Sexual Issues? Rape and Abuse
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Alexandre Aja
Merbeliumph — 16 years ago(June 25, 2009 06:41 PM)
He seems to have a strange attraction to destroying women in his films. Why is there such a focus on sexual violence towards women? Why not men? Why not children? I don't think that the argument for shocking the social conscience is fully valid, since it would shock just as much, if not more, to destroy males or children sexually. Does it not seem more reasonable that he might possible find sexual abuse of women arousing or more provocative on a sexual basis?
"I so love the sound of "Colonel Angus" but I guess I could give Anal Angus a try." -SNL -
shaggy673 — 16 years ago(July 13, 2009 05:45 PM)
Looking at his films, he is just as quick to making males suffer, however, he does seem to linger a touch on the suffering of females (I am, of course, excluding High Tension a bit, since its protagonist and antagonists were both female, but I will comment on that eventually) but I don't think it is anything as menacing as any misogyny
watching him interviewed, he commented on the link between horror and sympathy that ultimately, horror should achieve sympathy, otherwise it loses its edge. I've noticed he tends toward the stereotypical damsel-in-distress model, which one could argue as misogynistic, but I actually see more that he actually finds the concept of harm done to a female to be revolting and he's a horror director for the most part so he WANTS to be revolting
Take, for example, The Hills Have Eyes which I just recently watched, so it is freshest in mind. The scenes of violence against women in this film do not feel so much like something vicariously played out for a sick fantasy they honestly feel instead like something tha5b4t is universally horrifying danger to a child. The mother-figures in the movie protect their children at all costs, so much so that they are present when the proverbial poo hits the fan. As such, they suffer the most.
If he is going to go with two tropes the damsel in distress, and the to-the-death-to-protect-the-child mother than it is only logical that he places these women in danger first. The male protagonist is actually seen somewhat as a loser, unable to protect his family, and someone who can only act in vengeance rather than actually protect, for the most part. Not exactly a loving portrayal of masculinity.
Ultimately, though, of course any violence toward women portrayed in film is going to walk an uncomfortable line, especially in violence. However, it does not feel at all like Aja's films applaud violence toward anyone really.
Are they perfectly sane? Aja can be quoted calling himself "fd up". But horror itself attacks the audience to a certain degree. And how can you make people uncomfortable? Attack what they deem sacred in the case of The Hills Have Eyes, that is mothers and children (yes, he does attack the child come on, the baby has a gun pointed at it as the child grabs the barrel of the gun, if that scene didn't give you chills I'm a bit worried).
Now, for something a little more complicated High Tension. This film is VERY "female-16d0centric", and as a horror film, this is immediately problematic. Because horror is about violence, fear so, of course, the women in the flick are going to be attacked. And constantly afraid. And in danger.
Again, in this film, I feel more that it is Aja's old-fashioned value-system that actually causes this rather than any deep-seated misogyny. In a traditional stereotype, women should be protected, men are the aggressors. Not saying this is politically correct, I'm just saying its the traditional model. And that is the model he has in High Tension (flipped a little bit, but that's beside the point). Aja wants you to sympathize and want the "victim" to survive. If he makes it a male, sure, there's audience sympathy but it feels that he is really rooting for audience sympathy by having the damsel-in-distress model, which is the basis for High Tension even moreso than Hills or Mirrors.
Let's look at the logic in simplified terms:
"We need the audience to be scared. Shouldn't violence toward women make them uncomfortable? Shouldn't they WANT the woman to survive? So if I really want to mess them up, I have to really attack the woman."
Of course, feminists everywhere would have issue with this, but I think it is telling in the opposite way that one might think Aja is essentially saying it is violence toward women that makes him the most uncomfortable, and that he hopes to make his audience uncomfortable by using that.
At least, that is the way his movies feel to me; having never met the guy, I can't really speak for him, but I tend to not like films that are hateful which is ironic because I love horror, but I think a part of that love is because of what Aja said about sympathy horror really makes you empathize and, in special cases, sympathize with the characters feel their fear want to see them "escape" when they don't, well, that throws the audience for a loop but when they do, then there is a relief, a burden lifted, and I've almost caught myself clapping in crowded audiences when the protagonist manages to walk away from the bad guy
Especially in Hills. Mirrors well not so much a "relief" ending with that one.
All in all I think there are times when one reads too much into things, and I personally have never felt a carelessness or hatred in Aja's work that would be signs of misogyny. As a person? Well that I may never know.
(bear in mind, none of this is meant to justify the fed up things a horror director does horror as a genre is messed up that's kind of the point especially if it makes you unco -
oddball_oddity-1 — 14 years ago(July 14, 2011 03:26 PM)
Horror is supposed to be an expression of real life fears. If the killer just went around making everyone cupcakes and not actually killing them, it would be nice, but it wouldn't exactly be horror.
Besides, most chick flicks hate women more than some horror. -
Defenseman13 — 13 years ago(December 03, 2012 10:57 AM)
Because it wouldn't be sexy.
http://us.imdb.com/board/22339870/ -
A_Boy_And_His_Dog — 10 years ago(August 15, 2015 06:02 AM)
I agree. In my opinion, he's a creepy sex pervert, and every movie I've seen of his proves it. the worst in this regard are Hills Have Eyes and Piranha.
Aside from that, most of what the makes are remakes. -
GetOffMyLawn — 10 years ago(September 09, 2015 08:00 PM)
I agree. In my opinion, he's a creepy sex pervert, and every movie I've seen of his proves it. the worst in this regard are Hills Have Eyes and Piranha.
By that logic, every director who has ever created a rape, torture or sex scene is a pervert. What an irrational point of view.