Category: Gender


Nosferatu directed by Robert Eggers (USA, 2024)

‘Elevated horror’ is a term used to distinguish artier cinema from the cruder slash and gore brand of bloody horror mayhem. It’s a pompous label which suggests that an arthouse aesthetic raises films above the baser (and more mainstream) characteristics of the genre. This is akin to those snobbish readers who make a point of distinguishing between old school Sci-Fi novels and the weightier sounding ‘speculative fiction’.
Essentially, ‘elevated’ films are those that pay tribute to their sources but add a knowing modernist slant – The Bababook, Get Out and any recent folk horror would fit this bill. Robert Eggers’ homage to FW Murnau’s 1922 silent classic can confidently included in a list of ‘horror with something to say’ movies.
But what can be added that is truly fresh or original to a story that has been told so many times? Not much, seems to be the answer since although the bloodthirsty undead anti-hero goes by the title of Conte Orlok he is still Dracula by another name and the story faithfully follows the central plot of Bram Stoker’s classic Gothic novel published in 1897.

Continue reading

TYRANNOSAUR Written and Directed by Paddy Considine (UK, 2011)

As part of my ongoing research into British films and national identity, I have just re-watched Paddy Considine’s Tyrannosaur (2011), one of a small but select sub-genre of films directed by well-known actors exposing the menace of toxic masculinity. Others are Gary Oldman’s Nil By Mouth (1997) and Tim Roth’s The War Zone (1999).

The working title of my book is Mirror Visions and will look at how British cinema has reflected and shaped national identity from the 1960s to the present day. The above three films will be included in a chapter entitled ‘Unbecoming Masculinity’.

Tyrannosaur was developed out of a 15 minute short  Dog Altogether (2007) whose stated aim was  “to start a film with a man kicking a dog to death, and  to try and get an audience to end up caring about him.”   This is a tall order and within this short time frame there’s little to indicate why this hate-filled, violent and destructive man should be deserving of our sympathy. One viewer on You Tube was unconvinced and commented  “Films like this should be banned, no wonder we’re in a sick world.”

Continue reading

GENDER TROUBLE by Judith Butler

“One is not born a woman, but rather becomes one.” —Simone de Beauvoir

“Does the body rule the mind, or does the mind rule the body? I dunno – The Smiths (‘Still Ill’)

I have written this post – my first of 2024 – to help me to clarify some the mind (and body) blowing ideas contained in Judith Butler’s influential but still controversial book ‘Gender Trouble’ which was first published by Routledge in 1990.

At the heart of Butler’s treatise are two fundamental questions: What is a woman?  What is a man?

In her 1999 preface to the 3rd edition, Judith Butler clarifies her intentions stating that one of her primary motivations was to challenge the restrictive definition of gender in feminist theory. She affirms that  woman does not only exhibit her womanness through heterosexual coitus “in which her subordination becomes her pleasure.”

We are conditioned to accept the principle that  power, reason and rationality should always be associated with masculinity while  femininity is confined to a passive role of being in thrall to these qualities. Under the rigid terms of paternal law “the female body [is] characterized primarily in terms of its reproductive function.”

One of the main criticisms of ‘Gender Trouble’ is that it is written in a heightened academic style which many have found both incomprehensible and pretentious. Butler insists “I am not trying to be difficult” yet  acknowledges that the book is not written in a populist style. Her defence is that complex subjects do not lend themselves to simplification : “If I treat that grammar as pellucid, then I fail to call attention precisely to that sphere of language that establishes and disestablishes intelligibility.” 

Continue reading

Different can, same Brand

Russell Brand’s probable comeuppance is long overdue and, if successful, would represent another high profile scalp for the #metoo movement.

The accused will doubtless claim, with some justification, that by throwing him to the wolves in what amounts to trial by television, the media is biting a hand that has fed it for many years. 

Brand has never claimed to be a saint. On the contrary, in his popular stage shows he has flaunted his insatiable sexual appetites, taunting audiences to denounce him as a sinner. Until now, few have been prepared to cast the first stone and this begs the question as to why it has taken so long.

Channel 4’s ‘Despatches’ documentary suggests the reason why is that there is relatively flimsy evidence against him. The programme purports to expose of many misdeeds of a sexual predator hiding in plain sight but it didn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know or have long suspected.

The biggest smoking gun comes with a ‘prank’ phone call with Jimmy Saville who was posthumously exposed as a paedophile. Like a cheap pimp,  Brand jokingly offers to provide the services of naked woman to Saville.

None of the unnamed women in the documentary deny that they willingly entered into sexual relations with the openly promiscuous Brand. The fact that accusations of rape, coercion and abuse derive from subsequent encounters make the case against him harder to prove and it can hardly be claimed that he acted out of character.

Brand has never hidden his sexual appetites and has admitted his cynical seduction techniques. Far from being repulsed by his bragging stage act containing such salacious details, he has been widely admired and applauded for ‘saying the unsayable’.

He has survived numerous controversies in the past and indeed has positively thrived on his public misdemeanours through a succession of lucrative radio, television and film contracts. His current podcast has a huge following and provides a vehicle for him to voice increasingly unhinged conspiracy theories

If nothing else, this latest ‘exposé’  is further proof that the excesses of brazen narcissists know no bounds. Boris Johnson and Donald Trump have proven that this also works effectively in the political arena. Their mantra is ‘If you’ve got it, flaunt it’  and they feel above the legal restrictions and moral standards that ‘ordinary’ citizens live by.  

Women “yatter and chatter” while “men talk“, wrote Scottish poet Liz Lochhead, making gender distinctions in communication long before the invention of the term ‘mansplaining’.

In  Sarah Polley‘s movie, set in 2010, the women talkers are members of a closed religious community whose place and name is never specified. What we do know is that they have been kept as chattels, denied education and subjected to nightly rapes after being drugged. The traumatized victims are of all ages and they are left bloodied, bruised and, in many cases, pregnant.

Fleeing would seem to be the obvious choice but ,as a menacing sister superior Scarface Janz (Frances McDormand) reminds them, to leave would also mean renouncing their faith. In other words, they are damned to hell if they go, damned to a life of violent subjugation if they stay. Talk about a rock and a hard place!

The men are all the more scary for being an unseen prescence. The only adult male character is one of the good guys .School teacher August (Ben Whishaw) is tasked with taking the minutes at an emergency meeting. In a race against time,the women have a 24-hour window to decide their own fate while their attackers are away defending their actions to the authorities.

The women may be illiterate but they are highly articulate. Those who advocate taking an axe to their abusers sum up the level of anger but others suggest a less violent alternative. At no point do we get the impression that any help will come from beyond their isolated community.

August appears to represent what men might become if educated and sensitised to the needs and rights of women. When accused of forcing the debate or speaking out of turn, he apologizes profusely and tearfully. His feminised masculinity is a stark contrast to the animalistic behavior of his peers.

A caption at the start of the movie identifies it as “a work of female imagination.” It is based on a 2018 novel of the same name by Miriam Toews which is described as a “fictional reaction” to real-life events that occurred in a Mennonite community in Bolivia.

Any cinematic ‘realism’ stems from the fact that the plight of these women has parallels with the rise in abusive relationships in western society. Their isolation and suffering is also commonplace in societies where female opression is sanctioned by the church and/or state.

The film is a parable designed to stimulate debate about what kind of world might be possible if men listened more and women were able to gather and talk freely without fear for their lives. Fiction doesn’t get any more speculative than this.