Last week, I started a series of three posts about horror films and sexuality. The first week discussed "Teeth" and the complications of sexual purity, education, and consent. This week addresses "It Follows," a 2015 film with a unique and exciting "monster." I will first discuss the film as an innovative step forward in the horror genre. Then, I will praise the film's subtle but profound incorporation of female sexual empowerment. All three of these posts will contain detailed plot information and reflection, so those who do not want to be "spoiled" should skip these posts.
It Follows was simultaneously praised as an instant classic and creative horror endeavor. The plot is simple, yet immediately and strikingly unnerving. The film's "monster" is a shape-shifting, unidentified creature that slowly but adamantly walks directly towards its prey. Once caught, the person is ripped to shreds. The creature has no shape of its own; the monster is truly hidden in plain sight, hiding with the appearance of strangers, friends, or family. This set-up has the unique ability to invoke fear in the audience with scenes of people walking towards the camera in the background. What is normally considered an average part of everyday life becomes a potential and immediate threat. Without seeing the film yourself, it is hard to convey the silliness one feels at being completely terrified at a young girl or old woman walking slowly towards you. That is part of the genius of the film; the banal, everyday activities become risky, dangerous, and potentially life-ending. What actions do we participate in everyday, how many people do we cross paths with, that could alter our lives indefinitely? The film also conveys intense paranoia, where anyone approaching the main characters are met with skepticism and aggression before they can be identified. Even when the characters flee the town briefly and relax on the beach, there is an ominous aura that the creature will catch up eventually; any safety is only temporary.
I will now discuss the sexual elements of the film. The "creature" follows individuals based on their sexual partners. The origins of the creature are left quite murky, but, in short, the creature follows whoever the person it was previously following has sex with. Jay, the lead female character, has sex on a date and catches "It." Her sexual partner was kind enough to explain the creature to her and warn her to pass "It" along quickly or else it will kill her. There are certainly undertones of sexual anxiety here. Any sexual partner could result in an STD or pregnancy, which is an obvious metaphor for "It" that silently follows but has the potential to kill. This metaphor breaks down, however, when one thinks of passing the creature to others so that one could be rid of it themselves. STDs are reciprocal and cannot be erased by sex with others. Indeed, this type of thinking is indicative of myths where sex with virgins can cure AIDS. Some have called It Follows as an exercise in sexual fear and anxiety, because of the potential consequences and risks one takes when engaging in sexual activity, especially casually so. Despite these potentially shaming interpretations, I see positive and productive scenes that sexually empower women. I will discuss three of them: when Jay is originally passed "It," the discussions the main characters have about destroying the creature, and the act of following and stalking.
There is a long-lasting myth that women use sex for power, money, and ulterior motives. The stereotype is that men require sex more and women less, so women can dangle sexual relief as a bargaining chip. I feel no need to explicate why these stereotypes are just that, stereotypes with little practical application. Given this assumption and other sexual myths that circulate in popular culture, I find the scene where Jay is passed the creature by Hugh a welcome inversion. Hugh, a male, is the one using Jay and sex for a non-sexual purpose - to pass the creature along. He dates Jay and acts with a motivation unrelated to the relationship and having sex. Instead, he has sex out of the need for self-preservation, out of fear, not unlike a victim of domestic assault. Instead of the female using sex maliciously or with ulterior motives, Jay enjoys her casual, sexual encounter and we feel no animosity towards her. Instead, our scorn is directed towards Hugh, however briefly, the man who has sex to save his own skin and endangers the main character's life. Sex becomes a betrayal of her consent; Jay got far more than she expected from the encounter. Unlike current arguments about abortion and birth control, we don't feel that Jay's consent to the sexual encounter makes her somehow "deserving" of this fate.
After Jay convinces her friend of the danger she is in, they discuss how to kill it. Jay decides and consents to sex with a member of the group to pass the creature along to buy them more time. There is the implication that the male may be better able to protect himself, or simply that this is Jay's sexual preference. Either way, his brutal death confirms for the group that there is no safety based on one's gender. Everyone is equally susceptible to the actions of this creature. Perhaps it is time or death itself that marches towards all of us. Later in the film, Jay has sex with another male friend, who quickly has sex with a prostitute. Sex, in the film, is removed from its traditional, romantic settings. Instead, it becomes a normal part of life that may be engaged in for many reasons besides love. Although we might condemn Hugh at first for his actions, we become accustomed quickly to the idea that if sex is the way "It" operates, sex may also be the solution to defeating it. Jay and Paul have sex from a platonic, friendship type of love, concerned for Jay's safety. This sexual act blossoms into romantic love, but this was not its roots. It Follows presents an alternative view of sex. Unlike Teeth, sex is not dangerous or shameful. There are potential consequences to its engagement, but the danger of "It" is separated and distinct from the sex itself. Sex is a more normalized, everyday activity that holds no more or no less threat than other daily activities. Sex is not given the importance that is provided in Teeth and thus removes the common sex-shaming in horror films and the "sluts die first" mentality.
Catcalling video mentioned below.
While watching It Follows, I couldn't help but be reminded of the video where a woman filmed herself walking along in New York City for a day. The simple act of walking, of being followed, is a fear that women every day fear. As someone who has been followed from a bus to a Metro being taunted by a man, and on a separate occasion been grabbed by someone approaching from behind (in addition to numerous verbal assaults), the fear and uncertainty of being followed is well communicated in the film. Everyone may not immediately recognize the potential danger in stalkers or people following, but the film illuminates this potential danger. Anyone walking behind the main characters is noticed and understood as a threat. I don't believe that everyone is a potential threat, but it is clear that everyone has the potential to be. Unexpectedly, strangers (and sometimes even friends) can become risks to one's self-hood and safety. And it may begin with a simple act of following.
It Follows quickly became one of my favorite horror films. I applaud the interesting and exciting decisions made about the actions and appearance of the creature and greatly enjoyed the sexual themes throughout the film. No film is perfect, and indeed I may have changed a few elements of the film to further its cohesion and consistency, but It Follows communicated a positive, inclusive message that I hope will be furthered in future horror films. Films have the power to influence public opinion and insert educational messages in an entertaining way. The normalization of sex and the empowerment of female sexuality are productive trends in the journey towards equality and sexual freedom.
The news about the Duggar family, stars of 19 Kids and Counting, reminded me of a draft blog post that I never published about homosexuality and hypocrisy. A friend of the family had been fired from his job after many years of service when he attempted to get a marriage license to his partner. Those that praised the school for standing up for religious values in the same breath cursed TLC for cancelling the show, Duck Dynasty.
Multiple generations of the Duggar Family. Picture retrieved from their family blog.
The hypocrisy for me was the inconsistent use of and illogical interpretation of freedom of speech. When the school fired the homosexual professor, it was their freedom of speech, so good for the school. When the cast of Duck Dynasty professed their faith and insulted homosexuals, it was their freedom of speech, so shame on TLC for cancelling their show. The reasoning behind both of these statements was intensely hypocritical to me, for in both situations a private entity is reacting to an employee's actions. To praise the school and curse TLC was to extend the freedom of speech to only those that agree with you, in this case, the (Christian) faithful. Besides my reservations about the ability for private, religious institutions to discriminate against women and homosexuals, the fact remains that the school had the legal right to fire the faculty member. Because they based their employment contracts on certain moral rules that homosexuality violated, the faculty member was in violation of that contract. Similarly, TLC had every legal right to cancel Duck Dynasty if their actions and statements did not align with the station's values. The backlash against the channel for cancelling the show, which resulted in it being un-cancelled, represents a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech protects individuals from governmental persecution. People can assemble, protest, and speak their mind without fear of imprisonment or execution or the removal of rights. A private employer, however, is certainly not the government and thus does not have to hire or employee people who violate certain standards or beliefs. There are even legal restrictions on certain types of speech, such as slander, false advertising, child pornography, and certain levels of obscenity.
This long introduction leads me to the topic at hand, the pedophilia and sexual assault by Josh Duggar, member of the Quiverfull family, the Duggars, another TLC show. The entire situation is disgusting and makes me question the teachings of this branch of Christianity in their teachings about sexuality. I've already discussed the potential issues with the purity movement and fear that something similar may be in operation here. Of the entire situation, I am perhaps most infuriated by the people who have come to the defense of Josh, such as potential presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. The same person who has repeatedly insulted and discriminated against the homosexual community has come out to support a child molester. Huckabee has commented on Josh's transformation where he has repented and asked forgiveness for his actions. So...this is now a valid legal defense? Forgiveness, divinely asked for, should not be a substitute for direct, legal action. In the same breath comparing homosexuals to that most hated community, Huckabee comes out in support of one. The hypocrisy is mind-blowing. I doubt that he would be so vocal about a child molester who had found forgiveness through Allah. Why do Christians get a free pass on corrupt sexual morality while at the same time questioning the morality of atheists?
This article does a fantastic job at comparing the hypocrisy of reactions to Josh's child molestation and homosexuality. If Josh had instead come out as gay, he would have received scorn and hatred from the same people now supporting him, simply because of his faith. In a study of religious bias on reactions to crimes, George Tamarin found that people's high approval of the Jericho massacre in the Bible drastically reduced (from 66% to 7%) when the situation was changed to a massacre in China. Richard Dawkins commented on the study in The God Delusion that this study represents the hypocrisy of faith. The same situation is treated much differently, crimes are given moral approval, and child molesters have their records destroyed, all in the name of faith.
Perhaps people would be better able to compare the horrid, disgusting crime of child molestation and sexual assault from a loving, homosexual partnership by learning a thing or two about consent.
