#phallic symbolism in cinema

[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.”

[balearicbitch]

i love erotic art and erotic artists (writers, painters, photographers, all of it) but if you're not a straight male with extremely limited view of what the human body can be it becomes very stale after some time.

it turns out that all male photographers can see is the lean body of white women. it goes the same for male painters, and even beyond to male writers - who can self insert themselves in multiple scenarios with the prettiest shell of women - shell because they are completely devoid of personality, agency and sometimes even nameless. looking at bukowski, and all contemporary straight male painters/photographers.

and don't get me started on filmmakers. when the references for erotic cinema is brisseau (who can be revolutionary in its approach but not in its representation) or fucking gaspar nóe, like what are we even saying?

its more valuable to see the porn classics from the 70s - 80s, at least they weren't afraid to showcase their own body - both male and female were gazed by the camera, not only the women as an angelical and ever longing body.

^ wish i could show a more x-rated example but y'know how tumblr is.

it always seems that straight men it's so afraid of their body that they cannot see themselves as an object of desire nor become vulnerable in the gaze of others. that's why the self-inserted artists always comes in the decript old body of the aging men (bukowski, woody allen, bertolucci, all frenches and most brazilians).

even in movies that challenge this politic of represantion the male body isn't explored at all. the phallic energy is always channeled in some dumb symbol: the oil rig in sirk's written on the wind, the sister in shame, and always the gun (bad lieutenant, action movies in a nutshell) or the intellectualism (most case in european cinema, like rohmer and early godard).

so thank god for breillat, mapplethorpe, nan goldin, and those who don't bow to phallic fear. show those penis like you show their tits. show yourself or die.

[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. :)

[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.

[smokeybrand]

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.

[squidneytrinh1]

The First Female Avenger! (But there are rules)

Black Widow was the first female avenger introduced in a long series of films, her first appearance as we recall being “Iron Man 2”, and her next was one of the biggest box office hits, “ The Avengers” (2012 Joss Whedon). She plays an integral role in this film as she has been recruited to stop an alien invasion that takes place in the film. There is little known about the background of her character, other than she was previously a Russian spy turned U.S. spy who works with her partner, Clint Barton or Hawkeye. Throughout these films there are pieces of her life that become uncovered as we go through her character arc, however, among the many, it is one of the most criticized as well. In the following post, I am going to examine some key components of her character and how they all tied into how the MCU failed Black Widow. 

Now I get what you are probably thinking, how could they fail Black Widow? She is a superhero who embodies “female” power throughout the films by being so “badass”. In the article, “Hot, Black Leather, Whip”: The (De)evolution of Female Protagonists in Action Cinema, 1960–2014” written by Caroline Heldman, Laura Lazarus Frankel, and Jennifer Holmes explain women and cinema and the veiled way in which media portrays powerful women. They describe how traditional female characters were portrayed as the love interests, sidekicks, and tomboys, but with the new character of violent women comes a new set of restrictions when it comes to the female character. They explain how if a female character is meant to be seen as strong or tough, “She is often shown in disguise, as though her toughness is just another masquerade (Inness, 1999); her physicality is presented as comedic (Tasker, 2004); she is fetishized as a phallic woman (Dole, 2001); she fits existing Western tropes of Whiteness and heteronormativity that relegate women of color to stereotypes of being exotic, oversexualized, and criminal (Tung, 2004); (2014 Heldman, Frankel, Holmes) 

We see this example throughout the movies and the Black Widow character. Her very first scene in “The Avengers” (2012) shows her in an interrogation scene where she is tied up on an assignment for an unknown reason. However, she is not dressed in any uniform but a fitted black dress being her literal disguise for her “toughness” you could say. The running joke in this scene would be that she's a small feminine woman who just beat up two men because that is supposedly funny. The “sexy, feminine” woman is used to portray a “violent woman” or a  “strong female character” because it creates a scenario in which this woman is strong but still non-threatening at the same time. The article details women in cinema, and how specifically how the "violent" women is portrayed, “Wendy Arons (2001) argues that hypersexualization diminishes the symbolic threat posed by the violent woman character:” (2014 Heldman, Frankel, Holmes)

[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

[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.

[wallahhbro]

No Fem, No Fat, No Drama: Masc4Masc

In “Masculinity as Spectacle”, Neale argues that in cinema, the male actor (usually the hero) represents an “ideal ego”, equipped with ‘masculine’ characteristics such as power and omnipotence. Narcissistic identification along with phantasy often, then, allow the spectator to identify with the “ideal ego” through aspiration. In complete contradiction, the same “ideal ego” can develop anxieties in the spectator of “symbolic castration” as they may feel ‘inadequate’ in relation to the ‘ideal’. Neale goes on to argue that viewership is not simply about “narcissistic processes and drives”. Rather, there is a sense in which the male body being viewed is positioned as an Other, subject to “object-oriented processes and drives”. In other words, there is a further anxiety surrounding the eroticism (objectification) of the male image. That said, Neale maintains that image creators (directors, photographers, etc.) actively work to disqualify the male body as an erotic subject through the repression of homosexual voyeurism.

What does that mean for gay porn, particularly the Masc4Masc type?

In Masc4Masc gay porn, we see traces of Dyer’s analysis of male sexuality/male power in visual media in “Don’t Look Now: The Male Pin-Up”. The male models are muscular with emphasis on motion and hardness immediately noticeable. Simultaneously, it does not get more phallic-centric than Masc4Masc porn; there is almost a comical and hysterical emphasis on the penis as an aggressive tool, characterised by excessiveness.

It is a fair claim, I think, to say there is a fair bit of narcissism involved as well. A nostalgic narcissism that celebrates masculinity in its omnipotence and positions women as threats to this masculinity.

However, in contrast to the movies Neale mentions, Masc4Masc explicitly positions the male body as an object of sexual desire. There is a sense of the “voyeuristic looking” that allows the spectator to partly decide what to see at the beginning of most porn, moments of suspense when the viewer may make up their own stories of what is happening on the screen, or who gets to top and who gets to bottom. “Fetishistic looking” is also well on display. When the model looks at the camera as they wank and the camera zooms in, there is a “direct acknowledgment and participation of the object viewed”. Additionally, this is not an instance where you can clearly ‘feminise’ the male body; it is precisely its masculinity that is being celebrated while it is being fucked, read as being objectified in the logics of hegemonic masculinity. So, if the male body in Masc4Masc porn is an object of sexual desire that is not easily feminized as it subverts the subject/object logic of masculinity, what is happening here?

It is clear enough to me that such images where the male body is ‘objectified’ do not necessarily threaten any form of hegemonic masculinity. If anything, there is a fap circle of Masc4Masc culture that aggressively censors femininity and ‘weirdness’ to the point of toxicity. Can we read Masc4Masc porn as another instability, such as those analysed by Dyer, of male pin-up? Or is there a way to take Neale’s psychoanalysis to incorporate the intentional erotic ‘objectification’ of the Masc4Masc porn?

[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.