I was going to write a quick piece about a review of Kill Bill: Vol 1 (scroll almost to the bottom) I found on my new favourite hunting ground: Scope. Then I found another review, this time concerning, of all things, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, which covers a related issue.
One of the aspects of Film Studies is psychology, referring to how the various elements of a film, either separately or combined, affect the viewer. This generally covers some fairly basic elements such as colour, association and connotation as well as more complex ideas. The one I have never understood and often refute is the constant claims that so much of what you see on screen has any sexual reference. This is perfectly personified in the two reviews mentioned above. I would like to say right now that there is some fairly unsavoury language in this article from here on.
The review of Kill Bill: Vol I by Brian Gibson (who writes a fair bit, usually about masculinity it seems and is a Graduate Student Instructor at the University of Alberta) I found highly amusing. Here’s a quick bit of it:
The faux-feminist aspect of Kill Bill is the film’s oddest addition to Tarantino’s oeuvre. Here, women kick ass only by co-opting patriarchal symbols or, in the Bride’s case, by using phallic weapons to kill women dominated by one man — Bill. (All the men in the film are latently misogynist because they want to kill or screw women: a sheriff who sees the Bride in the chapel calls her a “blood-spattered angel” and then “this tall drink of cocksucker”; Buck tells the eager trucker about the comatose Bride’s rebellious reflex: “this little cunt is a spitter”). After slashing his (Achilles) heel with a scalpel, then repeatedly ramming “I like to fuck” Buck’s head in the hospital door, the Bride steals his truck, nicknamed “Pussy Wagon,” thus reclaiming her sexuality. She lovingly surveys the long-bladed samurai swords at craftsman Hattori Hanzo’s workshop, sheathing and unsheathing the weapons, and soon after she’s efficiently eviscerating her opponents with her slicing shaft. At the end of her massacre of dozens of black-suited Japanese men in a nightclub, she faces the last remaining male fighter — a trembling boy holding his sword in front of him insecurely — and cuts his projected masculinity down to size. Whittling the boy’s sword down to a puny length with her own mighty steel, she then whips him on his backside with the flat edge of the blade while chastising him: “This is what you get for fucking around with yakuzas — now go home to your mother!”
I find it amusing for the discussion of the samurai sword as a phallic symbol. I always find references to everyday items as phallic when they are not being used in any sexual connotation (e.g. thrusting suggestively in and out of holsters, etc) as laughable. Rifles get accused of the same thing: it’s long, it’s pointy, it’s associated with men, it must be phallic. In this case though, sadly, not. Unfortunately, Gibson has overlooked a fairly fundamental aspect of the film: it’s a homage to Asian cinema. It would not be complete without marial arts, guns and, above all, samurai swords! Aside from this is the simple principle that swords in this day and age are exotic, unusual and, frankly, cool. Tarantino uses them for no other reason. Of course, what Gibson also misses is the fact that The Bride rises up, fights back and kills the man who has dominated her life (and that of her co-assassins) by using sex as a loyalty tool. Explain to me how that isn’t feminism in action (as a man I find discussing feminism a little uncomfortable, purely because, as a man, I am unqualified to comment, same goes for any man in my opinion)? I’d also like to add that the film contains lots of blood and is dominated by female characters who have fits of killing rage and there is no mention of menstruation in his article, curious.
So, having pointed out that a samurai sword is shaped that way because it makes it an effective killing device, honed over hundreds of years, and not because it’s a phallic symbol, I’ll move on to the second review that caught my eye, the review of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.
The review was written by Alice Mills (who, assuming I’ve got the same Alice Mills, is properly addressed as Dr Alice Mills, Associate Professor of Literature and Children’s Literature, School of Behavioural and Social Sciences and Humanities at the University Of Ballarat, find out more about Alice here). Here’s a quick excerpt:
The masturbatory implications of this first scene [where Harry is casting light using his wand in order to do homework while under his bedsheets] are obvious: Harry is waving his wand under the sheet, attempting to create the maximum emission of light, while his substitute father keeps opening the bedroom door to check what he is up to. Towards the end of the film, Harry achieves an even greater emission of light when he casts the Patronus spell to save Sirius from the forces of death; this results in a few drops of life-essence falling suggestively back into Sirius’ mouth. Finally, in this phallic sequence, Harry’s jubilation when he takes flight at the end of the film, with the best of all broomsticks firmly between his legs, has further masturbatory overtones. The scene in which Harry collapses from his broomstick, which is then snapped by the Whomping Willow, suggests both castration anxiety and impotence—not helped by Hermione’s would-be consoling remark, when Harry regains consciousness, that he should not blame himself for what had happened.
Dr Mills comes back to Harry under the sheets later in her review as well. Quite frankly, I was left speechless. Er, that’s right, Harry under the bedsheets is actually about him masturbating. No, it’s not a perfectly harmless reference to all those scenes in films where young boys make a tent of their sheets and, using a torch, read banned material such as, shock horror, comic books. Absolutely no way. Of course the reference that in this house, even being a ‘good boy’ and trying to complete his homework (something most teenagers are nagged about) is actually frowned upon and so he risks punishment is completely missing the point. No, sorry, I meant to say: that is the point! Oh yes, and that white (referred to as ‘silvery’ in the books) emission during the Patronus charm is obviously ejaculate. That’s right, J. K. Rowling (a woman, for those who weren’t aware), obviously put a scene of simulated male masturbation into a children’s book. That’s right, in order to save himself and the only link he has to his family, he has to have a wank. You could argue it was done subconsciously, but as Ms Rowling happens to have a degree in English Literature, I’d like to think she was smart enough to be well aware of what she was writing. I’d be very interested to know her thoughts on sexual connotation and male/female role reversal in the Harry Potter series. I have a funny suspicion it would be along the lines of: ‘bollocks.’
I also find the suggestion that the broomstick, something usually associated with female witches, as a phallic symbol exasperating. Here we are again, it’s long and thin (he even sits astride it) it must be phallic. He could go side-saddle of course, but that would play into Dr Mills suggestions of male/female role reversal, besides, it’s not exactly practical for Quidditch. Dr Mills fails to point out that everyone rides their broom that way, in fact they’re taught to ride it that way in the first film. It’s a bit like saying motorbikes are male objects because you have a throbbing engine between your legs. Tell you what, you design a way to transport people that satisfies the requirements a motorbike does (fast, efficient, can navigate rough terrain, provide seating, etc) and I’ll write about it. It’s as daft as saying that cars are obviously feminine because you climb inside it to journey (references to the womb) and that getting out of a car is akin to a rebirth. There’s a word for that sort of thinking, it’s called bullshit. Funnily enough, there are no references to the fact that both witches and wizards use wands in Harry Potter, something that has phallic looks but is generally associated with fairies (who are, stereotypically, female).
I hate the sort of stupid, illogical reasoning displayed by the two authors above. They are far from the only culprits and this sort of thing is being force fed to students as fact on a day-to-day basis. Frankly (as should be plainly obvious) it bewilders and annoys me.
No comments yet.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
