I wrote earlier this year about the controversy swirling around Lucky McKee’s film The Woman. After a midnight showing at Sundance last January, one angry man in the audience stood up and denounced the film as a “disgusting movie” that “degrades women.” Given McKee’s nuanced treatment of gender issues in his previous films May and The Woods, I suspected that this outraged critic had completely missed the point.
Now I’ve finally gotten to see the film and, yep, he did. The Woman isn’t a misogynist film; it’s a film about misogyny. The Woman revolves around a cheerful , self-satisfied and and superficially charming country lawyer who captures a ferocious feral woman he spots on a hunting trip and chains her in the cellar in what he perversely sees as an attempt to “civilize” her. A patriarchal king of his castle, he introduces her to the rest of the family and assigns them all chores relating to her upkeep.
I don’t really want to give away much more than this; suffice it to say that as the film progresses we learn just how much of an odious psychopath this “family man” really is. But while the film offers a savage critique of his cruelty, and his misogyny, none of the women in the film are unambiguously noble victims, and when they begin to fight back the story is no simple tale of feminist empowerment. It’s a bit more subtle and unsettling than that.
While less overtly violent than, say, your typical Saw film, The Woman is a film that’s often, and by design, hard to take. Yes, there are some grisly deaths, but this isn’t a film that glories in gore for gore’s sake; it’s really about cruelty and complicity and feeling trapped, the ways in which fucked-up families can ensnare even outsiders in their toxic dynamics.
Naturally, the film has drawn sharply mixed reactions from critics. It got a glowing review from Andy Webster in the New York Times, who described the cast as “remarkable” and praised the way McKee invests the film’s “a powerful parable with an abundance of closely observed details.” Marc Holcomb of the Village Voice, meanwhile, dismissed it as “torture porn for people who’d never admit to liking torture porn.” (He also noted sardonically that the feral woman is “apparently tame enough to shave her armpits.” And her legs too, I might add; under the caked-on-grime, she’s what the PUAs would probably rate a HB10. )
But the strangest review I’ve seen so far is one by Rene Rodriguez in the Miami Herald, who perversely describes the film as, er, fun. While acknowledging the film’s feminist themes, she dismisses them as mere window-dressing:
[C]ome on: You want a feminist movie, go rent Norma Rae. The Woman is the sort of horror picture designed to make you throw popcorn at the screen, groan with disgust and shriek out loud when McKee springs a shock on you. … Good times.
Really? Were you throwing popcorn at the screen during Antichrist too?
Of course, it doesn’t exactly help – as Rodriguez and a couple of other reviewers have noted – that the film’s publicists sent out the DVD screener with a barf bag “just in case.” The Woman deserves better than that.
EDITED TO ADD: Regular Man Boobz commenters might want to check out this thread on the IMDb forums, in which a (somewhat oversimplified) discussion of the feminist themes in the film is quickly derailed by a dude who thinks it laughable that a mere woman could possibly overpower the family patriarch:
I feel sorry for you and any other woman who truly believes that they can physically overpower a man.
You know, if women are just as physically capable as men, I’d love to start my own inter-gender boxing league. Sign me up, baby! Equality at its finest. 🙂
And the trailer:
Lucky McKee is just a snivelling mangina.
To be honest, it looks like a great movie (says the woman who is doing her senior capstone project on gender performance in The Walking Dead).
But then, I like psychological thrillers.
So it’s like Black Snake Moan for suburbanites?
Reminds me of ABC’s Lost, how the female cast stopped growing body hair after stepping foot on the island.
Hadn’t heard about this movie until now, but I really want to see it. This and Red State in one year is kind of a treat. Anyone know if Fox News has ever run a segment on “Conservative Exploitation” films?
I’ve seen it a few months ago, it was a good movie.
Damn, MRAL, you really are incapable of intelligent conversation.
It seems there are no plans to release this movie in my country and YouTube won’t even let me watch the trailer. Awesome.
Molly, haven’t seen Black Snake Moan, but from what I know about it it seems very different from this film, despite the whole “woman chained up allegedly for her own good” thing in both films.
Everyone, check out this thread derail on the IMDb forum for The Woman:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1714208/board/nest/186352142
tatjna, FWIW, it’s gotten only limited theatrical release here in the US. Hopefully they’ll get it out on video soon, here and wherever you live!
What is as interesting to me as gender in films like this is the narrative of “civilization”. Traditionally, “civilized” has been coded as meaning “white, western, christian, etc. colonial culture”. In films like this, we often have a nonverbal, violent,animalistic, “blank slate” character that is the object of attempts to “civilize” rather than a more historically accurate colonized character that comes to the table with their own culture, language, religion, etc. The “uncultured” “brutal savage” colonialist narrative runs thick in most of these films.
Oh, MRAL, you’re so rude! *pats on head* Go play with your toys now, there’s a good boy.
“Lucky McKee is just a snivelling mangina.”
As are all directors of films with strong female leads. I tell ye, there’s not enough straight white males in leading roles these days. Whats up with that???
dsc, yeah, this film is sort of in the tradition of “the hills have eyes,” in which downtrodden members of the dominant culture sort of go feral. The Woman is a sequel to the film The Offspring; in the earlier film “the woman” is the head of a little clan that’s been living in the wild for generations.
One point that McKee (and co-writer Jack Ketchum) try to make (a little heavy handedly) is the degree to which people are affected by their environments — the son in the film is sort of turning into a clone of his psychopathic misogynist dad. (And there’s another character who illustrates this even more clearly, but I don’t want to give anything more away.)
I have a passionate dislike for the “nonnormative=subhuman/non-western dominant culture conforming=subhuman” narratives. And, shit, even kids that are raised by actual dogs and wolves have social norms and connections. The idea that subcultures, esp. rural, disabled, POC, etc. subcultures, are some sort of parody of the beast drives me up the wall.
It is a colonialist and classist (often also ablist) message.
Futrelle, I’d like to hear your thoughts on these “more subtle and unsettling” themes, because to me the message was pretty clear and simplistic, and the dudes on IMDb pretty much have it. McKee is a mangina with pretensions and this was basically just another feminist revenge story that’s meant to be “metaphorical” re. the current gender roles in society, but in actuality bears no resemblence whatsoever to reality, literally or metaphorically.
SPOILERS
The Woman kills the husband and son. This is fine within the movie itself because the husband and son were both fucking psychos, but given that Lucky Mangina Fuck clearly is trying to be all symbolic on us and is basically saying that they’re representative of all men while the wimminz are representative of all women, it’s not so fine. Okay, she also kills the wife, but I have a feeling that was only because McKee was worried that his misandry would be exposed for all to see if he let every single woman live. By token killing the wife he can thus avoid those accusations en masse from the casual viewer. But if you’re watching it critically you’ll see that all the men are portrayed poorly and all the women are portrayed positively (the wife being mostly a victim of circumstance while the menz being ebul and stuff), much like Deadgirl, another movie made by some snivelling mangina piece of shit.
Oh, and the special effects were fucking terrible. Seriously, it’s not all about the effects, but they serve as kind of a gateway. I can’t get into the movie when you’ve got people pulling hearts of of bodies bare-handed accompanied by those trademark “squishy” sound effects recycled from every Friday the 13th movie.
Interesting how films like these can be made and no one really says anything, especially MRAs. But when some young women make a student film about shooting a guy, MRAs are calling for their names, locations, etc.
I’m not condoning either films btw. Needlessly violent films that depict misandry or misogyny are not my cup of tea because all they intend to do is shock. I just don’t like hypocrisy. Horror films can get pretty misogynistic and do MRAs care? nope.
a. what movie is that?
b. this is a feminist revenge film made by a self-loathing mangina, so it’s basically the same thing.
c. this has made a relatively big splash.
MRAL, there are better ways to join the conversation.
Here’s a tip, MRAL. The pejorative term “mangina” doesn’t mean a fucking thing to anyone you think it applies to. It doesn’t hurt, it doesn’t sting, it says nothing and achieves nothing.* It is a pathetic, empty non-insult.
*Well, it makes you look like a fool, but beyond that it achieves nothing.
I’d like to point out that Evey, in V for Vendetta, apparently not only had her head shaved, but also her pits and legs while imprisoned. I’ve always hated the fact that women don’t have hair in situations like that. Honestly, for me, it’d be incredibly demeaning to be forced not to shave. (That’s just my internalized issue with body hair, I don’t have a problem with women who choose not to shave).
I do like the fact someone found it upsetting enough to make a fuss. Even if you disagree with that guy, and think he’s just whiteknighting, I’d love to have a few more overzealous knights that need some nuance than some asshole giggling at the image if a woman being brutalized in film (again).
Lastly, I will not be watching this either way because I totally can’t handle horror/thriller movies and have no desire for more nightmares. I’m still afraid there are Japanese women-ghosts under my bed and in my shower. (Grudge and the Ring traumatized me for life, man. FOR LIFE.)
The only thing I’ve seen by Lucky Makee is his excellent masters of horror episode though I’ve herded very good things about his film May. Really interested in seeing this now as well.
dsc, FWIW, while we only see “the woman” outside of her mini-society (all the rest of her family were killed in the previous movie), it’s clear that she has a sense of right and wrong; she doesn’t kill indiscriminately. At the end of the movie it’s pretty clear SPOILER ALERT
that she aims to reconstruct that miniature society. Also SPOILER ALERT AGAIN
there’s a character in the film that has literally been raised by dogs, and it acts according to dog social norms.
SPOILER ALERT AGAIN:
MRAL — you actually watched the film? Woah.Given that you dismiss the director as a “sniveling mangina,”:I’m not sure what sort of discussion we can really have, but I’ll bite.
The women were not all paragons of virtue.The mother was complicit in her husband’s abuse (of the woman, of the daughter, of the other daughter in the barn) for years; we see one scene in which she has the opportunity to stop her husband’s abuse of the woman and she pointedly doesn’t take it. It’s hard not to feel broad sympathy towards her character — obviously she’s also being abused — but McKee clearly wants us to see her as partially culpable.That’s why the woman kills her.
The female teacher who “tries to help” is also a bit of a creepy letch; she really doesn’t take the daughters’ feelings into account at all. Its’ really not clear at all what’s motivates her besides general busy-bodiness. She doesn’t really seem to have the best interests of the girl in mind. Why on earth would someone trying to help tell the parents of their daughter’s apparent pregnancy, specifically against the girl’s wishes?
I’ve seen so many horror movies where women are brutalized and tortured that I just can’t bother to differentiate anymore between the violence and the special “deep” message that it may or may not be trying to tell me. Also what I think a lot of horror directors need to realize is that extreme violence will detract an audience from their message (if they’re trying to get a message across) A lot of people see these films for the violence and fear, thus if they want to get a message across successfully, they need to balance the violence with the overall themes better. That’s my opinion anyway.
And lets not even get started on the virgins being punished theme that is often seen in horror films. There’s a deep message alright. Sluts are punishable by death.
This particular film might have an anti-misogyny theme, and David is a pretty good source for opinion, but from what I see in the trailer it just looks like another “lets torture the bitch tee hee” movie :/
sorry..NON virgins being punished theme.