Casey Gilfillan

*SIGNIFICANT PLOT SPOILERS MENTIONED*

☨

On Sunday night, Mat and I went to the theater and saw The Bride! Before booking, neither of us knew much about the premise aside from the Frankenstein association.

My primary takeaway from this film is a question fueled by indignation – why did Maggie Gyllenhaal do that to Mary Shelley? To take a woman of such literary prowess and suggest that she is writhing in her grave over a story she never got to tell is absurd. To do such a thing, and then make this “story” that has finally been given a source (via the possession of Jessie Buckley) the most mediocre, first-wave feminist core crap is to spit on that very grave. 

Aside from finding the depiction cringe and insulting, I do not understand why they would give Shelley this fate. She suffered sadness and tragedy, in addition to the woes related to her marriage with Percy, yet still achieved extraordinary accomplishments in her time. The Bride! would suggest otherwise; that Shelley remains in misery in the afterlife and is even annoyed by the popularity of Frankenstein, that her spirit lingers uncomfortably and looms in wait for the vessel to her untold story. Why would any of us want to think of Mary Shelley as being tortured by lack of achievement and then languishing in purgatory? Shelley lives in perpetuity as a published author with many books, one of which has claimed a permanent moment in time as a classic novel; this is in itself a feminist arc and does not need modern embellishment. Implying that she is so plagued by this single untold story, in so much that her soul literally cannot rest, undercuts her entire body of work and legacy. Using Mary Shelley’s manufactured specter as a mouth piece for this dumpster fire was a poor choice. The plot was also terrible, which only adds insult to injury if we consider the importance of this story to Shelley’s eternal rest – if the urgency to tell a story would stall a ghost from afterlife progression, I would hope the story would be worthwhile. This one was not.

THE CARROT

Moving on from the disgrace bestowed upon Mary Shelley, I direct your attention to the feminist message of the movie, or lack thereof. I see the attempts at feminism, though I kind of feel like the cat was out of the bag when the “Mary Shelley” character ruins another woman’s life by possessing her and getting her thrown down a flight of stairs, after which the woman’s grave and body are desecrated in the name of subjecting her to this uncanny, undead version of life with a lonely man. For the purpose of this piece, I will refer to the main character by her chosen name, “The Bride,” but know that this references who we formerly knew as “Ida” and her body which continues to be possessed by the ghost of Mary Shelley.

One of the not-so-subtle indications of a feminist theme is The Bride’s shooting of a police officer and subsequent – but unintentional – inspiration of a social revolution. This “revolution” lasts for about five minutes, and showcases clips of women taking to the streets with weapons and face paint emulating The Bride’s look, ultimately leading to nothing. The visual of women with weapons and alternative makeup is the material value of the “radical” feminine force in this movie. It felt very, checking the “girl power” box, and particularly self-congratulatory when the writers randomly correlated the rise of the “Riot Grrrrl” movement with this meaningless display.

Every so often, the Mary Shelley specter takes over speaking – in an accent and tone of speech that make her character seem like one from an SNL skit – and rambles off names of women who have been killed. It seems that the social movement would speak to these injustices, but the movie interjects them as two separate ideas that never connect in any meaningful way. These superficial depictions of feminine power and justice for women without any sort of autonomous shift or follow through are “the carrot,” in the sense of a treat for the eyes to trick the brain into thinking something more profound is being communicated. In reality, the subliminal messages of this film were not only lacking in feminist depth, but full of pro-patriarchal ideology.

THE STICK

Throughout the duration of the movie, The Bride faces several male adversaries who sexually assault and attempt to rape her. Frankenstein’s Monster (Frank) saves her from two of these scenarios with lethal force; he shoots one of the men, but two of the others are body slammed and curb-stomped. I mention the methods of death because they are particularly violent and aggressive, and because it is something that The Bride would not have been able to do herself. She needed Frank, the hulking, powerful monster to come rescue her with his brute force from the threat of other men. Prior to Frank beating two of the assailants to death, The Bride did not want much to do with him and was enjoying her independence in a short-lived moment on the dance floor. The Bride becomes overwhelmed by the men who nearly assault her before Frank gets involved, and only after Frank has saved her from them does she follow him willingly. This development of their dynamic mimics a very real phenomena in patriarchal society: the beneficiary status of “nice” men like Frank. Men who do not subscribe to patriarchal values or participate in rape culture still benefit from these systems because women seek protection from those who do, and there is no better way to win a woman over than to make her feel dependent upon you for survival. Additionally, it seems weird to showcase sexual assault and validate the male-savior complex like they did in a self-proclaimed “feminist” film. Every time The Bride is assaulted, the assault is permitted to continue until just before it escalates to rape and only stopped after significant groping, shoving, and abuse has occurred.

As much of a “nice guy” as they try to make Frank, he is also an assailant of The Bride. He lies to her relentlessly for seemingly no reason. I don’t know what would have been the issue with telling her the truth from the beginning, that she had died and they didn’t know each other in their previous lives but are both reanimated “monsters” now; there could have been a resistance to solidarity arc. Instead, the writers made it so that Frank, a monster who is over 100 years old, gaslights a woman and sleeps with her under false pretenses. He gives her a fake name and tells her about a fake version of herself that never existed, a romance with him that she never had. He only tells the truth after it is exposed to her by someone else, and she is only temporarily upset with him before getting over it. Once again I am at a loss for understanding the intended purpose of this plot point – why have him lie so egregiously for her to simply forgive him? It undercuts the integrity of her character and the allegedly feminist messaging of the movie, because this is not a liberation arc. This is propaganda to tell us to choose the man even as he undermines our humanity. She should have abandoned him after the revelation, but the audience is supposed to believe she would choose to be with a man who deceived her so intimately?

The audience is also supposed to believe that this woman would willingly embody the role imposed upon her by the man who deceived and desecrated. The mad scientist, Dr. Euphronious, refers to Ida as “your bride” to Frank as she awakens on the lab table. I refer to her as The Bride because that is the name she chooses towards the end of the movie in a faux attempt at identity reclamation, but this name choice as self-empowerment is laughable. They have Jessie Buckley do this thing where she strolls through different options of what she might be referred to as, and she has a, “Not ‘The Bride of’ just ‘The Bride’” type line (paraphrased). It’s so cringey because what is the difference? I am someone who holds deep respect to the nuance of words and their exclusion, so I am not being daft to the point they are trying to make about her being her own person instead of something that references property or association to a man. I would argue, however, that the very concept of a bride feeds directly into patriarchal values….Invoking the image of marriage subversively would have been cool, and it would have worked if she was a single woman going on a killing spree of evil men because of the irony. Instead, she is an accidental/failed revolutionary who capitulates to the desires of a man who brought her back from the dead to serve those very desires. But it’s okay because she chooses it, it just so happens to be exactly what he wanted. And somehow removing the “of” from her title makes her empowered? This plot development seems to suggest that the man knows best and we, as women, will ultimately come around to his impositions no matter how burdensome they are or how great our resistance. Very radical message and totally not abnormally favoring of shitty, needy men.

The sex in this movie fit into the dynamic in an unflattering way as well. I have to admit that it was hard to tell which soul was talking at this time, but I believe it is Ida (not the Mary Shelley specter who would occasionally take charge of the body) who asks Frank to engage in sexual conduct and then immediately starts to unzip his pants, unleash his grotesque genitals, and perform oral sex. This activity continues for a few seconds before Frank abruptly stops her without much of an explanation. The full intercourse scene later in the movie occurs The Bride and Frank have spent more time together and seem to be falling in love, still before the truth about Frank’s lies and The Bride’s identity have been exposed. I have so many questions as to the why of any of this, but I’ll start with why a woman is giving a man oral sex in a feminist movie, and why the man is the one who stops her?! There seems to be this focus on them falling in love prior to Frank wanting to sleep with her, contributing to the “nice guy” persona they try to corner him into, but the contradiction is so severe due to the ongoing deception of The Bride by Frank’s character. He has not only lied to her about who she is, but has falsified a history together as a romantic and married couple, which is even more disgusting. What is the point of Frank stopping the oral sex on account of no romance, but accepting full intercourse on a bed of lies, and The Bride subsequently choosing the stay with Frank after not only finding out he has lied but did so to win her sexual favor? If there is a point, it is certainly not one embedded in feminist philosophy. Once again, we are met with clear and obvious signs that the writers of this script want us to choose the man, no matter how poorly he treats us or how badly he uses us. The writers are not telling us we should, but that we would if given the autonomous choice, and that is even more of an offense than this entire joke of a film.

The Bride’s dynamic with Frank and other male characters is poised in the way of the stick that punishes non-compliance. Through these not-so-subliminal messages of female submission to men and reverence for male company – regardless of the quality – The Bride! seeks to invoke a negative association with deviation, resistance, and independence from the male narrative.

LESSER OFFENSES

This is not my most poignant criticism, but it’s also worth mentioning that it was an extremely bizarre choice to have Mary Shelley exist in a world where she authored Frankenstein but also one where Frankenstein’s Monster really exists…it’s a clash of the planes of existence for no real plot benefit. 

Additionally, if I hear one more comment about the “all-star” cast, I will throw a fit. There is something so hyper-consumeristic about slapping a few A-list celebrity names on a film and expecting greatness to follow simply on that account. Oh, they have four household names on the cast list so no plot needed! I don’t think this is a hot take, but can we bring back introducing obscure or unknown actors into media rather than the same fifteen people we are constantly inundated with?

CONCLUSION + DISCLAIMER

In full, I posit that this movie is not the feminist media it claims to be, but rather holds a duplicitous motive to dilute that very philosophy. The messages in this movie are all contradictory and patronizing, yet they contrast that with images of women with guns and cool outfits to make you think they’re doing something real. Generally speaking, when something is a self-proclaimed feminist anthem, proceed with caution. If it was truly radical and disruptive, it would not need to sell itself as such. This advice comes from someone who identifies with feminist philosophy and abhors those who abuse for profit like this movie did.

I know there are far more important things to address in the world right now – illegal holy wars, genocide, the pedophile ruling class, etc. – so I write this extremely critical movie review in recognition that it is a pebble in the grand scheme of global concern. It is a bad movie though, and people need to hear about that. People also need to remember that this is not feminism, this is some warped bootlicking propaganda attempting to disguise itself (as successfully as a sore thumb) as radical when it is just the opposite.