Jennifer's Body

Basically: Jennifer and Needy are BFFs. Jennifer is turned evil by some indie band. Jennifer starts eating boys. Needy, of course, is sad (hell, her name is Needy). Needy fights Jennifer when Jennifer targets her boyfriend.

I liked it. I almost loved it but there were parts where I wanted to sleep. And honestly, there was only one good scary-give-goosebumps scene.

But I liked it. I like it because I do agree with this blog post, saying that it's the horror flick that should be post-Buffy. I like it because as someone who grew up watching scary and teen flicks, Jennifer's Body actually felt like a warm embrace that I belonged to. I like it because the wit and the jokes weren't in-your-face, like the overrated Juno (sorry, stinglacson, I think it was mostly because of Ellen that it got that Oscar).

And more however, I feel I partly like it because I have to defend it from these people.

I believe that Jennifer's Body doesn't really aspire depth. At best, I see it is a montage of every Hollywood teen and horror element from every Hollywood teen and horror flick I've ever watched. It was bordering on camp. Before watching it, I thought it was going to be camp. But it wasn't. It had become much more original that that. By being a montage, it actually managed to produce something different altogether. And it surprised me. Because I hated Juno being overrated and I was expecting this good premise of a flick to disappoint me, and you don't usually get something different altogether from montage. You get... a montage, not something fresh.

But amidst the Hollywood obsession of Hollywoodizing Asian horror flicks, Jennifer's Body, fresh in its glorification of all that has been used up, should receive a nice welcome. (I remember feeling this way about the first Pirates of the Caribbean. That flick─with the swordfight scene─was a very, very nice welcome amidst all the Hollywood Kung Fu exploitation.)

But I don't want to be obsessed with the form, like this post did. Not that there's anything wrong with forms (I like forms). I think this flick can also merit from the angle of this-is-not-a-horror-flick but more on this-is-actually-a-story-about-two-bestfriends, or this-is-much-more-feminist-than-Juno-can-ever-be.

First off, boys were objectified as much as Jennifer's body. And I'm not only saying that because she's literally eating them. Each boy stereotype was nailed to its one dimension-ness: the dumb jock, the emo kid (he even whimpers "Do you even know my name?" before sex), the good boy-next-door boyfriend, and even the foreign exchange guy. It was a girl, also, who tried to save these boys.

Second, sure, that lesbian sex scene seemed uncalled for. But that would probably reinforce Adrienne Rich's theory on lesbian continuum (or was it another feminist? I should learn to namedrop properly). But that sex scene actually epitomizes all the years they were there for each other, now more than ever--with Jennifer turning demon and all. I mean, don't heterosexual relationships do that? If this were a boy and a girl bestfriend, and they finally give the audience the satisfaction of ending the sexual tension--that of course, proves that they somehow love each other in a romantic level too--would people protest and say, oooh, lesbian exploitation (which of course, is another layer, for in the discussion of form, this lesbian exploitation is actually a satirical poke on porn objectifying lesbian relationships [girls fight then they have sex], the same way the audience were supposed to objectify Jennifer's body)? Besides, the sexual tension between them had been established from Fox' first appearance.

MY Amanda Seyfried of course handles her Needy's purpose very well. As men continue to drool over Megan Fox' only purpose of being the shallow Femme Fatale, MY Amanda Seyfried holds up to her role of "saving" Fox from these drooling men. In the flick, it was men who exploited Jennifer (it was a double exploitation, if the ritual of offering her body to the dark demony depths of hell didn't feel like a funny yet depressing, creepy parody of gang rape--they were laughing and singing to her, mocking her before killing her-- then I'm overreading again or I've been reading too much news) and used her to achieve stardom. It was Needy who tries, first, to save her, and then second, to try kill Jennifer amidst her love for her (oh those childhood bestfriend flashbacks actually work and tug the heart), and then third, to avenge her bestfriend. And MY Amanda Seyfried did all that with just this pretty look in her eyes. She shows off great admiration and loyalty for Jennifer but does not border on creepy obsession. She holds up to the role of beauty subdued by her consent to make Fox stand out more than her.

This is really Needy's story, more than anything else. It cannot be too emphasized how much her life changed after the indie band exploited Jennifer. How the can of worms were opened--when she finally let out how Jennifer had never been a really good bestfriend, and how they still loved each other, how they were still BFFs after opening that can. After trying to kill each other.

By the way, I am so not overreading. I just make it sound heavy. Which it is. The flick is for light watching like a stroll on some capitalist-owned park, but it has more depth than it aspires to have.

8/10