Objet A(ffect) and Che(www) Vuoi

The Fleshy Horror of the Unknowable Other in Spring and Honeymoon

in Screen Bodies
View More View Less
  • 1 Georgia State University dewmusante@gmail.com
Restricted access

Abstract

Leigh Janiak’s Honeymoon (2014) and Justin Benson and Aaron Moorhead’s Spring (2015) initially seem like two horror films birthed in the spirit of classical psychoanalytic film criticism. They deal with a monstrous female, a fearful, castrated male, and the “otherness” of sexual relationships. Through a close analysis of each film, however, I suggest in the following that both films “think” through problems of the gendered other, sexual politics, and cinematic affect outside the bounds of contemporary psychoanalytic or affect theory. By suggesting and analyzing two neologisms that blend the insights of psychoanalytic and affective film theory—objet a(ffect) and che(www) vuoi—I argue that both films not only complicate typical readings of horror films “about” gender and sex, but that each film performs its own type of philosophical thought about gender and “otherness” through its very form and content.

Contributor Notes

Dewey Musante is a PhD candidate (ABD) in moving image studies at Georgia State University. He is currently writing his dissertation entitled “The Illogic of Sensation: Horror, Comedy, and Contradictory Affects.” His research focuses on the interplay of the body and affect in film experience—particularly the “extremes” of bodily feeling in horror and comedy. Email: dewmusante@gmail.com.

Screen Bodies

The Journal of Embodiment, Media Arts, and Technology

  • Baudry, Jean-Louis and Alan Williams. 1975. “Ideological Effects of the Basic Cinematic Apparatus.” Film Quarterly 28 (2): 3947.

  • Beugnet, Martine. 2012. Cinema and Sensation: French Film and the Art of Transgression. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

  • Brinkema, Eugenie. 2014. The Forms of Affects. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

  • Butler, Judith. 1988. “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory.” Theatre Journal 40 (4): 519531.

  • Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.

  • Creed, Barbara. 1986. “Horror and the Monstrous Feminine: An Imaginary Abjection.” Screen 27 (1): 4471.

  • Lacan, Jacques. (1973) 1977. Seminar XI: The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis. Trans. Alan Sheridan. Ed. Jacques Alain-Miller. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lindsey, Shelly Stamp. 1991. “Horror, Femininity, and Carrie’s Monstrous Puberty.” Journal of Film and Video 43 (4): 3344.

  • Metz, Christian. 1983. Psychoanalysis and Cinema: The Imaginary Signifier. New York: Palgrave.

  • Mulvey, Laura. 1975. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” In Film Theory and Crticism, ed. Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen, 833844. New York: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Shaviro, Steven. 1993. The Cinematic Body. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

  • Silverman, Kaja. 1983. The Subject of Semiotics. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Thacker, Eugene. 2011. In the Dust of This Planet: Horror of Philosophy Vol. 1. Hants, UK: Zero Books.

  • Trigg, Dylan. 2014. The Thing: A Phenomenology of Horror. Hants, UK: Zero Books.

  • Williams, Linda. 1991. “Film Bodies: Gender, Genre, and Excess.” Film Quarterly 44 (4): 213.

  • Žižek, Slavoj. 1989. The Sublime Object of Ideology. London: Verso.

  • Žižek, Slavoj. 1992. Enjoy Your Symptom!: Jacques Lacan in Hollywood and Out. New York: Routledge.

  • Benson, Justin and Aaron Moorhead. 2015. Spring. USA.

  • Fiennes, Sophie. 2009. The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema. UK, Austria, and the Netherlands.

  • Hitchcock, Alfred. 1958. Vertigo. USA.

  • Janiak, Leigh. 2014. Honeymoon. USA.

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 81 63 3
Full Text Views 12 7 1
PDF Downloads 9 8 1