Editorials
In Defense Of ‘Jennifer’s Body’
It’s been a while since I’ve defended a movie I’m passionate about so I thought it was high time I did it again. This time it’s the much-maligned Jennifer’s Body, starring Amanda Seyfried and Megan Fox. Released in 2009, Jennifer’s Body was stripper-turned-screenwriter Diablo Cody’s much-anticipated follow-up to Juno, the movie that won her a Best Original Screenplay Oscar. On top of that, it was directed by Karyn Kusama, whose breakthrough film Girlfight won her nationwide acclaim (then Aeon Flux happened). The pedigree behind the film pretty much assured the film would be a success, both critically and commercially. Sadly, that was not the case. Jennifer’s Body was received poorly by critics (it stands at a 42% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 47 on Metacritic) and had a lukewarm domestic box office take of $31.5 million. I actually really like Jennifer’s Body. I don’t love it, but I’ve noticed myself liking it a little bit more every time I watch it. I don’t believe it deserves all of the hate it gets, and I’m here to tell you why.
I won’t go over the plot in detail since most of you reading this have probably already seen it, but in case you haven’t: the film centers around Jennifer Check (Megan Fox) and Anita “Needy” Lesnicky (Amanda Seyfried), two best friends (since their sandbox days) from completely different sides of the social spectrum. Jennifer is sacrificed by emo rock band Low Shoulder (led by Adam Brody) so that they can become famous. The catch is that they were supposed to sacrifice a virgin, which Jennifer most definitely is not (she’s not even a backdoor virgin!). Rather than killing her, she becomes possessed by a demon and must feed on young boys to stay alive. Needless to say, this tests her relationship with Needy, who is also working on her relationship with her boyfriend Chip (Johnny Simmons).
A major complaint with Jennifer’s Body is Diablo Cody’s script. Ultimately, I think this was because people were still experiencing Juno fatigue at the time of its release. Re-watching it this week I really didn’t find the dialogue that bothersome. For the dialogue, Cody-isms like referring to a vagina as a “front butt” or using the word “salty” to describe a hot boy aren’t particularly annoying to me, and the more I watch the film the more natural I find it. I remember seeing Jennifer’s Body for the first time in theaters and thinking that all of the dialogue felt awkward and forced (and a wannabe Heathers/Jawbreaker/Mean Girls), but I didn’t feel that way upon re-watching it. My what a difference 6 years can make! There are pop culture references aplenty in Jennifer’s Body, and most of them are completely random (Aquamarine, anyone?) so they definitely make the film feel a little dated, but overall I don’t think it hurts the film. Also, I’m completely ashamed to say that I refer to people as “lime green Jell-O” every now and then. Don’t judge.
“She’s just hovering! It’s not that impressive!”
Critics claimed that it Jennifer’s Body was neither scary, funny nor gory enough. I don’t really agree with any of those statements. It has gore, but it’s not overtly gory. I don’t think it needs to be though. It has some scary moments, with the flashback to Jennifer’s sacrifice being one of them. The humor is subjective. I think Jennifer’s Body has several laugh out loud moments. But obviously, if you don’t like Cody’s writing, you aren’t going to find it funny. To give you an idea of my sense of humor: the Boston Market reference when Jennifer is devouring the rotisserie chicken cracks me up. I think “Do you know what this is for? It’s for cutting boxes!” is an ingenious line. I don’t care what anyone says. And I can’t deny that I laugh out loud every time I hear Fox scream “I am going to eat your soul and SHIT IT OUT Lesnicky!” in the pool scene. Not to mention the bit about needing a tampon when she gets impaled on a metal pole. These are things that I didn’t find that funny when I first saw the film, but I found myself laughing uncontrollably this time around.
I need to get this out of the way before I continue: I don’t hate Megan Fox. I don’t necessarily think she’s a good actress, but I think she’s perfectly suited for this role. Essentially, she is playing a character that most people assume she is in real life (which may be the case, but I’ve never met her so I can’t comment on that). She plays a vapid bitch and it works here. I also think she handles Cody’s dialogue relatively well. It doesn’t come across any more forced than Heathers did in the 80s. She also has a really creepy grin. I think she was taking lessons from this guy:
Amanda Seyfried took me by surprise in this movie. Her first scene is a bit jarring (especially if you are only used to seeing her in Mean Girls and Mamma Mia!). Her badass-ness comes across forced in the first scene of the film, but as the movie progresses she grows on you. By the end of the film I totally bought her switch in character. This is the movie that actually sold me on Seyfried’s abilities as an actress, though I think she is great in everything she’s been in.
The rest of the cast for this movie is insane. I can’t believe they got so many cameos but they did. Chris Pratt pops up for a hot second in the beginning, JK Simmons has two funny scenes (which he steals, obviously), Amy Sedaris and Cynthia Stevenson have thankless roles as concerned mothers. Kyle Gallner has a small role as a goth kid who decides to ask Jennifer out on a date at the wrong time (and I still think it was a missed opportunity not to play Cobra Starship’s “Chew Me Up and Spit Me Out” during his death scene. It was on the soundtrack for God’s sake!).
What IS this?
I don’t have any problem with the plot or the direction it goes, other than the fact that the origin of Jennifer and Needy’s friendship isn’t really explained all that well. It is a very well-made film (there’s a great Carrie homage when the local bar burns down in which Needy follows a trail of fire on one of the beams on the ceiling) and doesn’t take itself too seriously. There are a few too-convenient plot developments, like how Needy can hear Chip screaming in the pool house when she is clearly too far away to hear him (and the pool house looks like a painted-on backdrop in the shot when she begins running to it), Needy finds out how to kill a demon a little too easily and for some reason she can telepathically detect when Jennifer kisses Chip.
Another thing to note that I think has been overlooked is that this is a horror film starring women that was also written and directed by women. With the exception of The Babadook, I can’t think of a recent film that can say that about itself. Jennifer’s Body has a lot to say about female relationships and friendships. The fact that Jennifer is actually the one who is jealous of Needy may be a bit on the nose, but it doesn’t stop it from being a reality of so many girls’ friendships. Of course the hot girl is actually deeply insecure and unsatisfied with her life. Of course she would want to steal (and kill) her only friend’s boyfriend just to feel better about herself. The moment at the end of the film when Jennifer actually gives up the fight once Needy rips the BFF necklace off of her neck is a really nice touch that I think gives a beautiful sentimentality to the film.
I realize my thoughts on this movie have been long-winded, so please excuse me (and my run-on sentences), but I’m very curious to know what all of you think. Have any of you found that, like me Jennifer’s Body grows on you the more you watch it? Or do you still loathe it and find it incredibly annoying? Let me know in the comments below!
Auteur Filmmaking is a term that gets thrown around a lot these days in reference to big name directors like Quentin Tarantino and even Wes Anderson, but the truth is that film is a collective medium, and no one person can be responsible for every single aspect of a particular production. However, the smaller a film’s budget, the bigger the individual impact of every creative decision behind it – and the easier it becomes to identify a genuine auteur.
This isn’t necessarily a judgement of value, as blockbuster filmmaking comes with its own challenges and a good movie remains a miracle regardless of how big the crew is, but I’ve always been more interested in soulful b-movies produced by handfuls of passionate artists than blockbusters backed by creative armies.
That’s why I love exploring low-budget franchises that never left the hands of their original creators, as you really get to know the artists involved with these flicks and can accompany their evolution over a period of time. With that in mind, I’d like to invite readers to join me in this multi-part series as we look into a vampire saga helmed by one of the most fascinating auteurs of the 1990s. Naturally, I’m referring to Ted Nicolaou’s criminally underrated Subspecies!
The Birth of an Unlikely Horror Franchise
A proud graduate of the University of Texas’ Film program, Nicolaou got his start in the industry as a sound technician working on Tobe Hooper’s original Texas Chain Saw Massacre. From there, the filmmaker would go on to work for notorious indie producer Charles Band, the founder of both Empire Pictures and Full Moon Productions. According to Nicolaou, Band would usually contact him with an offer to direct a feature after more prominent filmmakers, such as the late, great Stuart Gordon, had already refused, meaning that his projects tended to have lower budgets and more inexperienced crew members.
The plans for Subspecies began almost immediately after the fall of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu, with screenwriter David Pabian turning in an initial draft of the film after a Romanian producer contacted Band and explained that Romanian tax incentives could cover the cost of film production there so long as Full Moon took care of the post-production process. Since Stuart Gordon was unwilling to travel to Romania, Ted Nicolaou ended up taking over the picture.
However, while the financial incentives meant that this Romanian-American co-production could look and feel much more expensive than it really was, with Nicolaou scouting for locations in advance and selecting real castle ruins to be featured in the movie, the director was soon faced with an incredibly difficult shooting process. In interviews, Nicolaou would later describe the experience as something of a nightmare, with language barriers and the generalized distrust of capitalist outsiders sabotaging many of the team’s plans for the film.
In fact, the script, which had already been altered by Band, ultimately had portions of it rewritten by both Jack Canson and Nicolaou himself in an attempt to adapt the story to their unique limitations.
Radu Is One of Horror’s Greatest Underrated Villains
In the finished film, which was released directly to video in 1991, we follow a pair of American anthropology students, Michelle (Laura Mae Tate) and Lillian (Michelle McBride), as they reunite with their Romanian colleague Mara (Irina Movila) in her native land. The group intends to study the folklore surrounding the secluded town of Prejmer, but their research is cut short by the return of Radu Vladislas (Anders Hove) – the evil son of a vampire king (Angus Scrimm) who had previously established a truce with the region’s human residents. It’s now up to Radu’s human-loving half-brother Stefan (Michael Watson) to protect the girls from a fate worse than death as the power-hungry vampire seeks to control a magical artifact known as the Bloodstone.
Right off the bat, you may have noticed that the film’s premise sounds decidedly old-fashioned when compared to other vampire movies from around the same time. While the 1990s saw the rise of cool-looking bloodsuckers with badass elements borrowed from Westerns, as well as the sexy aristocrats of Anne Rice’s stories, Subspecies has a lot more in common with Nosferatu and the Hammer Horror series than any of its contemporaries.
This is both a blessing and a curse, as the film falls victim to overly familiar genre tropes while also standing out as a rare example of a ’90s vampire flick that isn’t afraid to flex its muscles as a Creature Feature. In fact, I’d argue that the presence of age-old clichés is a small price to pay when confronted with one of the most compelling vampire antagonists in all of cinema.
Named after Vlad the Impaler’s real-life brother, Anders Hove’s Radu is such a fascinating character and the main reason why Subspecies is still worth watching 35 years later. From his animalistic mannerisms to the joy he feels in simply existing as a chaotic creature of the night, and that’s not even mentioning the iconic makeup that almost certainly inspired the undead from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Radu is a hypnotic presence harkening back to a time when audiences didn’t mind purely evil villains that couldn’t be redeemed through tragic backstories or sex appeal.
Gothic Atmosphere on an Indie Budget
Of course, the film’s Romanian setting and authentic art direction do a lot of the heavy lifting whenever Radu isn’t around. From the masked festivals of the village to the visually interesting selection of local extras, Subspecies’ multicultural elements help it to stand out when compared to similar flicks from the ’90s.
That being said, Nicolaou’s unique eye for special effects and exciting action sequences – as well as Vlad Paunescu’s excellent cinematography – make the movie a delight for fans of expressionist cinema and old-timey gothic horror. While the crew is obviously dealing with limited resources, many of the flick’s blemishes (such as the odd stop-motion demons that serve Radu) end up feeling more like charming idiosyncrasies than actual flaws.
I’d argue that the only real issue here is pacing, as there are long stretches of film where the protagonists are simply bumbling around without realizing what’s really going on around them. Thankfully, the gorgeous visuals and surprisingly effective soundtrack usually make up for this. Besides, how can you dislike a movie where shotgun shells are loaded with rosary beads and our lead vampires duke it out in a dramatic swordfight that would feel out of place during the golden age of Hollywood?
Your overall enjoyment of Subspecies will mostly depend on whether or not you find low-budget corner-cutting and janky practical effects charming rather than distracting, but I know I’ll keep coming back to this Full Moon feature again and again in the future.
That being said, while this first movie is worth revisiting by its own merits as the birth of an indie horror icon, I’d like to invite you to join us as we look into the cult sequel Bloodstone: Subspecies II soon.
You must be logged in to post a comment.