When I first saw this film, it was in a relatively small and empty screen near the end of its short multiplex run...immediately after the finish I thought it was some of the most fun I’ve had in the cinema in a long time, and harshly treated by critics. Some few hours later, I was still thinking about it, then the next morning I was still thinking about it, I came to realise I enjoyed the movie even more than I thought initially; the more I festered on it the more I found I liked about it.
Most importantly, surprisingly and standout for me is the direction of the film. Some may find it over-stylised but for me that is just the film shouting out that it’s different and should be treated as such, that the film deserves another look and vitally, that look should be under the hood. This is not style over substance as it is: style...and then substance. Just look at sequences like the prom scene, where primary colours are used to contrast with the ‘meanwhile’ shots of Chip being seduced, as it is washed out in brown and grey, the slow motion dissection of Seyfried’s thought process as she puts two-and-two-together, and the significance of the re-occurrence of the ‘Through the Trees’ slipping from diegetic into non-diegetic sound as Seyfried races through the trees quite literally, but more so her despair, in a dire attempt to save her boyfriend.
Likewise the performances ask more and receive more from Seyfried and Fox than one could reasonably expect. It’s fitting that Fox should be going from being so objectified in ‘Transformers’ to twisting the role of the cheerleader in a horror movie feminist style. Fox has way more to do here than in ‘Transformers’: she pulls off dead-pan humour, the racy hyper-real dialogue, and the sexually angst-based horror, relentlessly driving at a castration complex (among other things), even if she’s too inexperienced to really have an image (or type) to play against. Seyfried has even more to do: she has a bum-deal here, sidelined by Fox (in publicity and reviews), despite being the narrator and protagonist, her experience lies in TV (‘Big Love’) and singing (very successfully) in ‘Mamma Mia’; here she proves she can carry a picture even in the face of a more popular star like Fox.
Another thing is the snappy, quotable dialogue. Cody has clearly already developed her own style of writing that is standout if not all that believable (some have said that teenagers do not talk like they do through the pen of Cody...no kidding. They may all talk the same; this is a fault of her ability to write character, but a plus in her skill-set for dialogue). Speaking of the script, of course it can’t be ignored that a large amount of the appeal lies in its originality and deliberated feminist subversion of gender theory: so plot, we have a killer loose on a high school campus, archetypes galore, guess whodunit...now guess again. It really makes one anticipate Cody’s next film, what genre will she push her own version of next...she’s becoming the next Tarantino: recognisable dialogue voice and the fact that when you see a Tarantino film you know you’re in for a new take on a genre...or a post-modern summary at least. Back to that plot: it’s really nicely bookended, with a prologue presented through stills and diegetic cameras during the credits. It’s quirky: those little things like the devil’s kettle’s little abyss makes it memorable. The town feels lived in by presenting archetypes (which are of course later twisted), the voice-over narration helps this as it is always giving insight into the town such as the ‘Melody Lane’ club (or is it a bar?) being the only watering hole in the place; complete with its own local recipe drinks. There’s a typical indie soundtrack that ties in with the plot, blurring the film and the film making process...this leads to postmodernism.
The film features an inter-textuality with nods (mainly through cameo casting) to other genre pictures and Cody’s previous work: the rightfully acclaimed ‘Juno’. This postmodernist undercurrent gives an entry point into approaching the film as an intellectual work, on the nature of cinema and the theory behind the conventions of its genre specifically - and it is an intellectual work. One gets the impression that Cody will run all her work through with feminist fighting; she herself has quickly become a filmic feminist poster girl, going from stripper to Oscar-winning screenwriter with one screenplay.
Overall it should be said: the plot concerns a flesh-eating cheerleader...played by Megan Fox...it is so much smarter than it has to be. It’s so much better than it is has to be, yet it seems to have flown more or less under the radar and received mixed reviews: the film seems harshly done to. Could it really be because of the outspoken aspect of it, unlikely, it’s ridiculous to paint modern critics as narrow-minded misogynists, but seriously were they watching the same film...I can’t help but feel like people hear the plot and cast, then switch off completely. I’d have to say ‘Jennifer’s Body’ could easily go the way of the cult film: open to mixed-to-poor reviews, small fan base only, often a genre film, then ten years later, huge following! Ten years? Only time will tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment