MCN Blogs
Kim Voynar

By Kim Voynar Voynar@moviecitynews.com

Jennifer's Body: Good Feminist Horror, or Just a Bad Film?

What with all the being sick lately, I didn’t get to catch Jennifer’s Body, but I have been keeping up with the reviews of the film. One of my favorite defenses of it so far can be found on the site Girldrive, in a thoughtful, well-written post titled “Jennifer’s Body and the feminists who hate it.”
In this piece, the author both defends the film and enumerates the reasons she feels it’s been inappropriately attacked by some critics (in particular, she takes issue with critics she feels are bashing the film as an extension of the ever-popular post-Juno Diablo Cody bashing).
I was led to the piece by Mary Ann Johanson, writing a weekly roundup for Alliance of Women Film Journalists. Johanson’s take on the Girldrive piece was very different from mine; she concludes her writeup with this: “And for me, or any feminist, to suggest that I must support any movie, no matter how good or bad it is, merely because women made it, is ridiculous.”
I don’t believe that was the point of the author at Girldrive at all. In fact, she explicitly says, “And I’m not implying that women should get off easy–just that they shouldn’t be written off after 31 years on earth and a meager two screenplays. Maybe Cody just wanted to have some campy, squeal-inducing fun. I’d argue that she succeeded, without exploiting young women or killing them off in rapid succession. Considering the sizeable chick carnage of other recent teen girl horror movies, that’s actually pretty radical.
I haven’t seen Jennifer’s Body yet, so can’t weigh in one way or the other on whether I think it rocks or sucks, but I’d love to hear some input from those of you who have seen it. Radical feminist horror manifesto, or just more annoyingly trendy, overly Diablospeak wrapped around a not-so-great attempt to deconstruct the horror genre?
Weigh in, film freaks.

2 Responses to “Jennifer's Body: Good Feminist Horror, or Just a Bad Film?”

  1. John Wildman says:

    While I can’t completely condemn the film – completely – since it does have some enjoyable moments, the basic problem is this: not scary.
    It is a “horror film” that hasn’t got a single moment of dread or fear to it. There is maybe one character who is in peril that you might be concerned about and even that scenario is botched big time. So, get that out of the way and just consider it a HEATHERS-esque dark comedy.
    The second issue is that the writing is lazy in that the horror “rules and regulations” and motivations could not be less consistent. Because, let’s face it – no one involved cares about the integrity. There IS a flip the script agenda that is the big focus but it’s just very sloppy. And the truth is, they even manage to not utilize what they consider to be their ace-in-the hole – which is the fact they can exploit Megan Fox and her body. The easy answer is that the film was directed by someone that hasn’t got a horror sensibility or an auteur’s singular vision. It’s non-ambitious, basic filmmaking without a director’s opinion – male or female. And that can only take you so far.
    The final thought is about the Diablo Cody-ness of it all. While I don’t “demonize” her work or style, I do think she, by design, falls into that “egg timer” category where a little of her signature writing flourishes go a long way.

  2. RedheadedWonder says:

    Haven’t decided whether I want to see Jennifer’s Body yet (will prob Netflix it), but reading your review of it your most recent column, it made me think of another campy horror film that came out earlier this year: Drag Me To Hell. A lot of people didn’t find it that frightening, but as someone who isn’t much into horror films in general, I appreciated it for it’s sense of campiness, character, and wit that seem to be lost on the current crop of torture porn flicks.

Quote Unquotesee all »

“What Quibi trying to do is get to the next generation of film narrative. The first generation was movies, and they were principally two-hour stories that were designed to be watched in a single sitting in a movie theater [ED: After formats like the nickelodeon]. The next generation of film narrative was television, principally designed to be watched in one-hour chapters in front of a television set. I believe the third generation of film narrative will be a merging of those two ideas, which is to tell two-hour stories in chapters that are seven to ten minutes in length. We are actually doing long-form in bite-size.”
~ Jeffrey Katzenberg

“The important thing is: what makes the audience interested in it? Of course, I don’t take on any roles that don’t interest me, or where I can’t find anything for myself in it. But I don’t like talking about that. If you go into a restaurant and you have been served an exquisite meal, you don’t need to know how the chef felt, or when he chose the vegetables on the market. I always feel a little like I would pull the rug out from under myself if I were to I speak about the background of my work. My explanations would come into conflict with the reason a movie is made in the first place — for the experience of the audience — and that, I would not want.
~  Christoph Waltz