“Death and my cock are the world.”—Jim Morrison, I think
In his review of the inventive enfant-terrible indie Bellflower for The A/V Club, Keith Phipps hits on something crucial about the film that I’ve yet to see any other reviewer mention. He says that “after a point” it becomes “a film about men who hate women, and it comes awfully close to endorsing that point of view.” Well, screw that, I’ll go even further: it doesn’t “come close” to endorsing that point of view, it absolutely embodies that point of view, it can see no other possibility but that point of view, it IS that point of view.
But the film ought to be given some points for honesty. It’s true that not all of the ball-flappin’ PBR-swillers who are this film’s ideal audience and sort-of subject matter have the time or wherewithal to build flame-throwing cars modeled after the Road Warrior movies, but the movie does paint an accurate picture of how those types like to roll, “romance” wise. Which is to say (and here maybe I ought to interject a spoiler alert; be warned), that if you’re hanging with a chick who is reckless and irresponsible in ways that jibe with your own recklessness and irresponsibility, e.g., she’ll go off with you on a week-long road trip from California to Texas at the drop of a hat without even bringing a toothbrush let alone a change of clothes, then that chick ROCKS, or even RAWKS; on the other hand, if she’s reckless and irresponsible in ways that might chafe you, e.g., she fucks her old roommate in your bed, then she’s the FUCKING SLUT BITCH WHO BROKE YOUR PRECIOUS BUT NOW EVER-HARDENING HEART, WAAAUUGH! I believe the industry term for this kind of double-dealing is “bullshit.”
This sort of thing isn’t exactly rife in DIY indies, but it’s not exactly inconspicuous either. A very pertinent example, alas, is Nights and Weekends, which is a 100-percent “Respect The Cock” movie in spite of Greta Gerwig’s directorial co-signature. The frustrated desire of Joe Swanberg’s James is played throughout for poignancy and squelched potency, while Gerwig’s Mattie is drawn more enigmatically, in a kind of “What do women want—no, never mind, actually we don’t care” way. Its will to a particular kind of power is so upfront that one needn’t read between the frames to see Swanberg’s rather disgusting extra-diegetic agenda at work. And note well the wannabe-quirky studio piece Crazy, Stupid, Love, in which the only vaguely sexually liberated character is left out in the cold, as it were, at the end, alone and resentful after all manner of patriarchal order is restored, impotently giving the finger to the man who scorned her. She doesn’t even drink, the poor freak. Why, it’s “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty” all over again.
“Stockhausen Serves Imperialism,” Cornelius Cardew charged in 1974. Were one to allow that point, one could go on to argue that under the circumstances, Stockhausen could not do the work that he did WITHOUT serving imperialism. Among other things, Bellflower serves sexist oppression—and it does so by choice, achingly, whole-heartedly, and with its eyes wide open.
Have yet to see BELLFLOWER, but based on Phipps’ review, it seems that the main characters are obsessed with the Lord Humungus in ROAD WARRIOR, and are also raging misogynists. So, is there any acknowledgement of the implication that the Ayatollah of Rock and Rolla was, er, not really into the ladies?
“Inventive!” – Glenn Kenny, Some Came Running
How interesting, I suppose. That “I suppose” is directed at the film, not you’re genuinely, actually interesting post. I hadn’t even heard of this movie.
What I’m really waiting for is Swanberg’s werewolf movie or whatever it is.
@ Matt Miller: Oh, no way. As is frequently the coeval to this variety of he-man wimmen-hating, the characters here are a couple of the biggest closet cases in the History of Western Culture, and would likely turn their flamethrower on you at the mere suggestion that their beloved Lord H. enjoyed a spot of sodomy every now and again.
@ Bilge: Heh! Well, they DID build a lot of shit, right? I’ve said this before, but so many of the interviews with the BELLFLOWER filmmakers read like they’re conducted by guys who are suddenly really ashamed of the fact that they flunked shop class back in the day.
It is a MASTERPIECE.
This has the 100% LEX SEAL OF APPROVAL, which oughta tell you everything you need to know: IT IS GOD. It is the BIBLE. If you can make it through the excruciatingly boring opening 70 minutes, you will be rewarded with the MOST ACCURATE depiction of nihilistic misogyny ever put to film, with AWESOME music and METAL and synth and CRAZY CUTS and this “holy shit” mood where I couldn’t even BELIEVE someone else had these fears and feelings. It’s like Taxi Driver or Fight Club as a “THIS is what I am trying to convey” LANDMARK of wholesale domination. I was on the edge of my seat for that last 30–40 hallucinatory minutes, TRANSCENDED into a mind-space that is EXACTLY about macho failure, wanting to be a tough guy but being a douche, getting housed and owned by women and cooler dudes, and escaping into TOTALLY juvenile fantasias of sexy violence and hypnotic violent sex, these two TOTAL FUCKING IDIOTS on this “adventure” that’s so insular and no one cares…
It is GENIUS. All will BOW. It is about DOMINATING WOMEN when you’re really an impotent douche.
American Masterpiece.
@Glenn: I guess my question is more about Glodell’s acknowledgement of the characters’ blindness to the irony, then. Most reviewers are being (understandably) coy about the final act, and some seem to hint that it’s a refutation of the characters’ worldview, while others (like you and Phipps) seem to imply that the attitudes of the filmmaker and characters are pretty interchangeable.
In other words, if the characters don’t get that they’re gay, fine. But if Glodell is too dumb/blind to see the “Film Appreciation 101”-level subtext in a 30 year old movie, I don’t get why anybody’s giving it the time of day.
Here here! Saw this awhile back and it did nothing for me whatsoever. It’s only got any juice to it when the filmmaker’s passions (cars, flamethrowers) are on screen. Anytime the narrative is at its center, the thing is shallow and can’t overcome its often poor acting.
I just saw a sneak preview of this the other night in Los Angeles and it’s still very much on my mind. I didn’t go in with high expectations but it’s probably one of the best films I’ve seen so far this year.
I think the charge of misogyny is odd. I think anyone who’s gone through a harrowing breakup, man or woman, could relate to the main character tipping over into violence. Indeed [spoilers of a sort to invariably follow], one of the most disturbing scenes is of the ex-girlfriend and a male accomplice exacting revenge for his torching her belongings by tattooing a garish beard on his face. When Woodrow seeks revenge in turn, it is a scene of violence that is eerily opaque (we’re not quite sure what has transpired, but the aftermath is horrific). The escalation of violence in the much-talked-about last third keeps spiraling outward.
Above all, the film is just so intimate and personal, it’s hard for me to see it as trying to make any grand statement (misogynistic or not). As the director said in a Q&A afterward, the idea of the film came to him after a very bad breakup – which I know sounds laughable. But specifically, Glodell said something to the effect that he was trying to figure out “what happened there, what it did to me” – that is, not the slut-bitch-ex-girlfriend, but the whole experience.
Think I’ll try to see it again to get a firmer handle on what I’ve tried to say here. But regardless of what one thinks (or more likely, what one thinks one will think about its views on women if they haven’t already seen it), this is a powerful, singular work – not to be missed.
@ Donald: Well, I’m not really talking about how people react after a harrowing breakup so much as about why the breakup was harrowing in the first place. That is, Woodrow (Glodell’s character) gets off on the erratic behavior of girlfriend Milly (Jessie Wiseman)…until he doesn’t. And the point that he doesn’t is when she’s asserting her sexuality in a way that he can’t control. The sexism at play is, yes, rooted in old conventional notions of romantic love, but it’s entirely real. As for the scenes of the ex tattooing a beard on his face, that would appear to be a dream or fantasy sequence and it’s a projection entirely in keeping with the puling, hyperbolic hysteria of an enraged “betrayed” male. And when I’m discussing what I see as its misogyny, I’m not referring to it in terms of a grand statement, because I don’t believe that’s the grand statement the film wants to make. I’m referring to the atmosphere in which the characters function, as it were; the water they swim in. You want to believe it isn’t there, that’s your privilege. And I never said the film wasn’t worth seeing. It is.
Is that the dreaded **(Worth Seeing) on the Rosenbaum scale?
Glenn, your points, in your response as well as the original post, are all well taken. If anything I’m replying more to the Keith Phipps AV Club review, the comments there, here and to a large extent what I see as a general backlash charging misogyny that will be nowhere near as nuanced as your take.
No doubt there is very much to object to in the two friends’ attitudes and behavior toward women – but where you and Phipps seem to see it as manifestations of hatred or sexism, I’m more inclined to see it as sheer incomprehension. That incomprehension – like the violence that seems to follow in its wake – isn’t limited to their relationships with women, either.
During the Q&A afterward, there was an interesting moment – for me anyway – when the moderator mentioned to Glodell that the scene where Woodrow finds his girlfriend cheating on him was probably “one of the most disturbing cuckolding scenes ever.” It was immediately clear that Glodell didn’t know what the word “cuckold” meant – he looked nonplussed, but not exactly embarrassed either, before the moderator said “… when his girlfriend’s fucking another guy” or something like that. There was something completely honest and forthright about that moment that said a lot to me about Glodell and his film: he may not know or care what the word cuckold means, the idea of an unfaithful woman tattooing a beard on her ex just might be a tad on the nose, but if he walks in on some guy fucking his girlfriend he’s going to want to burn shit up.
Anyway, thanks for giving this film the careful consideration this film deserves. I’m curious to hear more thoughts and reactions from people after it opens this weekend.
Gay men do not hate women. Only straight men do that.
If “gay men do not hate women,” then how do you explain the fashion industry?
Walked out of BELLFLOWER with mixed, mostly negative feelings, thinking the director had his hands around some interesting ideas about male fear and anxiety, and admiring the energy and audacity in his delivery (those colors! and all that dirt on the lens!), while also thinking it slipped into incoherence by the final third and was wildly misogynistic in its treatment of the female characters. All the women in this movie are sluts and whores. Milly fucks her roommate because, ya know, she’s a slut and sluts fuck dudes (why’d it take her so long? He was living right next door! Did anyone find that platonic living arrangement remotely plausible? ) And Milly’s friend fucks Woodrow because she’s a slut, too, and like her fellow slut Milly, she just has to fuck whomever happens to be around.
The director’s previous comments about the film being inspired by a bad breakup made sense to me. It’s got a “fuck this bitch” quality.
BELLFLOWER reminded me of another recent film, Joe Swanberg’s SILVER BULLETS, which is also movie about sad-hearted, pale-faced boys who try to control the women around them, and failing that, lose themselves in fantasies of violence and obliteration. That film isn’t perfect (Amy Seimetz is wasted, and I’m not sure the final slip into phantasmagoria really works), but it’s a much more credible relationship piece than NIGHTS AND WEEKENDS and Kate Lyn Sheil lives and breathes as a character with agency and dimension in it.
Can’t quite shake the suspicion that Swanberg and Glodell are what you get when you take a fairly privileged twentysomething man and subtract introspection, wisdom, and advanced education.
Basically, their champions are cheering on willful ignorance by calling it “raw.” As though nothing could be more audacious than yelling at the world, “I’m kind of an idiot!”
My question: how much of this can/should be blamed on David Gordon Green?
Also, I really wish David Ehrenstein would stop spreading gay stereotypes. It’s very offensive.
This movie kicks TOTAL FUCKING ASS, it made me wanna fuck shit up when it was over… It is GOD COME TO EARTH, on par with Fight Club, Natural Born Killers, Scarface, American Psycho, and Taxi Driver. I can’t believe any of you dudes don’t feel these emotions every single day, especially with regards to women. It’s not misogyny if it’s LIFE, if it’s real– this is what dudes face and feel every day when they move to California thinking they’re gonna DOMINATE like Lord Humongous then end up some TOTAL LOSER dreaming of shit they saw in movies.
It’s also one of those deals where it’s all ambiguous about whether any of this in the end really happened, but I like to think Woodrow wreaked massive havoc for real like a GOD.
BOWFLOWER. I’m gonna see it 12 more times this weekend.
“Gay men do not hate women.”
Evidently you haven’t spent much time on websites devoted to what is known as the ‘furry’ subculture.
I’ve struggled with this movie’s ironic distance, or lack thereof, since seeing it in spring. (Not struggled, like, full-time or anything: I’ve been able to say have drinks with friends or go on bike rides or take a long weekend to Iceland without this issue weighing too heavily on my conscience, but you get the idea.) Lex’s comments constitute I think a pretty canny in-character reading of the film: it’s one in which characters who’re not so unlike Lex take refuge in ass-kicking movie-fed misogynist fantasies not so unlike Lex’s. Glenn, what did you think of the friend’s speech late in the film, in which he laid down his pathetic but proud bros-before-hos proclamation? The script makes it almost clumsily explicit that he’s overcompensating for his disappointment, romantic and otherwise. (In response to your argument about the female characters I might offer the defense that they’re written that way so as to preclude the possibility of the dominance that the guys clearly associate with a romantic relationship.) (Though of course writing them as brazen proudly slutty emasculators is its own kind of reductive.)
The problem I guess I have with the movie is the problem with, to reluctantly use an analogy drawn from this blog, actually with Lex’s persona itself, which is that if you spend enough time indulging in this stuff the better to deconstruct or parody it, the Fallacy of Imitative Form eventually comes into play in a big way, YEP YEP. I finally think the havoc of the film’s final third is so incoherent–so AWESOME!!1!–that it reads as Glodell’s fantasy as much as Woodrow’s.
Are ‘Turkish delight’ (film, haven’t read the novel yet) and ‘Wild wives’ (only novel, as far as I know) mysoginistic? Just askin’.
The latest sociological cliché going around is the one that says that this generation coming up has an almost obscene sense of entitlement, coupled with immense self-pity, which manifests in their personal and working lives by expecting everyone to welcome them as an arriving savior and flying off the handle at the slightest bit of criticism, suggestion that they’re not a savior, or anything else regarded as “unpleasant.” There’s certainly a bit of old-crank about the theory, as well as a fair amount of disregard of the fact that being a smug know-it-all is a phase that most every early-20-something has to pass through (I certainly did). But I can’t let it go entirely, because I look around and see a certain amount of stuff like this movie, and the reaction of, er, certain folks to this movie.
Hey Marcy, do me a favor, okay? If you’ve got something to say, come out and say it. Don’t be coy and beat around the bush with ostensibly pokey phrases like “sociological cliché” and “certain folks” and “old-crank.” (And hey, big ouch on that last one; I turn 52 on Monday!) Geez, I’m almost sorry now that I spent my own early 20s parsing Henry Cow lyrics rather than building flame-throwing cars, I certainly would have, had I known I coulda gotten a pass from you on it. Anyway, Glodell just turned 30, so he’s pretty much run out of his own excuse anyway. And while I’ve never claimed myself to be a sociologist, I wonder if YOU’VE heard the sociological display about people who collude in their own oppression on the condition that it allows them to feel plugged in to whatever the current fashion is.
Hmm, had the 180-opposite take on that from Glenn; Thought Marcy was saying she/he hates to be an “old crank” and judge the younger generation, then she sees movies like this come along and how the “kids” lap it up.
Doesn’t change the fact that Bellflower is THE TRUTH. I have a half-serious question, actually, but neither Glenn nor anyone here is really the target audience, but I will go ahead and ask anyway:
Does anyone find it a little disingenuous that some King Dick male movie critics/bloggers – say, guys with names that rhyme with Kevin Saraci, but not restricted to him – are going so far out of their way to “distance” themselves from the characters and actions in Bellflower. Like these ARE THE GUYS who’ve lived 30 years thinking they’re Mad Max or Snake Plissken or Han Solo or whoever, guys who are ALL aggro bluster and braggartry and MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY blowhard shtick… then this movie comes along, and like Faraci’s on Twitter all day being so MEASURED about the movie’s misogyny, or about the implications of the finale. Just weird that a FANBOY could suddenly feign some enlightened Donahue liberal N.O.W. card when discussing this, when their WHOLE DEAL is aggressively hetero-meathead violent properties.
Also I find it hard to believe Devin’s ever gone on a date. ZING!
Well, if I did misread Marcy—and it’s entirely possible given the late hour on the East Coast and the fact that I’m so, well, old—then I apologize.
As for your semi-serious question, Lex, well, yes, I did notice that Mr. Faraci is in the anti-BELLFLOWER camp and was a little surprised. The matter merits further investigation. I don’t necessarily think he’s being disingenuous, or even making the classic counterintuitive “can you believe I like/don’t like THIS?” grandstand play many feisty young critters almost live for…but yes, it bears looking into. But not this evening.
I was saying that the theory is out there (see the latest Atlantic, for instance, about how the Cult of High Self Esteem is creating a nation of brats) and that while some of it that I’ve read has a “these-kids-today” tone, I also can see evidence of what they’re talking about in the real world. So, closer to what Lex said – though I’m very much in agreement with just about everything in your original post, Glenn. Apologies if that wasn’t clear.
Feel a little less confident about my take on the film now:
http://www.criticalmob.com/tv-and-film/more/bellflower
Actually, Marcy, apologies should be from my end: I COMPLETELY misread your post. Now that I see better what you were actually saying, I admit that what jarred me most sociological-wise (and this film’s just one example ofthe notion) is that it seems to depict a world wherein feminism happened for the female characters but not the males.
It seems to me it’s pretty simple; either you take the movie as being OF or ABOUT misogyny. Based on the movie itself and the brief chat I had w/ Glodell, I’m inclined towards the latter. The whole argument of crying “bullshit” at the main character’s feelings of betrayal because the girl was “wild” or whatever is dubious – as if heartbreak is something processed rationally?
Also, were as many folks crying foul at All the Real Girls? (That’s the movie it reminded me of most, though Glodell told me he hadn’t seen it.)
Okay, so, now I’m a bit more rested and my reading comprehension’s back to normal levels, more or less. And no, I wouldn’t say the movie’s ABOUT misogyny, because if it was, it wouldn’t summarily dismiss its female characters from the narrative in the final fifth the better to focus on the passion and the pain of poor Woodrow. Simon isn’t the first person to say, “Well, what about ‘All The Real Girls’?” which is actually in danger of becoming a “Gotcha, you pussy” question in arguments about/defenses of “Bellflower;” all I can answer is that “All The Real Girls” keeps its eye on ALL the characters throughout, and never privileges the male lead’s behavior the way “Bellflower” does. I understand that heartbreak (awww) isn’t something you process rationally, but I’m not talking only about heartbreak; I’m talking about an ethos that says, “It’s great when chicks are ‘wild,’ but only up to the point where it doesn’t mess with my presumed sexual ownership of them.” That’s why they call it the patriarchy, by the way. I’m not saying Glodell ought to be pilloried for it or anything; the attitude is in fact a mere degree or two removed from what is still the accepted norm in heterosexual relations. But it is rather distinctly pronounced here, and it’s always interesting to find such thoroughly retrograde/reactionary ideology at work in art that’s hailed by some as “radical” or what have you.
I don’t think the movie supports the ethos that leads Woodrow to getting his heart broken is supported by Glodell or the movie; when I think of the last fifth I don’t see us honing in further on Woodrow’s troubles, I think of total retreat, epitomized by Aiden’s remark about what life will be like after the apocalypse they both crave (something along the lines of, “we will dominate women and they will like it”). It seems to me that it’s a pretty natural progression from one attitude that, as you mention, is only slightly removed from societal norms, to one that should be eyebrow-raising to pretty much everyone.
All the Real Girls is also…have you watched it recently? It’s a little silly, even if you’ve been through multiple bad breakups.
Haven’t seen Bellflower yet, but the arc seems to be guy falls in love, guy gets dumped, guy gets super-angry about the break-up. Seems to be a stage missing here…? Not to be a story-whore, but, well, that ain’t much of a story. Is that what’s considered radical here? That there’s simply no descent back to earth? On the one hand, yes, it’s literally imbalanced, which is always at least a little interesting. On the other hand, the other side of the equation is being left out. Which some might interpret as dishonesty.
“Lemme tell you a little something. There’s this nail sticking out of my floor, and I stubbed my toe on it today, and it hurt so fucking much, and I yelled and yelled.” Okay…thanks for telling me. (It helps if the storyteller waves his arms around a lot.) It’s a lopsided take that heavily privileges the guy’s pain (partly self-inflicted) over his own growth or responsibility. The hope is that the audience ends up hating that nail as much as the dude does.
Omission is fine, of course, and can be engaging in its own way, but it’s still omission.
I’m not sure I’m making sense anymore.
Just saw Bellflower and I have to say the character is angry that his girlfriend cheated on him but that does not make it misogynistic. In fact, he does nothing in the movie to hurt her. In this way I find the movie more about a betrayed lover having dark thoughts. I could see a film that has a woman fantasizing the same about a man who cheated on her and I wouldn’t call it a man hating movie.
Yes, the movie is a complete male-Id fantasy that puts forth some dark stuff. But I don’t find it woman hating. In order for it to be that you would have to say the writer / director of the film was in fact a misogynist and I don’t believe he is at all.
And note the woman’s betrayal is nowhere near as bad as a good many noirs of the 40’s, some of which one could call misogynistic since the woman characters are rarely sympathetic and often evil.
Isn’t burning Milly’s possessions, which the protagonist repeatedly fantasizes about and finally does (over the closing credits) a way of hurting her?
Not only do I agree with David Ehrenstein’s comment – *big* surprise there, I know, I know – but I would add (with SPARTACUS in mind) that just ’cause you like snails doesn’t mean that you hate oysters.
This equating of gayness and misogyny is unnecessary and not at all accurate.
I was going to let David E/‘s comment lie, but since Chris S. is pressing the issue.…Jesus H. Christ on a cracker. You can call me out for using crass shorthand if you want, but your eagerness to take offense when everybody else in the known universe understands that there’s a universe of difference between “gay” or “openly gay” and the phrase “closet case” is really irritating. If the characters in BELLFLOWER were openly gay, misogyny wouldn’t even likely be an issue, would it? My point was that the two fellas clearly have some kinds of feelings for each other that are not fully acknowledged, and that their ultra-het behavior could be seen as a form of overcompensation.
I never cease to be amazed at how corrupted and encrypted the English language has become. This “Glenn” character is either on a narcotic, suffers from paranoid disillusions, or has an imagination that drifts so far under, above and beyond human comprehension as to be totally useless and a waste of our time. It not only “screams” at us in its uselessness, it has many of us wondering what has happened to the “logic” in the English language! Would anyone, other than me, be willing to attempt to translate his comments into understandable English? (I am a professional interpreter and translator, and a mental health professional, but it is impossible even for me to render something so meaningless and imbecilic into something understandable and sensible, especially lacking any content from which to start. I’m sorry, but when there is no content, there can be no interpretation, much less understanding and comprehension! Since I have nothing with which to work, I have to apologize. It is impossible for me to make it understandable. (And please don’t apologize to him. He gave you nothing with which to work!) How could you possible formulate a coherent response to something meaningless, and why should you apologize?! If he were to attempt to reconstruct his paradigm, using a human heuristic, I’m sure, with time, I might be able to encounter meaning. (At the same time, I could simply find myself wishing for a full battery of psychological tests, which may, or may not, clarify the problem with which we are dealing. And, finally, “tongue in cheek”, I may have actually demurred to a mere imitation of the ill-conceived offering to which I respond (calling into question my own wisdom or lack thereof!)
“Gay men do not hate women.”
“Breeders” is an expression of affection now, is it?