Humanities

2/12/2018

Is Frenzy a critique of patriarchy, a celebration of patriarchy, or some combination of the two? To answer this question, you may consider one of the following issues: how are characters and relationships “doubled” in the film? How are we to understand Frenzy’s pairings of food and sex, desire and death? What are we to make of the film’s grotesque imagery and macabre sense of humour? Finally, how are "masculinity" and "femininity" presented? Are they complementary or are they inherently conflictual positions within the film's symbolic universe? Your response must include a quotation from either Rose’s “I am a Knife” OR Srinivasan’s, “Does Anyone Have a Right to Sex?” AND Freud on “wit” OR “Medusa’s Head.” For the Humanities response, you may have until the end of the day on Friday, December 7th. Good luck on your final post and bon appétit!

9 Comments

Larissa Szaniszlo-Luty

5/12/2018 07:23:34 pm

Hitchcock’s FRENZY is undeniably a celebration of societal patriarchy, which is best demonstrated through Bob Rusk, when he is shown to be committing his obscene crimes. Although some may argue that the film shows evidence of critiquing the patriarchy, I argue that because of the male gaze that is so obviously apparent throughout, it is even more so a celebration of male dominance and in turn, female submissiveness. In the film, Rusk is shown to rape and murder his victims and he appears to get gratification out of the sadistic nature of the crime; notably through the strangulation and the fight that his victims put up. He is “clearly roused by [his victims] fear [and distress]” (Rose). When being raped, Brenda’s (Richard Blaney’s ex-wife) body stiffens and she becomes incapable of stopping him from his assault, most probably because of the shock that she is being subjected to. According to Freud, “the sight of Medusa’s head makes the spectator stiff with terror;” a clear parallel to Brenda’s response to Rusk’s sexual advance on her (264). When Brenda becomes limp, “the stiffening reassures [Rusk] of the fact [that he is still in position of the phallus],” thus giving him a sense of power and in turn, affirms his dominance (Freud 265). The male/ female dichotomy in FRENZY shows the audience that Bob Rusk’s power, through his crime, is a celebration of patriarchy because it shows just how much dominance he holds over the women in his life.

Bridget Griffin

7/12/2018 08:22:41 am

I find it too simple to say that FRENZY is solely a celebration of the patriarchal system, although it doesn’t seem to completely shut it down, either. The ending, after all, is a masculine victory more so than anything else: Rusk is caught in the act, freeing the innocent (or, at the very least, less guilty), Blaney, while the corpse of Rusk’s latest victim still lies nearby, a reminder that locking him up will not mean the end of the oppression for women. Every man in this film bears similar qualities to Rusk, as Jacqueline Rose refers to it, they seem to be on "a sliding scale" of predatory habits (para. 7). Yet it is still unfair to nommer it a flat-out celebration: in portraying violence against women, it seems to condemn even more than it seems to celebrate. I find that Freud’s dissection of Medusa’s head is applicable to the act of Rusk strangling women with his necktie: “The hair upon Medusa’s head is frequently represented in works of art in the form of snakes, and these once again are derived from the castration complex. It is a remarkable fact that, however frightening they may be in themselves, they nevertheless serve actually as a mitigation of the horror, for they replace the penis, the absence of which is the cause of the horror.” (264). In this case, Rusk’s necktie, representing patriarchy due to its gender normatively masculine usage, can be seen as a phallic object, suffocating women. When Rusk removes his tie, we see Brenda panic as she comes to realize that, on top of being a rapist, he is also a serial killer. Rusk attacks women for their lack of phallus, expressing dominance over them with his own, which is very reminiscent of, though opposite to, the Freudian Medusa image, the dominant hair being replaced by the submissive strangulation-by-necktie. This scene is so difficult to watch that it becomes impossible to say that it is a celebration: in that moment, we see just how terrible these murders are, in a way that no member of the public sees, which could perhaps explain why they don’t seem nearly as appalled by it.

Isabeli Pizzani

7/12/2018 01:15:32 pm

We can perceive the obscene jokes in FRENZY as a critique of patriarchy. Rusk feels insecure about his masculinity, which is often considered a symbol of power by our patriarchal society. Brenda, his victim, is a very successful woman during the 1970s, when an important growth of the feminist movement was occurring. By assaulting Brenda, he “aims to convince [her], not only that he is the one with the power […] but also that power and his sexuality are one and the same thing” (Rose para.5). After we have watched the horrific scene of Brenda’s rape and murder, we see a comedic shot of her dead body. According to Freud, tendentious jokes, such as this one, “calls for three people”: the person making it, the one “taken as the object of the hostile or sexual aggressiveness” and the person who “the joke’s aim of producing pleasure is fulfilled” (Freud 1696). We can assume that most women will be in the group of people who will laugh of this shot because they will feel attacked by the joke. The group of people who will laugh of it because the joke fulfills their desire of power owned by their sexuality will mainly consist of men. Freud says “a person who laughs at smut that he hears is laughing as though he were the spectator of an act of sexual aggression” but in FRENZY, a person who laughs at the picture of Brenda’s abused body, a sexual aggression, is laughing as though he were hearing a smut (Freud 1694). This obscene joke exposes those who feel attacked by it to their vulnerability and those who feel fulfilled to their insecurities.

Victoria Caputo

7/12/2018 08:15:19 pm

FRENZY is a film full of crude jokes and violence, always coming from the men. Whether it was Hitchcock’s intention or not, this film acts as a critique of patriarchy. As Bridget mentioned, the portrayal of the violence against women is in itself enough to say that FRENZY isn’t celebrating patriarchal oppression, but merely showing us the horrible effects it has on women. Furthermore, the men in the film aren’t portrayed as characters the audience sympathizes or identifies with. While they are not all blatantly showing their hatred for women through murder, Blaney’s violent behaviour with his ex-wife and the two men in the bar’s disgusting comments are indicative of the same sexist, misogynistic way of thinking as Rusk. The scene in the potato truck where we see Rusk struggle with his victim’s body to retrieve his pin is mixed with grotesque imagery and humour. This mix of horror and comedy is present throughout the entirety of the film. The inclusion of this macabre sense of humour moments after the audience is shown something gruesome such as a dead body is telling of the type of world we live in. There is a certain sense of normality and casualness that comes with women being murdered in the film, as if its nothing more than the next “juicy” story, that the presence of a serial killer rapist is merely just “men […] behaving normally, even naturally, [that] they can’t help helping themselves” (Rose 4). The comment about rape being a “silver lining” for women is another instance of a male character being nonchalant about women’s suffering. Rusk is another example of toxic masculinity, as his impotence causes him great distress, and angers him to the point of murder. For men, impotence is like castration, as Freud said: “he is still in possession of a penis, and the stiffening reassures him of the fact” (265). Rusk is never portrayed as anything less than a horrible, violent, disgusting murderer and rapist, and while the other men aren’t guilty for the same cruel acts as him, they aren’t innocent by any means. The portrayal of men in FRENZY to me does not seem like a celebration of patriarchy because of the fact that by the end, practically none are positioned to be well viewed by the audience. It seems to me to be more of a reminder of the harsh reality of patriarchy than it is a celebration of it.

David Boghen

7/12/2018 08:47:19 pm

To understand whether FRENZY’s representation of patriarchy is a critique or a celebration, we must first analyze how “femininity” and “masculinity” are presented. All the men in the film seem to disregard the true horror of rape. The man in the restaurant even says of the serial rapist/murderer that “every cloud has a silver lining.” Although most women in the film resist their male counterpart, very rarely can they gain authority over them, therefore it is a celebration. The stability in the patriarchy presented in FRENZY lies in the knowledge that women will constantly struggle but can never overcome the oppressive nature of a society that is dominated by men who are not aware of this oppression. When Chief Inspector Oxford makes the joke that “These days, ladies abandon their honour far more readily than their clothes,” he is being hostile. In “Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious”, Freud writes that jokes “make possible the satisfaction of an instinct (whether lustful or hostile) in the face of an obstacle that stands in its way” (1697). Oxford is circumventing the obstacle that is the vulnerability of women while emphasizing their “feminine” attributes. He is presenting “femininity” as willing to be subjected to male dominance rather than give of their mask of femininity.

However, the character of Mrs. Oxford questions this view, because she is the one with authority in the couple. Even though she plays the stereotypical role of wife who stays at home and cooks, she does so in a way that allows her to assert herself in the relationship. She is fully aware that her husband would rather eat steak and potatoes, and yet she cooks him these extravagant meals consisting primarily of animal body parts, which he despises. His inability to eat can be compared to her inability for sex, which she subtly complains about over dinner. Therefore, she is getting back at him and putting him in her position, thus critiquing patriarchy.

The men in the film—particularly Rusk—seem to use violence to affirm their masculinity. In Jacqueline Rose’s article, she writes that “it is illegitimate and/or waning power that turns most readily to violence.” Therefore, it is a critique of patriarchy because man’s domination is illegitimate and thus needs reaffirming, leading to sexual violence.

Vanessa Amar

7/12/2018 10:56:22 pm

As Larissa had stated, FRENZY is a display of male dominance, particularly Rusk’s; however, the mere portrayal of this intense and all-consuming domination is exactly what makes this film a critique of the patriarchy. It does not display a rightful supremacy, but rather a vile one. The extreme ways in which Rusk uses patriarchy to his advantage exposes the smaller, more subtle version the everyday man uses it. This is comparable to how Elliot Rodger’s killing spree was “a predictable if extreme response to the thwarting of that entitlement” that in turn exposes the very present, but more subtle entitlement and violence of the rest of the “incel” community (2/8). The gruesome ways in which Rusk kills the women in this film symbolically represents the everyday aggressions women are victim to; by being exposed to the extreme version, some may better comprehend the injustices in the more “mundane”. Hitchcock uses a similar technique regarding the humour present in this film. He uses this humour to shock the audience into understanding the degrading nature that simple jokes can have. While laughing at the vile jokes we hear that undermine and degrade women, we are laughing as though we “were the spectator of an act of sexual aggression” (Freud, 1694). Consequently, finding these extreme and provoking jokes humorous says as much about the viewer as it does the one who makes the joke. By using these extremely shocking jokes which arises a reaction from the audience, he is critiquing the casual jokes made at the expense of women in day-to-day life. While watching FRENZY, particularly the scene in the bar with the two unnamed men, the audience does not side with he who calls rape “a silver lining”, but their hearts rather go out to the female bartender who overhears their conversation. Seeing the absurdness in such a comment demonstrates the absurdness in more commonplace jokes. This entire film, from the behaviour of the characters to the humour, is an exposure of a more extreme version of how society treats women and in turn is a scathing critique of the patriarchy.

Kathleen Fabella

7/12/2018 11:52:39 pm

Hitchcock’s FRENZY is a film that really puts emphasis unto the representations of food, which therefore somewhat represents masculinity and femininity and how there is no such thing as both being equal, a presence of the struggle of power, more specifically, on the men’s side. To further explain, on one hand, we see Rusk is a man who desired to be the superior one, who desired to constantly have the phallus. “He would show everyone that he was the superior one, the true alpha male” (Srinivasan par.3), which lead him to raping all those women. On the other hand, there’s Richard who wasn’t a very appealing nor attractive character and he seems to be aware of it. Both characters, Rusk and Richard represent two different “types” of men in the movie, and we see the significant difference through how they acted around Brenda, Richard’s ex-wife, for example. In relation to food, before the horrible scene of Rusk sexually attacking Brenda in her office, he asks her if they could go have lunch together, his treat. “I’d buy you the best lunch in town”, he says to Brenda, which he then later rapes and kills her, symbolizing that he didn’t need to go out for lunch because he was “hungry for her” and finished off his midday meal with the apple for dessert as he leaves the office. Whereas, in the case of Richard, it is Brenda who offers to buy him dinner at a fancy restaurant and Richard doesn’t seem to go against the idea which shows how Brenda is seen as way more successful and superior than Richard, and Richard seems to go with it. Comparing both cases, for Richard, he doesn’t mind being the lesser person, he has already accepted the fact that he does not withhold of the phallus whereas in Rusk’s position, him offering lunch and him “devouring it” shows that he will do anything to prove his superiority and that will temporarily satisfy his need. “[…] he is still in possession of a penis, and the stiffening reassures him of the fact” (Freud 264). Rusk seems to be threatened by the fact that Brenda is a successful woman. Therefore, whilst the movie seems to be encouraging patriarchy and its desire to be superior, it also shows how, the power of women is growing too, leaving men like Richard to feel small but also men like Rusk to feel intimidated. Thus, the simple act of asking someone out for lunch in FRENZY, shows the different “domination” each character has in the film.

Ameera Kabir

8/12/2018 12:22:35 am

The powerlessness women face when confronted by the men in the film, notably the dynamic between Rusk and his victims, does not normalize patriarchy within our society but instead holds a mirror to it. Srinivasan makes an excellent point in her article about some men, notably “incels”, when stating that “the moment their unhappiness is transmuted into a rage at the women ‘denying them sex, than than at the systems that shape desire, they have crossed a line into something morally ugly and confused” (5). Rusks’ actions are undeniably deplorable, and while some characters in the film do make jokes at the expense of the victims, never once do they attempt to defend the murders. Arguably, their disregard for women and their bodies perpetuates a patriarchal view. However, Rusks himself is the main perpetrator and defender of his actions and actions alike his when he claims that “there are some women who ask for everything they get”. His claim destroys any attempt at rationalizing or normalizing the behaviour of the men at the bar as that would then be agreeing with the words of a murder, Additionally, the audience is placed in the position of the women Rusks violates. Freud states in “Jokes and Their Relation To The Unconscious” that “a tendentious joke calls for three people: in addition to the one who makes the joke, there must be a second who is taken as the object of the hostile or sexual aggressiveness, and a third in whom the joke’s aim of producing pleasure is fulfilled” (1696). Women, in the film’s case, are taken as the object of hostile aggressiveness, however in the bar scene, the audience is made to empathize with women as the shocking imagery of the victim floating in the water is still fresh in our minds. The jokes accentuate just how monstrous the crime truly is. Brenda’s final scene later on in the film adds on to the audience’s identification with the victim since the scene itself is testament to Brenda’s silent resistance when faced with a force she is unable to defeat. The film’s portrayal of a woman’s inability to fight against a man is not in order to celebrate patriarchy, but to deeply criticize it; passivity when faced with violence is not acceptance of it, but is in reality a form of resistance in order to survive; the film manages to portray a somewhat convincing (while far from perfect, as some of my peers have mentioned) critique of patriarchy.

Ruhullah Muhtat

8/12/2018 12:43:23 am

Hitchcock’s FRENZY is most likely a critique of the patriarchal society. When Richard enters Brenda’s office and starts to get violent with Brenda, she tries to appease his anger by asking him to have dinner with her. Because of their divorce, there is clear evidence that Brenda doesn’t have much interest in the loser man that Richard is, yet she still asks him out. This relates to MacKinnon’s opinion on sexual choices. Srinivasan quotes her saying that “such [sexual] choices, under patriarchy, are rarely free”. Brenda is very much under pressure to make Richard happy by taking him out for dinner, and even if they don’t have sex, the dinner alone is sufficient to say that Brenda didn’t have the choice to please Richard. In fact, Richard even starts to say nonsense and break a glass in dinner which is bad for Brenda’s reputation, therefore, there was no reason for Brenda to take Richard out for dinner. This dinner is the result of an oppressive patriarchal society and is doubled by Hitchcock with Brenda’s rape scene. Rusk’s rape is literally giving no choice to Brenda, but Richard is not so different. Another interesting parallel between Rusk and Richard would be the glass shattering scene and Brenda’s strangulation scene. In both scenes the look of desperation in Brenda’s eyes causes the men to feel more powerful. Freud states that “the sight of Medusa’s head makes (…) turns him to stone. Thus in the original situation it offers consolation to the spectator: he is still in possession of a penis”, which can be applied to the look of Brenda that stiffens both Richard and Rusk making them feel powerful because they are assured that they are still in possession of a penis.

INSTRUCTIONS

Please respond in the Comments section. To see this section, just click the red "comments" line). To create a new response, use the "Leave a Reply" box.

Do not use the "reply" button under the previous user's comment. Add your comment as an entirely new one.

It is best to write your response in a document that you can save, and then paste it into the comments box.

Be sure to read all comments by your peers before writing your own, and to consider the ongoing discussion in your own comment.

Be original!

Humanities

Leave a Reply.

INSTRUCTIONS

Archives

Categories