Rallying the Troops for 'Jennifer's Body'
Filed under: Comedy, Horror, New Releases, Fandom, Fox Atomic
A few weeks ago, I asked "Will Chicks Dig Jennifer's Body?" and the responses were mixed. Unfortunately for fans of the movie (like myself), its opening weekend box office results were equally mixed, with JB bringing in $6.8M, putting it in fifth place, right behind the execrable and boring Love Happens.
Plenty of people have immediately written off the movie because they loathe Diablo Cody or Megan Fox. Fox is an especially contentious figure among women because she's young, she's hot, and she's as eager to be "exploited" by the Hollywood machine as she is to give it the middle finger. And Diablo Cody, well... As the talented and smart Karyn Kusama, director of Jennifer's Body said in an interview with Cinematical's Todd Gilchrist, "I feel like the issue of [Cody's] voice being strong and people having a problem with it is very interesting to me because I think there are plenty of writers whose work generates that discussion. I have just never heard Quentin Tarantino or David Mamet or Shane Black be called a whore in people's blogs; I am shocked sometimes by the vitriol."
The cycle of slavering adoration and vicious backlash Cody has been the subject of since she was the Next Big Thing with her book Candy Girl makes my head spin, and if I were her, I'd have hocked my Oscar and headed for the hills long ago. But she hasn't, and thank goodness for that because Jennifer's Body is the coolest, weirdest thing to happen to women in horror (and the women who love horror) in a long time.
Something interesting is happening on the Internet, and that's a growing rumble of approval from the audience writer Diablo Cody and director Karyn Kusama were hoping to reach: women. And that's so f---ing cool to me because this strange, unwieldy beast, which has gore but isn't a horror movie and has hot chicks kissing but for entirely different reasons than you'd think, has been marketed to the typical straight horror movie audience. This isn't a slam against the marketing folks, either, because times are tough, this movie is a gamble, and how the hell did Heathers did at the box office when it first came out? It went down as easily as a cup of Drano in theaters but gathered steam on DVD.
I have faith, though, that Jennifer's Body will find a different fate, and we all owe it to Al Gore. Or Ada Lovelace. Or Twitter, blogs, Facebook, and every other online entity that has advertising and marketing execs scratching their heads like the Dolby dog. So here's my attempt to spread the word that Jennifer's Body is rad. Yes, I said rad. It made me want to jump in the car I had when I was sixteen and listen to Hole as loud as possible in the middle of the night as I raced home to make curfew. It reminded me of my best friends in seventh grade and how horrible we could be to each other. How there is always a Needy and there is always a Jennifer who wants what Needy has just because Needy has it, and finally Needy gets to rise up and kick Jennifer's ass.
Below are a few links to other very smart ladies who agree with me. I mean, they're smart apart from agreeing with me, not because they agree with me, but hey, it doesn't hurt.
Genevieve M. Blaber of Latino Review writes on her own blog, "Unfortunately, with Jennifer's Body I'm seeing (and hearing) many males write off the parts of the film they don't understand and, as a consequence, the entire film. What they should be doing instead, is trying to understand it as a seldom given look at the inner workings of women and their relationships with each other."
The aptly-named EruditeChick also has a fab review of Jennifer's Body on the blog All Things Fangirl.
"The thing is, Jennifer's Body is neither Diablo Cody nor Megan Fox. It includes distillations of them that delightfully warp the realities of both, but the movie isn't about them. It's about the painfully familiar and horribly toxic Best Friend relationship, something every single woman or girl I have ever met knows intimately, the horror of which is give physical form on screen. This movie, similar to The Descent, I thought, is a horror movie for girls."
BUST managing editor Emily Rems writes in her review, "the real terror in the plot lies in its metaphorical exploration of obsessive friendship between girls, and how volatile, aggressive, and explosive these bonds can become when children mature into women with more adult urges."
And Jezebel.com even offers 6 Reasons To Love Jennifer's Body.
And as Genevieve so excellently pointed out that Jennifer's Body doesn't stoop to being misandrist, here are some fine fellows who also enjoyed the movie (and not just Megan Fox).
James Rocchi over at Redbox wrote, "Jennifer's Body lacks a certain sinew and structure in its storytelling, but it's got a shiny smile and enough glossy, gory glamor to make it work as a piece of horror-comedy popcorn entertainment."
And A.O. Scott at the New York Times calls it "an unholy mess," adding, "I mean that as a compliment. Yes, the movie's gory set pieces are executed with more carnivorous glee than formal discipline, and its story is as full of holes as some of its disemboweled victims. But coherence has never been a significant criterion for horror movies. If it were, we could forget about Dario Argento and Brian De Palma, half of Hitchcock and most of the entries in the Friday the 13th series. And though it is too soon to install Jennifer's Body in that blood-soaked pantheon, the movie deserves - and is likely to win - a devoted cult following, despite its flaws."
I'm not defending Jennifer's Body wholly or saying that it's a masterpiece or that women should support it just because it was written, directed, and executive produced by women. But I want to add my voice to the support of a cool, fun, smart, angsty film that slakes the bloodlust of the angry teen inside of me.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go find my Bikini Kill CDs.
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
9-21-2009 @ 9:41AM
frothygirl said...
I didn't love it as much as several female writers, but it certainly didn't warrant the scorn it got. It was good, not great, and I was disappointed that so many people obviously made up their minds before seeing the movie. The pure hatred for Cody is very odd. Seeing people relish in the fact that it tanked this weekend is just strange.
I am certain this will become a cult classic, so perhaps in the long run Cody will be vindicated.
Reply
9-21-2009 @ 9:56AM
Brian said...
It's not so strange that it tanked, with writing like Cinematicals own Todd Gilchrist writes a review like "Jennifer's Body substitutes hipster credibility for emotional currency, confuses pop-psychology insight with substantive social commentary, and measures terror on a scale that ranges from the word boo to a dead spider; in short, Jennifer's Body just does not work."
I heard several other reviews that were extremely similar.
I could care less about Dibalo Cody as a writer being a female with a strong voice. I've actually enjoyed some of her earlier work, although I don't seek it out.
The fact of the matter is, I'm not going to pay $9.50 to go see a movie that is generally panned by critics (48% rating on rottentomatoes.com), unless it's a visual spectacle like Transformers or Terminator or some other big blockbuster.
I just don't have the time or the resources to see every movie in the theater, and a movie like Jennifer's Body will probably play as well on my own big screen after renting the movie for $1 from the red box, as it will on the big screen in a theater.
That's just simple economics of today's entertainment industry.
You either have to get tremendous ratings (The Hurt Locker, 500 Days of Summer...etc) or have a visual style that doesn't carry over as well on the small screen.
You can't be panned by critics, and be about relationships. If I wanted that, I would watch sundance all day long.
9-21-2009 @ 9:49AM
Flor said...
The problem with this movie (well, one of the many problems) is precisely that it is calculated to become a cult classic, but is really just a plastic version of transgressive cinema, making it completely uninteresting. The female characters in this movie are as empty as the vague symbolism, I don't think exploitation should be okay just because the writing/directing team is female.
Reply
9-21-2009 @ 10:47AM
ChetHondo said...
Excellent excellent point. Just because it's 100% feminine doesn't make it good. At the end of the day it's a poorly executed film. I believe the Boondock Saints was written, directed, and acted by men and it's also considered a "cult classic" and it also stinks.
I also want to suggest that Diablo Cody was probably called a "whore" not because she writes dialogue that makes no sense but because she used to be a stripper - a profession that I perceive to be demeaning to women. But what do I know. I'm nobody.
Reply
9-21-2009 @ 11:32AM
Batzarro said...
I don't know who Diablo Cody is or what she has done, but when I see a trailer for a horror movie where Megan Fox unconvincingly says things like "I go both ways" and "I'm killing boys" then I simply see all the reason I need. Meybe those dialogues don't sound as stupid in context, but I'm not testing it out on my hard earned money!
Reply
9-21-2009 @ 11:47AM
RTMS said...
The marketing of this movie was a big factor in it's failing. Not to mention that the rating for it was too restrictive with the R. I think if they had promoted the comedy part more than playing it as a straight horror movie more people may have gone. And it would have helped to tune it down to a PG 13 since that would have given them more audiences. Just an all around fail. They promoted the kiss as exploitative, the actresses themselves said as much and knew it wasn't anything that needed to be in there other than to attract horny males. The horror was dumb compared to regular horror movies etc. It just did not work on so many levels.
Reply
9-21-2009 @ 11:59AM
Joseph Finn said...
I wrote it off for the simple reason that Megan Fox is simply not a very good actress. It might have been a much better movie with someone else. Amanda Seyfried deserves all the praise she's getting, though.
Reply
9-21-2009 @ 3:59PM
cablebfg said...
Surprisingly, Fox's hollow acting, from what I have read, was perfect for the character of Jennifer. But, people are writing off the film quickly.
The shocking thing ISN'T that the film tanked, it is HOW BAD it tanked. Films with ALOT less going for it have raked in alot more money over a weekend. Hell, even a film like Love Happens or Halloween II made more.
Also, for the commenter that said 48% is panned, I say it's not. That is nearly 50/50. A film under 40% is when a film has gotten generally poor reviews, and anything under 30% is what I would call a film that got panned.
9-21-2009 @ 12:10PM
Stan Winsome said...
Well I'm sorry but without giant robots beating the crap out of each other in the background I have zero interest in Megan Fox.
Reply
9-21-2009 @ 12:12PM
CoreyBean said...
I hope this doesn't turn into a guys vs girls thing. It makes me think of my mom & how she automatically buys every "black" movie when it comes out on dvd, whether they're good or bad. Her rational is she just "likes to see a cast of black faces." I'm all for negros in films, but they've still got to be good films first. She gets upset with me when I express my dislike for some of the films, but I don't think you should give crappy movies a pass just because they feature people like you.
Personally, I just don't care for DC's writing. I liked Juno's story for the most part, but the dialogue got on my nerves & spoiled the movie for me. I saw the first episode ot The United States of Tara & loved the concept, but again, that horrible dialogue! I think in a few years DC could tone down her quirks just enough & be doing some really great work, but I'm sure with winning an Oscar & all the buzz DC isn't listening to anyone but herself these days.
As others have mentioned, striving for cult status automatically weakens a film. It seems evrything gets reduce to marketing these days. Why can't the goal just be to simply make a good movie? Only fans can create a cult film.
Reply
9-21-2009 @ 1:43PM
Adam said...
You're all for negro films?!!? You might wanna try that one again buddy. Although "Mad Men" is currently airing it doesn't mean we still use their terminology.
9-21-2009 @ 3:19PM
CoreyBean said...
Adam, I don't like the term "black" much either. When I look in the mirror, I just see myself as me. When I look at my mom I see her as "mom." Indeed, the only time I ever really think about being black/negro/afro american is when other people bring it up (which happens more often than one would think.) However, in our society, we like to segment & catagorize ourselves & each other, and at times it makes it easier to get my point across to use the terms.
Also, not to get at you or anything, but I do use my real name online, so you don't have to call me "buddy." That seems kinda rude.
9-21-2009 @ 11:12PM
GL said...
I'm right with you on the dialogue. I'm happy to see this movie as a rental, but I won't be making the effort to see it in a theater.
9-21-2009 @ 12:47PM
BloodwerK said...
Don't like Cody or Fox. Not watching it...
Reply
9-21-2009 @ 1:33PM
rbk said...
"Don't like Cody or Fox. Not watching it..." - seconded. And good comment CoreyBean. Don't have to be female to dislike Fox.
Reply
9-21-2009 @ 2:35PM
Devon said...
Before I say anything else, I will say that I haven't seen the film (and have no intention of seeing it). All I know is based on what I've read online.
I think there's one good thing about Jennifer's Body, which is that it features a female hero and female villain. What I dislike is the fact that the female leads are so mercilessly exploited. The argument for the film seems to be, "it's exploitation, but also a satire of exploitation and thus ok; plus, it's a way to insure that the movie goes mainstream and gets its message across to more people." Sounds alright in theory, but shouldn't the ideal be a mainstream movie featuring female leads who *aren't* exploited? I feel I've seen enough female exploitation and films and life to last me a lifetime already - I'm sick of it. Even a film claiming to be a satire of it is not a film I would ever seek out, because it grates on me in *any* context. I also think that sleazy satire tends not to work very well.
Reply
9-21-2009 @ 8:40PM
jrs3 said...
Strange reasoning. I guess only black people can get Tyler Perry movies. If the movie is good then people outside of the target audience should be able to get it too. It's hard to care about the female friendship when one half of it is a vapid cypher and there are disparate genres jammed into the mix. Let's face it, Diabo apologists, it just wasn't a good movie. She still can make up for it next time.
Reply
9-21-2009 @ 3:12PM
Bill said...
I'm sorry, but your article may be trying to rally the troops but I think it will have the opposite effect. When a columnist or reviewer starts listing off all the reasons I should see a film and they come with qualifiers and caveats I usually think I'm being sold a bill of goods.
But here's the main reason I won't be seeing this until I have insomnia and it's on Comedy Central next year at 2AM - the people defending this movie keep saying people don't get the movie because it's not a horror movie - it's about the relationship between teen girls - if that's the case then why didn't Diablo, Reitman and Kusama have the courage to make that movie. Instead of making a Horror flick that doesn't have any scares. (Even the defenders admit this.)
The problem I have is that they thought they were so cute making a horror flick and casting "it" girl Megan Fox that they outsmarted themselves. Horror fans won't go and see just anything and even if Hollywood falls all over Megan Fox it doesn't mean everyone else does as well.
Bottom line, the producers had no respect for their audience and they're paying the price.
Reply
9-21-2009 @ 4:12PM
cablebfg said...
First off, Reitman didn't have a hand in this film. So take him off your scorning list.
Second, people have been using a genre like horror or science fiction to tell a story people can connect with for YEARS, and there are films that are amazingly effective in that regard. Look at Blade Runner or 2001: A Space Odyssey. A great TV example is Battlestar Galactica, though admittedly that is one of the best science fiction series out there as well.
The film was marketed as a straight horror film, but why is that DC or Kusama's fault? It clearly ISN'T, and anyone that has seen the film will back that up. And, btw, not EVERY horror flick has to have "scares" to be a good film or a great genre piece. Look at Rosemary's Baby.
Lastly, no, horror fans won't see just anything, but they do see increasingly stupid and mundane horror flicks these days that are trashed by audiences AND critics alike. Films like Halloween II or the 30th SAW film.
DC, Fox, and Kusama seem to have made a decent film here, and yet it tanked and is scorned by people that have yet to see the film.
9-21-2009 @ 9:27PM
Bill said...
First off, you might want to check the film's producer credits before you tell me to cross Reitman off the list. There have also been numerous articles, blogs and even pictures of Reitman at the premiere where he is prominently featured as the main producer along with Cody. But for your edification here is the IMDB link.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1131734/fullcredits#cast
Second, you might want to check the BO of Halloween 2 before you call into question horror fans support of that film. As far as Saw is concerned obviously there is a fan base that likes the scares in that film series while they are still able to reject the afore mentioned Halloween 2, Sorority Row and Jennifer's Body in consecutive weeks.
Third, if you didn't find Rosemary's Baby scary than I really don't know what to say to you about scary movies. It came from a different era but it definitely chilling and frightening.
Finally, are you Brook's mother or her publicist?