So I finally mustered up the courage to see Black Snake Moan - you know, the film that we were mustering up the courage to see because of its disturbing marketing with blatantly mysoginistic and racist overtones? The one where a constantly half naked Christina Ricci plays Rae, a promiscuous southern girl who is chained to a radiator by Samuel L. Jackson’s character after he finds her on a dirt road, raped, beaten and left for dead? So, I rented it, watched it, and then asked myself the question: Is this a mysoginstic film?
Yah, well, the answer is: I don’t know.
Samuel L. Jackson had the exact same answer: Is Black Snake Moan a Misogynist Film?
“I don’t know. There are a lot of films you can call misogynist. I think that Christina’s performance is one of the bravest performances I’ve seen that a young actress would take. I’m sure there are a lot of young women who wouldn’t touch this thing… Like I said, we talk about sexual dysfunction and we talk about nymphomania, but we never see what that process is. It’s kind of interesting watching whatever this thing is that internally takes her over. The way she succumbs to it all the time rather than fighting it. She says, ‘No, no, no,’ but she always kind of lets go and lets it happen, and not realizing that her power is in resisting it.”
Let’s just say that the marketing really dumbs down what the film is actually about, and that although I spent a lot of the movie wishing someone would give Ricci’s character new pair of underpants and some pants to wear while she was chained to a radiator for about three days (urinary tract infection anyone?) I thought there was a genuine (however “arty” and exploitive) effort to explain the complexity of the promiscuities of her character. The chain, of course, is a metaphor about being in control, or as director Chris Brewer puts it on Salon.com “being tethered to someone:”
“I question anybody to come to the end of “Black Snake Moan” and really believe I’m a misogynist — the definition of which is a hatred of women. I’m exploring something that has nothing to do with race or gender. I’m the crazy girl on the end of that chain. I’m the one who felt I was losing control of my mind and my body because I was not tethered to anyone. And I needed to be snapped back.”
Okay, perhaps that’s a stretch when you watch the film and try to figure out why she has to be naked for two thirds of it with no good reason. Having said that, what the marketing of the film fails to reveal is that Rae’s psychological rationale for her sexual behavious is fairly well fleshed out, as is Jackson’s twisted and misguided form of “saving her.” Quite frankly, I came to the end of the film feeling confused about my sympathies for both characters, which I suppose is what good film making is supposed to do?
I think Christina Ricci sums of the perhaps twisted appeal of a film like this to someone (a femisinist) like myself:
“I think there are millions of women like Rae out there. The link between childhood sexual abuse and promiscuity in women and low self-worth and post-traumatic stress and low self-esteem, that link has been well established. And when I read the script, she was such an honest representation in a way without judgment on that kind of person. I thought, ‘Oh, it’s so great to see someone who’s not sugar coated,’ because that implies judgment.”
Anyone else seen it?


Digg
three comments
Stacey May, thanks for taking one for the team!
This movie does sound really interesting. When I first saw the advertising I felt sickened and couldn't imagine any situation under which I would want to see it. But now I'm wondering if I should give it a whirl.
But it's really the director's comments that make me still apprehensive. It just seems like only someone who didn't have to worry about race and gender if they didn't want to (i.e. a wealthy white fellow) could make a movie like that - and then naively believe that even if they didn't want to talk about race and gender, the world does, and that's what this movie is going to be about.
Posted by Thea
July 6, 2007, 10:50 AM
The one thing that left a bad taste in my mouth about the film was the fact that the solution to "What are we gonna do about Rae" was for Rae to get married. I don't think the director intended for marriage to be seen as a cure for her "sickness" of sexuality, but in retrospect I feel like it was an easy way out.
Yah, the director's "I'm the girl at the end of the chain" comment made me feel a little off as well. He says it in regards to the death of his father, which I don't think is in any way similiar to being repeatedly and brutally sexually abused as a child.
Posted by Stacey May
July 6, 2007, 2:15 PM
I saw the movie, and I actually loved it. I also am a feminist, but I didn't see that there were misogynistic undertones in the film. Rather, I agree with what the director said. We all have a little bit of Rae in us, the desire to be taken, whether by a man or a woman, and just rescued. The way that Jackson's character remedies her situation may be questionable, but it certainly was "effective".
Yet, I agree with Stacey May's comment about using marriage as a "cure" for her "sickeness". Also, Timberlake's character was diseased in his own way, and we shouldn't forget about that in this analysis of the film. He was diseased in his own dependent way. At the end of the day, both Rae and Timberlake's character were reliant on one another.
I personally loved the film. I think it showed raw humanity. Misogyny, on the other hand, is a whole other animal that I don't think the director intended to approach. Bottom line, the poor girl should have definitely had more clothing on.
Posted by Sahar
July 10, 2007, 10:54 AM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.