead of Laurie on the sidewalk to check out the row of bushes where Laurie has just seen Myers playing peek-a-boo with her. Annie chimes, "Laurie, dear, he wants to talk to you. He wants to take you out tonight!" - Slash Film, Halloween at 40 (2018)

In one sequence, Laurie sings “Just the Two of Us,” a song about wishing to be alone with a lover. As she sings, Michael Myers springs into the foreground, as if on cue. She is singing, subconsciously at least, to him. - John Kenneth Muir, The Films of John Carpenter (2005)

If one is to take Carpenter’s arguments to their logical conclusion, Laurie is guilty of the murders because she has “wished” Michael Myers into her life through her repressed sexuality. - John Kenneth Muir, The Films of John Carpenter (2005)

The above quote may be way older than Halloween Kills but it resonates perfectly with what Laurie says here, in said movie:

Though, Laurie is only responsible, indirectly, for the murders of those close to her, as she would/will be for Karen and Allyson. Not every single person Michael has ever murdered. Nor is it her fault that Michael is the way he is. She’s a good person who would never wish harm on the undeserving. :)

[flamintango]

The Monstrous-Feminine: Barbara Creed's Theory of Monsters in Horror Films

[Translated from Paris Shih’s original. Disclaimer: I do not own the article.]

How should one read those aliens, demons, witches, vampire women, and feminine monsters in horror films? In her 1993 classic, The Monstrous-Feminine: Film, Feminism, Psychoanalysis, Barbara Creed enlightened us to a possible direction for interpretation with the dual theoretical framework of feminism and psychoanalysis. [1]

Before Monstrous, horror film criticisms had mostly focused on male monsters and female victims: exploring the male monsters' sadistic complex, and highlighting the misogyny propagated by the genre. Even with mentions of female monsters, discussions often position them within the tradition of male monsters. To emphasize the specificity of female monsters in the system of representation in horror films, Creed deliberately utilizes the term "monstrous-feminine" to distinguish it from female monsters. If the latter can only be viewed as a mirror reflection of the male monster, then through the former, Creed aims to expose a gender structure looming larger than the monster itself—the abject feminine that is suppressed in the Symbolic of the patriarchal society.

Kristeva, the abject mother, and horror

In the first part of Monstrous, Creed appropriated the abject theory of French feminist Julia Kristeva to deconstruct the feminine monster in the horror films history by layers. Kristeva's abject theory discusses not only the filth and grime in the realistic sense, but also the construction of identity on the symbolic level. The subject must eliminate the abject through rituals, delineate the boundary between the two, and stabilize the order of the subject's identity.

It is worth noting that the relationship between the subject and the abject stands not in binary opposition, but as mutual construct. The subject must define its selfhood against the abject's existence, and rebuild the boundaries time and again through constant elimination of the latter. Consequently, the abject needs to stay, and must exist. Furthermore, the subject/ abject boundary is ambiguous, and not always clear and definite. As a result, the abject remains a menace, and continues to terrify. Abjection has always been at the core of horror films. Horror films horrify, not only because they reproduce the typical object of abjection in human society—including blood, body fluids, and corpses—but also because these objects threaten the human subject and obscure the boundaries between the two. Although most horror films ultimately end with the threats eliminated and the human subject reconstructed, the fatal appeal of the genre also reveals the subject/ abject love-hate complex. In other words, horror films are fear on one hand, and desire on the other.

Kristeva not only discusses the abject; she further connects it to motherhood. In patriarchy, mothers often play a key role in handling children’s excrement, and teaching them about cleanness/ foulness; therefore, mothers share a perceived connection with the abject. More importantly, the mother symbolizes a past where the subjects had not yet been regulated by order. Compared to the Symbolic Order represented by the father, the mother represents the chaos of the "pre-order" and the ambiguity of the "pre-symbolic" Using Kristeva's idea of "the maternal abject," Creed observes that the feminine monsters in horror films evokes eerieness and terror with not only their abject qualities, but also their "motherness." They invoke the abject past in which the subject is tied to the mother, and the past that is filled with body fluids, blood, and excrement, all of which combined to threaten the subject's order and boundaries.

With the maternal abject in mind, Creed classifies the feminine monsters in classic horror films into five major groups: the archaic mother in Alien, the possessed monster in The Exorcist, the monstrous womb in The Brood, the vampire in The Hunger Ghost, and the witch in Carrie. The concept of feminine monsters has overturned many horror film discourses centered on male monsters in the past. For instance, the devil in The Exorcist used to be read as a male, yet Creed uncovers the potential reading for its female identity, and the prime example of the feminine monster is none other than the possessed Reagan in the film. After possession, Reagan grows increasingly "abject" (her body was covered with a lot of vomit and blood), and lustful. The subliminal incestual desire between mother and daughter that is originally suppressed surfaces as a result. The possessed Reagan represents the maternal past that threatens the Symbolic Order of patriarchal society, the stage of abjection wherein the subject-object boundary collapses; and the priest's exorcising ceremony represents an attempt to reconstruct the subjective order. The Exorcist haunts as a horror due to the diminishing patriarchal order (the fatherless single-parent family, priests who fail the exorcism), and the incapacity in the face of feminine monsters.

Freud, castrating mother, and horror

In the second part of Monstrous, Creed seeks to revisit another monumental theorist at horror films—Sigmund Freud. Creed arrived at a different conclusion as she reexamined the classic Freudian case of Little Hans, and she endeavors to revise Freud's psychoanalytic discourse. In Little Han's case, Freud attributes the boy's equinophobia to his repressed castration anxiety. Lurking deep behind his fear toward the animal is the fear of castration by the father. In Freud's theory, the mother induces castration anxiety in the boy as well. However, the mother herein symbolizes the "castrated figure," and foreshadows the boy's castrated future. Mothers pose threats, because they are passive and incapable.

Nevertheless, upon her meticulous reinvestigation on Little Han's case, Creed posits that the mother triggers the boy's castration anxiety not for her image of the castrated, but the castrator. Hence, the mother represents not the "castrated figure," but the "castrating figure." Creed hereby rewrites the greatest classic family romance in Freudian theory. Freud believes that a boy desires the mother on one hand, and fears being castrated by the father on the other. By contrast, Creed notes from Little Han's case the possibility in which boy faces the paradox where he desires the mother, yet meanwhile fears being castrated by—not the father—the mother herself. By rewriting Freud, Creed exposes another ghastly face of feminine monsters besides maternal scolding-female castrates. A female castrator may appear in the following forms: the femme castratrice in I Spit on Your Grave and Sisters, the castrating mother in Psycho, and the vagina dentata.

Drawing on the female castrator theory, Creed challenges the gender analyses of slasher films conducted by scholars in the past. Among them, the most noteworthy one belongs to the greatest gender theorist in horror film studies around the period—Carol J. Clover. In "Her Body, Himself,” Clover puts forth one of the most notable concepts in horror film studies—final girl. [2] Final girl describes a female character who has always survived to the end and defeated the murderer in slasher films since the 1970s. Clover discovers the final girls' shared characteristics: their neutral or masculine inclinations, their disinterest in sex compared to other female characters, and their sharp vigilance at surrounding incidents. The murderer represents the feminized male subject. In contrast, the final girl symbolizes the masculinized female subject, assuming the detective role in previous horror films. Creed disagrees with Clover on this observation, arguing that the final girl represents not a "phallic woman," but a "female castrator." She particularly emphasizes the difference between the two, remarking that it is a misconception on Clover's part to understand the final girl with the idea of phallicization/ masculinization. In Creed's eyes, a final girl represents the female castrator feared in the male subconscious, and this "female castrator" is to be distinguished from the "phallic woman" in Freud's conceptualization. [3]

Creed aims to modify the discursive framework around psychoanalysis and horror films altogether, and theorizes the mother as the castrator. That said, we can further question: Can "phallic woman" and "female castrator" remain distinctly defined in all circumstances? Creed notices that in many horror film discourses, "phallic woman" and "female castrator" are often confused in mixed usage, and she believes that it results from misreading. Despite so, the theorists' jumbled use over the years, if anything, indicates the ambiguous line between the indistinguishable two, does it not? Creed believes that the final girl is a female castrator; even so, does the belief necessarily overturn Clover's reading of the final girl as a phallic woman? If the phallic woman spawns from patriarchal ideology, is it subverted or reinforced by the female castrator, who claims the father's authority? Creed's revision of the discourse on psychoanalysis and horror film owns its significance. Still, how this revision loosens the two theoretical/discursive frameworks awaits critical discussions.

Horror and female spectatorship

In Monstrous's conclusion, Creed attempts to establish female spectatorship in horror films. Regarding viewing positions, Laura Mulvey and her resounding essay "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" have been inevitable references. In the essay, Mulvey approaches Hollywood classics with psychoanalysis to study the ways in which male viewers as castrated objects relieve their anxiety engendered by women on screen as castrated objects through fetishism on the one hand, and pursue the heroes through mirror self-identification on the other hand, using the silver screen as a mirror. Creed comments that while Mulvey's theory is obviously directed at classical Hollywood films, it fails to apply to horrors, for horror films bring the audience not pleasure, but dread, and the subject not stability, but threat.

Therefore, we need an alternative theory on horror films' viewing positions. Although horror films often conclude with the subject/ abject boundary redefined through the elimination or expulsion of monsters, the horror viewing experience continues to pose a lot of threats to the subject. Creed points out that the viewer's subject position is constantly shifting, which cannot be solely grasped with the idea of viewer identification. Therefore, needless to say, horror spectators also shift their viewing position back and forth between the victim and the monster. Nonetheless, the audience appears more likely to identify with the victim. Consequently, horror films spectators (especially male ones) in fact occupy a masochistic viewing position. Creed is not the only one who has shed light on the masochistic complex in the horror viewing experience. As a matter of fact, Clover has also noted the hidden victim mentality within male viewers in her final girl theory. During theorization, she proves that male viewers do not necessarily identify with male characters on screen. Going forward, she maintains that cross-gender identification is possible, and thus the male audience could identify with the final girl, who suffers persecution all the way and eventually vanquishes the monster. [4]

Then, what about the female audience? On top of the potential masochistic complex within the male audience, Creed also theorizes the female audience's possible identification with feminine monsters. The idea situates female viewers in a not only active but possibly even sadistic viewing position. Creed then concludes with the multiplicity and inconstancy of horror's viewing positions, without further inquiry. However, a few years later, Harry M. Benshoff's Monsters in the Closet: Homosexuality and the Horror Film reexamines horror films with queer theory. In the book, he regards the monstrous other in horrors as a queer symbol and envisions a possible queer reading in which the audience identify with the monster, and furthers discursive transactions on viewing positions in films.

That said, it is a whole other topic for another day.

Notes

[1] As early as 1986, Creed published "Horror and the Monstrous-Feminine: An Imaginary Abjection" in Screen, drawing Kristeva's abject theory to analyze gender representation in horror films. Monstrous is the result of its extension.

[2] This article was published in Representations in 1987, and was then picked up by Clover's influential Men, Women, and Chain Saws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film (1993). Creed here refers to the chapter included in Fantasy and the Cinema (1989).

[3] However, it is obvious that Creed deliberately ignores Clover's reflection on this reading method later in her article. Despite Clover's note in the first half of the article that the final girl's growth narrative conforms to the masculine subject's construction under patriarchy, a reminder in the second half states that the final girl is a paradoxical and unstable gender subject. The final girl represents a hermaphroditic construction, as the audience first experiences feminization, and masculinization afterwards along the journey with her. For Clover, the final girl reflects the instability of gender identity in contemporary society, and the ambiguity of gender taxonomy. Therefore, Creed's allegations against Clover here are not entirely fair.

[4] Even so, the subversive potential of such cross-gender identification is still debatable. If the male audience's pursuit of the final girl implies their identification with a masculinized subject, does it suggest a limitation to cross-gender identification? Apart from the final girl, can a male viewer possibly identify with a feminine female subject, who harbors untamed sexuality and is thus destined to perish?

Works Cited

Benshoff, Harry M. Monsters in the Closet: Homosexuality and the Horror Film. New York: Manchester UP, 1997.

Clover, Carol J. “Her Body, Himself: Gender in the Slasher Film.” Representations 20 (1987): 187-228.

______. Men, Women, and Chain Saws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1992.

Creed, Barbara. “Horror and the Monstrous-Feminine: An Imaginary Abjection.” Screen 27.1 (1986): 44-70.

______. The Monstrous-Feminine: Film, Feminism, Psychoanalysis. London & New York: Routledge, 1993.

Donald, James, ed. Fantasy and the Cinema. London: BFI, 1989.

Freud, Sigmund. “Analysis of a Phobia in a Five Year Old Boy.” The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Vol. 10. Trans. James Strachey. London: Hogarth, 1955. 3-149.

Kristeva, Julia. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. Trans. Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia UP, 1982.

Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Screen 16.3 (1975): 6-18.

[brentwatchesmovies]

Brent’s Top 10 Movies of 2019

Scorsese is probably my favorite living filmmaker, but I’ll be honest, when I heard that Scorsese was making this movie, and *how* he was making it (heavily digital de-aged actors) I was a bit skeptical. De Niro and Pacino haven’t been turning in interesting performances in quite awhile, and Pesci came out of a decades-long retirement for the movie as well. On top of that, the first trailer released did little for me. All that to say I was an idiot to doubt the master.

Scorsese returns to the crime genre that he re-invented many times over the years, this time with the eyes of a man in his 70’s, looking back on his life and career. The movie is very long, but in my opinion, it needs the length. The viewer needs to *feel* the totality of a life, and as is his intent with The Irishman, the *consequences* of this specific life. The final hour or so of this movie feels like a culmination of Scorsese’s career in many ways. The energy and entertainment of a crime/mob epic, with the fatalism and philosophical leanings of a movie like ‘Silence’. It’s a 3.5 hour movie that I’ve already rewatched, and actively want to again, so that alone ought to speak volumes.

Harmony Korine made one of my favorite movies of the 2010’s, the neon-soaked and often misunderstood ‘Spring Breakers’, so I was already in the bag for whatever he did next. When I heard it was a freewheeling stoner comedy where Matthew Mcconaughey plays a guy named ‘Moondog’ costarring Snoop Dogg, I reserved its location on my top 10 list.

This movie doesn’t have the empty heart at its core that defines Spring Breakers, opting instead for a character study about a ‘Florida man’ poet after his life pretty much falls apart. It’s basically plotless, stumbling from one insane, borderline hallucinatory sequence to the next, but I just loved living in the world of this movie. Beach Bum almost feels like a deliriously fun VR simulation of hanging out with Matt McConaughey and his weirdo friends down in the Florida keys. This is one that probably won’t pop up on many top 10 lists but I really adore, and will surely rewatch it a dozen times in the years to come.

Let the record show, I’ve been a huge fan of Bong Joon-ho since I first saw his monster movie/family drama ‘The Host’. Some time later, he went on to make ‘Snowpiercer’, one of my favorite movies of the last decade. All that to say, I think Parasite is probably his best movie, and a true masterwork of thriller direction. It also has his usual brand of social commentary and a script filled with darkness and humor, following a South Korean tendency to juggle multiple tones throughout, sometimes all in one moment or scene.

Parasite also follows a big 2019 trend of commenting on class and social dynamics between the rich and the poor. I think that’s part of why it’s done incredibly well at the box office (especially for a Korean language film), the fact that people can relate in a huge way, regardless of which country your from. Parasite is one of the most entertaining movie viewing experiences I’ve had this year and I’d recommend everyone check it out.

If you were to ask me what the funnest movie-going experience I had in 2019 was, I’d have to pick Rian Johnson’s ‘Knives Out’. Hot off making one of the best Star Wars movies ever made (don’t @ me) Johnson decided to make a passion project in the vein of classic Agatha Christie style murder mysteries, and the results are a total blast. Filled with clever twists and turns, weaponizing the structure of murder-mysteries against the audiences expectations, it stays one step ahead of you the entire time.

Aside from the clever mystery of it all, it’s the actors performances and chemistry that really sell this thing. Jamie Lee Curtis and Toni Collette are expectedly great per usual, and Daniel Craig is having the time of his life as Mississippi private-eye Benoit Blanc, but the heart of the movie is relative newcomer Ana de Armas. She brings an emotional weight and anchor to the movie that always keeps you emotionally invested amidst the terrible, money hungry backstabbing by the other heightened characters. I hope everyone sees this movie and Johnson is able to give us another Benoit Blanc adventure somewhere down the line, I’ll be there opening day.

Nobody makes an upbeat, feel-good movie like Ari Aster does! After last years light and breezy ‘Hereditary’ (which I liked a lot but didn’t totally love) he’s back with a completely riveting and emotionally draining (not to mention horrific) masterpiece. What I connected to most in Midsommar is the journey of Dani, played incredibly by Florence Pugh. The way the film portrays the relationship between her and her dog shit boyfriend played by the (usually) charming Jack Reynor keeps you invested in every twist, perfectly paced out over the movies admittedly long runtime.

I won’t get into spoiler territory, but where this movie goes in the end is what makes this a fully 5-star movie for me. After putting you through hell, like Aster loves to do with bells on, Midsommar ends in a euphoric, psychedelic orgy of music and violence that I couldn’t help but laugh out loud. Midsommar rules so hard and I can’t wait for whatever twisted thing Aster cooks up next.

One of my increasingly favorite brands of movies is a finely crafted, primo slice of dad-movie cinema, and James Mangold has made one with Ford v Ferrari. The story chronicles the partnership of ex-racer and designer Carroll Shelby and racer Ken Miles as they work to make a Ford that can compete in the 24 hour race of Le Mans. Bale and Damon are a blast to watch bounce off each other and the race sequences are pretty damn thrilling, combining (what I expect is) a solid amount of great VFX with practical racing to great effect.

I also didn’t expect it to have as much to say about the struggle to create something special by passionate people and not committees while also inside the very machine that churns out products on an assembly line. Just a random note, this original movie was just put out by 20th Century Fox, now owned by Disney but that’s completely unrelated and I’m not sure why I’d even bring that up??? Anyway, I love this movie and dads, moms and everybody else should check it out.

If you saw my list last year, then it must appear like I’m some diehard Mr. Rogers fan. I don’t really have many memories watching his show as a child, but what the documentary ‘Won’t You be my Neighbor’ and this film by Marielle Heller have in common is a shared fascination of his immense empathy and character. It’s only right that America’s dad Tom Hanks should play him, and I was surprised at the end that I was able to get over his stardom and accept him as Rogers. He’s not doing a direct impersonation, and I think it’s all the better for it, instead opting for matching his soft tone and laid back movements.

On a pure emotional level, this movie was a freight train. It didn’t help that the movie covers a lot of father stuff, from losing your own to becoming one yourself (2 big boxes on the Brent bingo card). Heller’s direction is clever in its weaponizing of meta/post-modern techniques, such as one incredible fourth wall break in a diner scene. It literally breaks down the barrier between Mr. Rogers, we the audience, and the films intent to make us feel something.

I cry a lot at movies, that much is well known, but it’s rare that a movie makes me weep, and this one did. Even thinking about scenes right now, days later, my eyes are welling up with tears thinking about the messages of the movie. Mr. Rogers and his lessons of empathy and emotional understanding have rarely been as vital and important as they are right now in our world.

Robert Eggers first film ‘The Witch’ from 2015 is one of my favorite movies of this decade, possibly of all time, so my hype for his black and white, period piece two-hander ‘The Lighthouse’ was through the roof. Even with sky-high expectations, it still blew me away. With dialogue reminiscent of The Witch in its specific authenticity to its era, to the two lead actors giving all-time great performances, It was one of the most entertaining film viewing experiences I had this year.

There’s something about both of Egger’s movies that I really keyed into watching this one: his fascination with shame and the liberation from it. Where Witch was from the female perspective, Lighthouse literally has two farting, drunk men in a giant phallic symbol fighting for dominance. It’s less a horror film than his first, but still utterly engrossing, demented and specific to his singular vision. I can’t wait to see 20 more movies from this guy.

This is another big movie of 2019, like The Irishman, where you can see the director looking inward, at what his films mean and represent. It initially caught me so off guard that I really didn’t know how to feel about it, but after seeing it again, it’s one of my favorites of the year, and probably Tarantino’s filmography overall. More akin to something like Boogie Nights or Dazed and Confused, letting us live with and follow a small group of characters, it mostly doesn’t feel like a Tarantino movie (until the inevitable and shocking explosion of violence in the third act, of course).

‘Hollywood’ is the most sincere and loving movie Tarantino has made, interested in giving us a send off to an era of Hollywood and artists that have been lost or forgotten (Some more tragically than others). In the end, the movie functions similarly to ‘Inglorious Basterds’ in it’s rewriting of history to give us catharsis. “If only things could have worked out this way.” Luckily in movies, removed from the restrictions of reality, they can. And once upon a time in Hollywood, they did.

Uncut Gems probably tripled my blood pressure by the time the credits rolled. A slice-of-life story about a gambler/dealer in New York’s diamond district, the movie follows Howard Ratner, played by Adam Sandler in easily the best performance of his career. Ratner is basically addicted to living at the edge of a cliff, being chased by violent debt collectors, juggling a home life and a relationship with an employee, and fully relying on risky sports bets to stay afloat. It makes for a consistently tense and unique viewing experience, expertly directed by the Safdie brothers.

Something that might not work for everyone but that I personally loved, is the chaotic way in which the movie is shot. What feels like loosely directed scenes, with characters talking over each other and multiple conversations happening at once, adds an authenticity and reality lacking from most other movies. It’s more adjacent to Linklater (thanks to Adam for the comparison) or Scorsese’s earlier films (also fitting, that he’s a producer on this). Following Howard Ratner as his life descends into chaotic hell was one of the best times I’ve had watching a movie this year.

HONORABLE MENTIONS

AVENGERS ENDGAME

DOLEMITE IS MY NAME

BOOKSMART

JOHN WICK CHAPTER 3

THE FAREWELL

AD ASTRA

[theuntamer]

Episode 12 - Wen Indoctrination

Let's review the following scene with the knowledge that swords are phallic symbols.

When Wen Chao takes them firstly we learn that he is heavily compensating for something (I don't necessarily mean size, but rather he's so agressive because he's subordinate to his father and has to balance that by behaving like this) and we can see how each character reacts to being emasculated in this way.

WWX offering his sword jovially. Keep in mind this is the man who joked that he gave birth to aYuan. (he obviously doesn't want to give his sword up but that's a given for everyone, it's how he handles having to). He's not uncomfortable on a psychological level to do this. Non binary King I say. (However I'll be making the opposite point later when he stops carrying his sword and is obviously bothered by everyone asking why he doesn't have it, but that's different because then it'll be the actual ability he won't have, not the sword)

Cheng goes next, doesn't like it but does it

What extreme self control we see here! WWX & Cheng both had a moment before handing their swords over, when they would grasp them harder before letting them go. I think it's safe to say that this whole thing is the hardest on Lan Zhan, mostly because his clan was just decimated and this is a reminder of how powerless he was/is to stop that, but also because he's the proudest and most reserved character, he doesn't like to be close to people or be touched by them so this is even more personal and invasive to him than to anyone else, YET his hand doesn't grasp his sword. Amazing self control. Powerful. Poetic cinema. We can see it on his face how much he hates it but you wouldn't see it on his hand.

Here here, here's my penis symbol sir, I didn't know what to do with it anyway sir.

Not this guy!! Over his dead body. Unless his sister tells him to do it. He's all about family. He won't give up the sword because Jin clan members always carry them. He sees his purpose primarily through his duties to his clan and family. Even his last words will be about how much he respects and how important he knows the familial relationship between WWX and Jiang Yanli is.

part II

[marksollinger]

I just. What the fuck is videodrome. Like I loosely understand the plot I looked it up and read the synopsis but like what IS it I don’t get it. Is it because I’m not a film student. Dairy I don’t understand please help

i hate being a film student because people ask me for movie recs a lot and i have to actually think about it because telling an unwitting & innocent human being to watch videodrome is, i think, a very bad idea (unless they like body horror and film analysis and won’t assume i’m recommending a movie because i necessarily enjoy it wholeheartedly). i have had to watch and rewatch videodrome (and peeping tom and eraserhead and some others like them) to analyze and write about them for my cinema degree and i don’t think i could recommend some these movies to non film majors in good conscience, lmao

and i’m not trying to say this is like a High Art Form kind of movie because, Intellectuale™ as it may be, it is trash through and through. it is gorey and full of trash and so much freudian bullshit it’s unreal. when i say that this is a filmstudent-ass movie, i mean that it’s pretty hard to watch this movie and call it a masterpiece or whatever unless you’re saying it ironically or you’re stringing out a whole shitload of film theory and analysis from it because you went to film school and now you can’t watch movies like a normal person anymore (and that is not a compliment) 😭 like, i think if i told a normal person that i love the movie videodrome, they might assume i huff paint recreationally because this is clearly a movie for people who kill their braincells on purpose.

however i don’t think it’s because you’re not a film student lol there are lots of people who are film students who hate videodrome for valid reasons; it’s just a very fucked up and weird film that i enjoy for the body horror and because it mildly traumatized james woods, a dirty republican whom i hate

edit: here’s an actual summary and explanation* if you actually want it (*which is really just a mix of my personal interpretation and the interpretations i’ve had to read about in film theory and analysis courses):

the 1983 david cronenberg film, videodrome, is about a man named max renn, the president of civic tv, a toronto tv station which specializes in airing sensationalist content. unbeknownst to max, forces outside of his control are conspiring to turn him into a tool/weapon which will help some objectively evil people (weapons manufacturers) take control of channel 83 by using max to kill off his civic tv partners. there’s a cult that also does (practically) nothing but show weird vhs tapes to unhoused people and experiments on them (i’m skipping over the dynamic interactions between the o’blivion cult, civic tv, and barry convex but honestly that’s more plot-relevant than it is theme-relevant). in the end, max turns on the people controlling him, kills them in an act of defiance, and then kills himself. what i’ve personally taken away from this movie as being the primary message is that sensationalist exploitation of other peoples’ suffering (physical, sexual, emotional) is one of the larger evil of capitalism, and that, under capitalism, we’re all exploiting each other in different ways, all of it inherently violent and corrupting (videodrome even arguably includes some minor commentary on the fetishization of other—primarily asian—cultures and how they are consumed... but i've also seen it suggested that even this is a mere ornament to the topic of exploitation-as-violence in the film). in general, it's pretty obviously saying “you are not immune to propaganda, media can and does impact reality, fiction or nonfiction." it contains an overwhelming amount of freudian references (mentioning freud by name, the cigarette-smoking, the  phallic/yonic symbols) and mulveyan “voyeurism is violent” messaging. similar to peeping tom (1960, dir. michael powell), it’s kind of the ‘ideal’ film-major-movie because it’s really dense with obvious ideas and symbols that we get taught about in foundational film theory courses.

but again. i like it for the cartoonish 80s gore, practical effects, and watching james woods suffer. the self-reflexive meta stuff is cool, the materiality of the vhs and cathode ray tube televisions being very specific to the time in which it was made. it’s neat and fucked up. what more could you want from an 80s horror movie? some of the imagery is genuinely pretty upsetting for folks with common triggers so, again, it’s something i don’t really go around recommending to people... at least not lightly, film student or not.

[thegospelofnagisa]

I KNEW someone was going to use the space scene to defend the Touka scene, so I’m going to chime in. 1. Gen Urobochi did not sexualize the girls in Madoka Magica. Any nudity was quick, in transformations, and not panned in sexualized shots. The space scene was not shot sexually (also compare the Madoka blu ray transformations to shows like Yuki Yuna, Neptunia, and Lyrical Nanoha…it’s also proof it can be sexual without nudity.). It was a symbolic approach to being on a pure plane of existence. They could have shot that in so many ways, but they decided to represent the purity of the scene.

Furthermore, Gen Urobochi himself respected the girls he was writing. He tried to write real girls, and he made it an order that in the movie trilogy of a strict no nudity policy. Like or hate Urobochi, he respected the portrayal of the girls in Madoka Magica, they all felt relatable, that’s what made the series stand out to me 7 years ago.

So why is the Touka scene uncomfortable? First, lets cut out every scene but the zoom in shots. She’s moving her thighs up (in black tights and a skirt) seductively and the next scene is her moving up on her umbrella, which is kinda phallic. It looks like she’s doing this on a bed too. If I were shown these scenes blindly, I would assume it was a snippet from an opening sequence of an ecchi anime series. I wouldn’t even think this was a child.

Now in context, this is a child character. Why have a child character be introduced this way? If their goal was to make her come off as uncomfortable, that’s a cheap, creepy, lazy way to do so. Just the way Touka is smiling so emptily in such an awkward pose is enough to tell the viewer something is off, so there is no excuse. Throwing in those creepy shots just takes the viewer out of the moment. It still boggles my mind that this passed the storyboard stage and someone actually animated a child having seductive movements.

Tl;dr It depends on how the scene is shot, not if the character is naked. A character can be wearing clothes and the intention of the scene can be sexual. A character can be naked with no sexual context (hell Sailor Moon did this a couple times). Cinema shots are powerful, they can make or break a scene in seconds. Madoka Magica didn’t have creepy lingering pans, close ups, and shots on the girls. The scene with Touka is short but the way its shot translates to sexual intent, and it says something when viewers are expressing how that short scene made them uncomfortable.

Side note: There’s discomfort, but I saw disturbing otaku comment that it was a sexy scene and someone else commented the show was turning him in to a loli. It’s especially bothersome because this isn’t what the Madoka Magica series stood for. Still waiting for someone to try and explain how deep the blatant sexualization of a child character is (believe it or not, I’ve seen that before, and it makes me vomit)

—————-

I actually went back and looked at that scene and I have to be honest…I didn’t notice the umbrella grabing and the leg raising, I was having lunch when I watched the episode so I probably turned away from the screen to grab some fries and missed it, but going back now….holy shit…to me THAT, the tight rise is what gives the scene a sexual tone, I can get pass the Umbrella rubbing and her posing like that, it bothers me but I can “Tolerate it” but the leg rising is what kills it for me…that was completely unnecesary, bad one Inu Curry, that’s what you got the twins for, not Touka.

Here’s the scene for you to give another look:

[cemeterytourguide]

Theoretical Frameworks in Alien (1979)

TW: Sexual assault, sexual themes

Alien (1979) is a film rife with sexual subtext. Swiss designer ‘Hans Rudolf Giger’ known better as ‘H.R Giger’ designed each set and character with a function, a certain practicality but also an overt sexuality. Giger’s work is macabre, it’s mechanical yet deeply sensual. The sexual underpinnings of the Xenomorph design extend to ‘LV-426’, the moon that our focal characters venture onto. As a result, the sexuality of Alien’s design philosophy imbues the film with distinct references to Freudian theory; namely, the uncanny.

Freud, in his 1919 essay Das Unheimliche, describes the uncanny as “that class of the terrifying which leads back to something long known to us, once very familiar.” (Freud, 1919) Alien subverts expectations in a way that evokes the feelings and fears associated with the uncanny. It twists the conventions of male sexuality and repurposes them as the basis of its horror. Freud himself attributes castration anxiety in men to the idea that the vagina presents an uncanny form of the penis and Giger employs vaginal imagery in specific areas of the alien spacecraft found on LV-426 to evoke this.

The doors of LV-426 resemble the labia majora whilst the opening of the facehugger’s probe is designed to resemble the vagina. The facehugger’s probe is also phallic in nature and is the introduction to the persistent source of phallic imagery throughout the film – the lifecycle of the Xenomorph.

Part of the genius of Alien’s narrative is that it requires no exposition nor supplementary explanation. The viewer is exposed to the lifecycle of the Xenomorph directly as the story progresses and the three stages of life present sexuality imagery intended to attack the male audience.

Initially, the audience is presented with the Xenomorph egg as Nostromo crew member Kane ventures out to contact the alien ship. The opening of the egg resembles the labia.

Directly following this, Kane is attacked by a facehugger. The probe of the facehugger is phallic in nature and features an opening that resembles the vagina. The function of the facehugger also evokes fear of the uncanny via its reproductive mechanisms. The probe enters Kane’s throat, symbolising the brutal assault of rape, during which he is forcibly impregnated by eggs. The action is deeply sexual but also serves to inverse the conventional concept of pregnancy by making a man its host. The process of penetration resulting in impregnation is the basis of most reproduction amongst animals and humans alike and yet its presentation in Alien is perverse, invasive and attacks the male masculinity to evoke fear.

Next, the chestburster ruptures from Kane’s chest cavity. The form of the chestburster is phallic but this process continues to use an uncanny representation of pregnancy and birth as a source of terror. The bloodied chestburster resembles the fetus, birthed by a man and symbolic of his loss of the penis. Kane has lost his penis, and thus his masculinity, as a result of being overpowered and impregnated by the facehugger.

The final stage, the famous Xenomorph, presents a much sultrier depiction of the uncanny. The previous stages repurpose the male sexuality in ways indicative of body horror but the form of the Xenomorph is aesthetic. With a phallic head and sleek body, the serpentine movement of the Xenomorph provides beauty. It’s intriguing, it’s feminine and it’s perverse. It attacks the male sexuality by inviting men to engage with the seductive nature of the Xenomorphs’ form and contrasting this with a grotesque danger. H.R Giger describes his methodology when designing the Xenomorph and how he rejected the concept of an ugly monster “(The Xenomorph) can move gracefully, it can be sinuous.” (Williams, 2016)

Every stage of the Xenomorph’s birth cycle subverts the male sexuality to create the uncanny.

Conversely, the character of Ellen Ripley works to empower the Hollywood depiction of women by employing feminist perspective.

Anneke Smelik, film researcher at Radboud University, describes feminist film theory as criticizing “classical cinema for its stereotyped representation of women.” Smelik, Anneke. (2016).

As a warrant officer, Ellen Ripley is in a place of authority. The attempted invalidation of her authority is the catalyst for the events with the Nostromo. After Kane is assaulted by the facehugger, the other crew members attempt to recover him for placement on the ship. Ripley denies this request on the basis that this action could cause contamination due to the alien lifeform latched to Kane. Ash overrides this denial and allows for Kane to be brought onboard the Nostromo and, as Ripley had asserted, these actions introduced contamination and results in the eventual destruction of the Nostromo and its crew.  This subverts the expectation of male authority and the male savior figure that is commonplace in films of its era.

This is compounded by Ripley’s direct comparison to another female character ‘Joan Lambert’. Lambert embodies the problematic female stereotype in a variety of ways throughout the film. She’s hysterical, she’s helpless and she’s callous. With the pressure mounting as the Xenomorph continues to ravage the dwindling crew, Lambert suggests escape via the ‘Narcissus’ with complete disregard for the fact that the remaining crew could not be accommodated. Lambert’s problematic traits result in the death of fellow crew member ‘Parker’ as he could not use his flamethrower on the Xenomorph in fear of killing Lambert who was paralyzed with fear. Overt femininity and dependence on a male savior are facets of a commonplace fantasy in male gaze cinema but, in this instance, it results in the death of the man. It’s a harsh critique on the nature of chauvinistic desires for female helplessness and submissiveness and Hollywood’s overdependence on the male savior complex.

Ripley embodies opposing traits; she’s independent, she’s determined and she’s in an administrative role where she has a voice. These are the traits that lead to her survival in the film as the ‘final girl’.

‘Final girl’ is a horror trope, most commonly associated with slasher films, wherein the character to overcome all odds and defeat the threat is a woman. Typically, this woman casts off femininity in favor of more male-applicable traits so as to appeal to the male audience. In her book, ‘Men, Women, and Chain Saws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film’ professor of film studies Carol J. Clover discusses male identification regarding the ‘final girl’ trope “At the moment that the Final Girl becomes her own savior, she becomes a hero; and the moment that she becomes a hero is the moment that the male viewer gives up the last pretense of male identification.” (Clover, 1993)

In addition to surviving against all odds, Ripley subverts sexual expectations also. She’s six feet tall, broad-shouldered and donning the correct uniform. Her body-type is not the curvaceous and voluptuous vessel of conventional beauty, as is often the case with male gaze cinema. She’s taller than her male counterparts and the final moments of the film subvert the voyeuristic pretenses that it originally constructs.

Ripley, having finally escaped the Nostromo, is undressing in preparation for cryosleep, a term used to describe being cryogenically frozen to allow for feasible transport across lightyears. She’s wearing a short vest top and underwear, white as a symbol of sexual purity, and the camera is distanced from her. It’s filmed in such a way to suggest that we are unseen spectators to Ripley’s undressing and the voyeuristic undertones are evident.

As we pull closer to Ripley, the moment is abruptly discontinued when the Xenomorph makes a surprise appearance aboard the Narcissus escape pod. Ripley is under threat once more, but the moment is more invasive and sexual. The Xenomorph draws closer to Ripley, unsheathing the phallic form of its inner mouth. Ripley opens the emergency hatch, allowing her to fire the harpoon gun at the Xenomorph and finally be rid of the threat. Ripley’s victory comes in the form of donning a phallic object and penetrating the Xenomorph with it. In that moment, she has taken the power and subverts male sexuality and asserts herself as an independent woman in control of her own sexuality.

The final moments of Alien also feature maternal abjection as a core theme. The brain of the Nostromo is a computer called ‘MU-TH-UR 6000’ but referred to only as ‘mother’ by the crew. The crew’s reliance on the computer called ‘mother’ establishes the theme of maternal abjection from the beginning. The computer being the core component of the ship is part of the theme of this abjection. The Xenomorph has the innate ability to become one with its environment and the presence of the threat’s symbiosis with the mother figure is literally driving the crew away; it represents the corruption of the paternal figure as it casts away those who seek its safety.

In addition to this, Ripley’s escape plan involves forcing the ship to overload via MU-TH-UR’s terminal. Upon trying to reverse these effects, once Ripley has extracted the coolant, the computer defies her and continues the self-destruct protocol regardless. Ripley’s frustration compels her to refer to MU-TH-UR as a “son of a bitch”. This represents a dichotomy of mother and daughter. They have both rejected one another and casted one another out.

Alien has always attracted academics to its subtext. It’s a classic horror film and papers cite its core themes to be Freudian or based on humanism or a depiction of otherness. Barbara Creed, professor of film studies, asserts that the chestburster scene is indicative of ‘primal scene’ and of “a common misunderstanding that many children have about birth, that is, that the mother is somehow impregnated through the mouth,” (Creed, 2019) This is featured in her book on the topic of similar theoretical frameworks ‘Horror and the Monstrous Feminine: An Imaginary Abjection’.

This is just one of many interpretations that exist to excite the minds of viewers. Filmmaker Quentin Tarantino discusses the abstraction of intention and reception regarding the meaning of art in a 2013 interview with Terry Gross on NPR “I mean, of course "King Kong" is a metaphor for the slave trade. I'm not saying the makers of "King Kong" meant it to be that way, but that's what, that's the movie that they made - whether they meant to make it or not.” (NPR, 2019)

Viewers will interpret art subjectively and, with studious justification, is it fair to say that any given interpretation can be deemed incorrect? Through the lens of society and psychology, these theoretical frameworks provide the literary basis for filmmakers to create and for film critics to critique - whether these frameworks were ever consciously included or not.

[stillsmybeatingheart]

[prudencepaccard]

An amazing review of 1992′s Johnny Stecchino

>Roberto Benigni, the writer-director-star of "Johnny Stecchino," (at the Goldwyn Pavilion, Beverly Center Cineplex) shares one major quality with the great silent movie comics, the Chaplins and Keatons. Somehow, he seems not quite of this Earth.

With his elfin, pointy face and tiny, agile frame, he's a moon child, a glorious freak. When Benigni begins his specialty--a rapid, almost brain-dizzying patter, where his maniacal discourse and flailing arms shred all logic to tatters--his voice and persona take on weird, musical tones, like Gabrieli's trumpet with a frog in the bell.

"Johnny Stecchino," a showcase for Benigni, was the biggest box-office hit in the history of the Italian movie industry, bigger than "La Dolce Vita" or "Cinema Paradiso." But it's unlikely to strike that universal a chord here. It's a classic star vehicle: a simple romantic crime comedy about accident-prone bus driver, Dante, who unknowingly assumes the role of his look-alike Sicilian gangster, Johnny. It exists mainly to show Benigni off, let him daffily race through his repertoire.

But, if you don't recognize Benigni--and, though he's a first-magnitude Italian star, most American audiences know him only from his Jim Jarmusch films--if, in a way, you aren't rooting for him, it's not quite as funny.

The movie is a sendup of machismo and the Mafia. In it, Johnny's wife Maria (Nicoletta Braschi, Signora Benigni) and his coke-addled lawyer (Paolo Bonacelli) engineer the switch to provide the gangster's many enemies with a plausible corpse, so the real Johnny, hidden in his villa basement, can flee Palermo for Argentina. But there's another symbolic layer to this story: "Stecchino" means "toothpick" in Italian, and the "Johnny Toothpick" character is, in some sense, the evil fantasy-come-true of hapless Dante.

Like most "double" movies, from "Prince and the Pauper" to "The Prisoner of Zenda," it's a secret wish-fulfillment tale. Dante, a bumbling but benevolent little bus driver, goes woozy whenever he sees a beautiful woman. Johnny is a gravelly voiced lady-killer brute, who kills without qualm and slaps gorgeous Maria if she kisses him during sex.

And though kind little Dante, who serenades his busful of beaming, learning-impaired passengers with a jolly zoo song, shows no apparent desire to be a brutal gangster, it's down there underneath. He'd like the power, the freedom, certainly the sex.

The movie strips his id, lets him play at being bad Al Pacino. But it's a crucial plot twist that Dante never knows he's been substituted for a notorious criminal. Instead, he accepts all the crazy lies and misconceptions Maria and Johnny's shyster attorney keep feeding him: that the gourmet meals sent down to Johnny are being fed to a ravenous pet dog; that the lawyer's cocaine is diabetes medicine, snorted through a lira bill; that, when the town erupts in gunfire or half a Palermo opera audience screams for the impostor's head, it's because he's stolen a banana.

That's how Dante keeps his innocence. His naivete is immense. But no more so, really, than killer Johnny, who falls into a trance whenever he hears the word mother, and keeps complaining that the "wimp" Dante doesn't look anything like him. They're alter egos, like swinger Buddy Love and schlemiel Julius Kelp in Jerry Lewis' "The Nutty Professor," and they even have complementary personal phallic symbols: Dante's bananas and Johnny's toothpicks. When they meet, appropriately, it's in another reprise of the legendary two men and a mirror gag from Max Lindner and the Marx Brothers.

As an actor, Benigni is unique. Like Chaplin, Laurel or Hardy, he's a human mixed metaphor: a devilish cherub, a seraphic imp. (In "Il Piccolo Diavolo," he played a brash little demon who fell in love with the priest who exorcised him.) As a director, his style is big, clean, lucid. All the characters are snazzily exaggerated, and cinematographer Giuseppe Lanci's shots of Palermo have sumptuous size and spaciousness.

As a writer, like many comics, he tends to string together set pieces, sometimes illogically. Dante is boob or would-be sharpster, Maria shifts too swiftly from murderess to heroine. And it's hard to figure why everyone in town mistakes Dante for Johnny, except the police colonel to whom he confesses his "banana robbery."

What buoys "Johnny Stecchino" (MPAA-rated R for language and drug-related humor) is its impudence, its tender-hearted wackiness, its revelry in all the squirrelly quirks of Benigni's beguilingly screw-loose persona. The movie is a nose-tweak of the Mafia, government and organized religion, but there's a wide-eyed style that softens its roughest gags. That tone is wonderful, childlike, unmalicious. If not quite benign, at least it's Benigni.

[smokeybrandreviews]

Lament Configuration

I follow a lot of film scoop and review channels on the Youtubes because i adore stories. The art of storytelling is one that is bursting with potential and lousy with creativity. Everything in media starts with a story. Be it a actually narrative or a painting, a record of a dish, anything that can be described as art, has a story behind it and i find that diversity of expression to be amazing. I am absolutely fascinated by visual storytelling, particularly in cinema. Crafting a narrative on film is a devastatingly complex set of compromises and cooperation that, when executed well, delivers content that enters into the cultural zeitgeist. They become hallmarks of pop culture and inspiration for other storytellers to craft their own worlds. It’s absolutely amazing. Is what i would say if i didn’t live in a world rife with f*cking culture wars.

I bring this up because there’s a ton of discourse around this Red Sonja reboot. This thing has been in development hell for decades but it’s finally filming as we speak. Now, I'm not a fan of the dark fantasy genre. I respect it to an extent, but I'm not with barbarians and loin cloths. Like, a half nude Arnold Schwarzenegger impaling other dudes with a massive phallic symbol, is just a little too “on the gay ass nose” for me. I understand, however, those old Conan and Conan-adjacent films hold a strong fanbase. I get it. That was a solid f*cking world John Milius and Oliver Stone adapted from Robert E. Howard's original work. But, like all tomes of the past, Conan is a product of it’s time. That movie could never get made today. I can’t remember if it’s the original or the sequel but the f*cking thing starts with "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women." That’s what sets the pace of the movie and it does that sh*t VERY well. Imagine that line being delivered to a bunch of Zoomer and Alphas. That sh*t would bomb like it’s World War II Japan.

Red Sonja isn’t much better. Ma is a women in this world and was still kind of a damsel in her own narrative. More than that, the defined moment which informs her entire transformation into a brutal warrior, was her being brutally raped. That’s her origin story. That sh*t IS her personality and it informs everything about the character. She is a rape victim who, eventually, sometimes, never really when it counts, does some savage sh*t. Like, “Conan” is literally the main character in a film about Red Sonja. It’s f*cking ridiculous and is being changed in this new remake, which one side of this loud ass discourse has to be reassured about! Like, these wailing, chauvinistic, man-babies, are upset that Red Sonja isn’t being raped into barbarism in this remake and it’s wild to me that these Youtube cats need to make videos saying “That’s okay.” What the f*ck, dude?

Then there’s the other end of that spectrum. Cats touting absolute revisionist history schlock like The Woman King, because it’s about black people. You can’t talk bad about The Woman King because it stars black women, even though it’s a bad film. The outrage and cope around massive flops like the Birds of Prey film is f*cking staggering to me. Your movie didn’t flop because it starred chicks. It flopped because it was bad. Seriously, the most successful version of Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn, is the one in the second Suicide Squad film, mostly because she was very well written and the movie didn't suck ass. All of the sh*t happening over at Lucasfilm can be traced back to that ridiculous Writer’s Group and Kathleen Kennedy’s need to destroy George Lucas’ legacy over some perceived slight from damn near fifty years ago. Strange Worlds didn’t flop because all of the gay, it flopped because it was poorly written. Lightyear didn’t flop because of all the gay. It flopped because it was a bad movie. Identity politics aren’t the reason these films are failing. Your SJW politics aren’t the reason these “woke” films are dying on the vine. These things fail because the way those stories are executed, f*cking suck.

I read somewhere that a sticking points for a lot of these anti-Woke “activists” was the fact that being a straight white male is being villainized in cinema. Bro, that’s always been a thing. The vast majority of film antagonists, are straight white males. Why, now, is it different? What’s changed? Is it because the protagonists aren’t straight white males? Is it so hard for you to accept that a woman can be a hero or a gay black kid can triumph over your archaic vision of pure masculinity? John Wayne is dead and he was a whole ass racist. F*ck that guy and f*ck you, too, if you think that’s what i means to be a “man.” In the same breath, f*ck you if you think a woman should be uplifted by stepping on other, non-vagina’d characters. If the only way yo can elevate your Rey Palpatine, Mary sue, trash ass character, is to systematically dismantle an cinematic institution, then your character deserves to be crucified and so do you. Write better stories. Write better characters. Do the actual work necessary to organically grow your OC.

It’s wild to me because the solution to all of this sh*t is just to tell dope stories. That’s it. The MCU sucks right now because the writing is trash. The most popular shows and films (outside of the evergreen Spider-Man) are written well. No one is f*cking going after Yellowstone for being very obviously right-wing because of how well the show is written. The Daily Wire’s venture into cinema had failed because their movies are pandering bullsh*t and even the most staunch of radical conservatives can’t stomach that drivel. No one would care that Captain America is a black if he was written well. I mean, they would because Falcon and Bucky was wildly controversial but that was for other reasons. People hated She-hulk because the writing was trash. None of these cats had a problem with Ms. Marvel because the show written very well. They made Kamala Khan likeable, which i thought was impossible because she sucks in the comic. The success stories of Phase Four are all written brilliantly. Like, there was a whole ass female Loki in his show and no one batted an eye. I wonder why that was? Probably because of how strongly that narrative was written, how well developed those characters were.

I’m just tired, man. I’m tired of this “War on Pop Culture” as Overlord DvD would say. There’s no war, just petulance on both sides. The social consciousness has shifted. People want more diversity in their shows, they just don’t want it to be so goddamn performative. They don’t want to see women brutalized in an effort to give development to the male protagonist but the reverse is also true. You don’t castrate Luke Skywalker to bolster Rey Palpatine. Write better characters. Your protagonist can be a big gay poof, the most flamboyantly gay possible, just don’t make it the core of their personality. Write a character not a caricature Not everything is an attack on the Right. Not every piece of cinematic media needs to be rife with Leftist messaging. They can be but you have to have a deft touch with that messaging. White people love Get Out and that was a whole ass movie criticizing them for valuing Blackness but not Black bodies. The Left loved Top Gun: Maverick and it’s basically just military propaganda. You don’t get to a billion dollars in this “post”-COVID theater climate without help from the other side. These things can coexist as long as the message, the story, is written in a way that comes across a genuine. That’s it. That’s the solution. Write good stories and the rest falls into place.