MovieChat Forums > Victim (2010) Discussion > Sexist? [contains spoilers]

Sexist? [contains spoilers]

posted 11 years ago by ccook-455-903939
8 replies | jump to latest

I just watched the film last night, and I can't help but think critically of it. As a graduate student in an English Language Arts program, I have done my fair share of feminist study, and I am pretty sure that an entire paper could be written about how this film functions and only works, in fact, in a patriarchal world. Think about it. What makes this film disturbing? What makes it scary? I would argue that it is not just that the main character is tortured (burned, electrocuted, beaten, etc.) but also that his agency is literally stripped away from him. At the beginning of the film, he is aggressive, resistant, and combative, and by the end of the film, he is passive, submissive, and weak, and how? He is turned into a woman, the scariest, most nightmarish, horror that a patriarchal man could endure. The film almost seems to suggest, in fact, that the latter traits are natural traits of women, since the personality change occurs as a result of the hormones with which he is injected. I would also argue that if you do not believe this to be true, if you would argue that the film is only meant to be scary because of how the main character is treated and tortured, ask yourself if you thought, even for a microsecond, that he deserved what he got once, near the end of the film, you found out what he did, why Dr. Volk and Georgie abducted him, tortured him, and physically altered him. To be honest, I know that I did, and it was for a lot longer than a microsecond. Once it all started to make sense and I realized that the main character was the guy who raped and murdered Dr. Volk's daughter, Rachel, I was no longer on his side and was even rooting for Dr. Volk and Georgie. Doesn't the film, then, lose its power as a horror film once you no longer side with the supposed protagonist and see him as the monster? I would, again, ultimately argue that this film functions within sexism and patriarchy, for being turned into a woman (a state of being that is apparently naturally weak and passive) is the worst fate that any patriarchal man could endure, and that is why, even at the end of the film when viewers learn of the main character's horrifying, gut-wrenching secret, the film expects the majority of its heterosexual male audience to continue to identify with him/her. That is also why he/she survives at the end and kills the villains; he/she remains the hero but still must live with the consequence of what he/she did - womanhood.

[–] amandaevans123 11 years ago

I saw this on netflix the other night. You make some interesting points. As a women I found it disturbing even though I could see the main character as being particularly slimy from the get go and hated him even more by the end. I wonder how a transgender would view the film? Would becoming a women be punishment to them or the ultimate realization of a their fantasies? Essentially, that's what he becomes at the end of the film and he sort of embraces it. Out of guilt or whether he adopts the daughters identity and actually becomes her in the end when he decides to suffocate her and take her life. Maybe a sort of redemption/salvation through the sacrifice of his own manhood.

[–] libra113 11 years ago

Well, first let me say that I kinda figured out that he was the one who attacked the Doctor's daughter at the start of the film pretty early on (it kind of would've been scarier if it was a random guy picked because the guy had the right look or whatever) so that wasn't an issue for me personally.

On the second point I don't think it's so much the sex change that's supposed to be scary it's that it's forced on him and completely against his will. I don't think the movie is trying to say that sex change in and of itself is punishment but that's not what this is, this is forced sex change.

It's that it's forced is the horrible part.

[–] EmilyRoad 10 years ago

By happenstance i came across this film a few hours ago on Netflix and went into it cold because I like to fill my head with horrible stuff when I can't sleep for some reason. Imagine my surprise...

...Because I'm mtf transgender. Here are a few of my thoughts:

I didn't find the movie offensive in any intentional way. My initial reaction was that of the OP. I was thinking 'stupid boys writing a chauvinist script' and then I realized I was being an oversensitive bitch. I don't think the intention was to offend in that sense, but to explore an absolute loss of identity. The theme was identity itself, albeit poorly executed.

I do view his forced transition as punishment-no one should have to go through the particular type of hell he was forced to (and I am currently dealing with) unless it's an absolute necessity, decided by the subject themself. He didn't want it. Not to sound harsh, but wandering about that is the same thing as wandering if a rape victim has a rape fantasy with no other information.

I do however understand that for most cisgender people it can be a hard thing to grasp because it's not quite the same as racism, classism, or even homophobia (even though there is a link there that I don't yet understand-a lesbian couple I was good friends with now hate me), so I don't fault anyone for not understanding-especially when a film like this seems to add to confusion.

You're welcome to bombard me with questions if you want-that's what usually happens and I'm happy to talk about it.

Ciao

[–] inko8 9 years ago

hi-- sorry you lost your friends.

it is my understanding that tra**y is not an acceptable word, so i don't use it. it never occurred to me to call someone oversensitive just for feeling their feelings, so i hope you will accept this in the spirit in which it is given:
as a woman and an animal rights person, i eschew sexist and speciesist language (like the b-word for example) in the same way i do racist, homophobic, or transphobic language. the roots and reasons behind such words are mired in rape culture and bring no good end.

i don't have any questions and i wish you well.

"Ugh! I don't like this." --Ambrose Bierce

[–] kut_u_up-1 10 years ago

I think you're missing the point for the most part. The horrific part about the movie isn't that he's being made into a woman, it's that he's being made into someone who isn't HIM. The doctor wasn't simply changing his gender, he was completely converting him, mind and body into his daughter. He didn't become submissive as a result of the sex change, it was a result of his long term brainwashing and re-programming to behave how the doctor's daughter did. The doctor even states his reasoning, he doesn't say "I wanted to punish you by turning you into a submissive woman." he said "I wanted to restore your innocence so that you could feel what it's like to have it ripped out of you." The core theme was that the doctor literally makes him live through exactly what his daughter did. The punishment wasn't being a woman, it was just as the doctor said, seeing what it feels like to forcably lose your innocence. By the end, the guy/girl wasn't left to live with "the consequences of what he/she did - womanhood." By the end he had no memory of who he/she was and believed that he/she has always been a woman, therefore being a woman wasn't the punishment. However, the gender change isn't the central idea of the movie, the central idea is the issue of morality and conscience, the question being, who is the victim here? You could argue it's the daughter, because she was left a vegetable after being raped and beaten. You could argue it's the doctor, who lost his daughter. You could also argue that it's the guy/girl, who lost his entire identity and was forced to live the experiences of the daughter. The idea is, that in this case, everyone involved is the victim in some way.

[–] ccook-455-903939 10 years ago

I both agree and disagree with you. You bring up some really good points, and I completely agree with your analysis of the title of the film; there is definitely more than one victim, and the title being singular rather than plural is, I think, intended to challenge you, to make you think about who the victim truly is. I still see the scenario differently than you do, though. The fact that the young man, after he is brainwashed and turned into a female, does not remember ever being a man and raping Dr. Volk's daughter is inconsequential; Dr. Volk knows that that is going to be the result and carries out his vengeful plan, anyway, ultimately having Georgie attempt to rape the young man as a woman even though he is essentially having his daughter raped all over again. Why not simply arrange for Georgie to rape the young man as he is? Why are the hormones and the sex reassignment surgery necessary? Why does the young man need to physically be a woman in order to feel vulnerable? He would still know what it's like to be raped. Perhaps, that wouldn't be as pleasant for Georgie if Georgie is heterosexual, but I don't think that the plan to rape the young man as a woman involves much, if any, sexual pleasure on Georgie's part; it is (almost) purely an act of power and violence. Do you see where I'm going? While it is true that if the young man had simply been napped, imprisoned, tortured, and ultimately raped as he is, with no psychological or physical alterations made to him, the film would not be as fresh and as interesting as it is, but the film, to me, seems to want to suggest that one cannot know true fear and vulnerability unless one is a woman.

[–] plumlogan 7 years ago

Well then it sounds like the filmmakers were feminists

[–] sindee0816 10 years ago

Don't burn your bra just yet. No, it was not even close to being "sexist". His will was broken before the castration/sex change. He got a complete taste of his own medicine. That's all. There is no need looking for some sexist innuendo here. I am female as well