Teeth

So I was reading this book on horror films the other day, called "Horror Films" originally enough. In his introduction the author James Marriott at one point claims "... for all of horror films' often formulaic nature, the genre throws up a kind of wild creativity that just isn't seen anywhere else". Let's pluck some random clunker to prove the point. How about Virus starring Jamie Lee Curtis? Totally humdrum horror film, but the monster was cool! Friday The 13th? Rip-off of Halloween and Black Christmas but the deaths were brilliant in their ingenuity. When I first heard of Teeth's premise it got me thinking about this kind of thing, before realising that although the idea of a woman who has molars down there (or if you want me to go all colloquial on yo ass she's got a fanny wae teeth) sounds like an original idea for a horror movie, the myths of such a creature have existed for what seems the entirety of humankind.

The originality in Teeth's case doesn't even come from the fear of dismemberment that pervades our nightmares, and thus many horror films, or even the old tenet that sex = death. Rather it is in the way that these things occur. The dismemberment is a particularly male related one that thanks to some graphic prosthetics will definitely cause some psychological problems for at least half of the audience. As for meeting your maker after getting your end away it is the act itself that causes you harm, not some lunk in a hockey mask stabbing you in the spleen after having a romantic knobbing around the back of the school disco. The monster is the female sexual organ on a physical level. On a meta-physical one it is female sexuality that creates the beast. But even that isn't something new. The myths about Vagina Dentata are entirely about that, and the masculine fears brought about by it. The difference here is that rather than the female being some monster to be conquered, thus restoring the norm, Teeth's monster is a teenage girl coming to terms with what her own body is becoming and what it can do. In this respect director/writer Mitchell Lichtenstein has inverted the myth, and by telling it in a contemporary setting has tailored it to modern sensibilities. Dawn's problem isn't something for man to tackle and defeat, rather it has been created exactly because of this attitude. This isn't simply another Ginger Snaps where the transformation can be a solely credited to burgeoning sexuality, but rather it occurs thanks to the oppression imposed by society. Men's sexuality is weak and so men in the movie attempt to exert themselves over females. This leads to the female sexuality becoming suppressed, as it going unburdened frightens males and is seen to be like horror films themselves, an affront to social order. But in Teeth the woman with the power to reverse this situation is the, slightly troubling, hero.

At this juncture then it is interesting to note that Marriot's assertion about the horror genre comes about because he realises that many people think that the genre is "unsavoury". He decides that this occurs in relation to Robin Wood's theory that horror's main concern is realising those things that are repressed by the individual and oppressed by society at large. And if cilvilisation is a form of repression then creativity and imagination are considered dangerous, thus horror's position in society. Teeth may be one of the most perfect examples of Wood's theory we have seen. Not only is Dawn's mutation brought about as some form of evolution thanks to years of oppression, but it then causes her to subconsciously repress herself sexually thanks to joining a chastity group.

On this level Teeth is a very interesting film that raises a lot of issues. And in its hero figure it becomes very grey. Is Dawn a hero? Or is she really still just the monster of the myths of old, one that males cannot conquer? As for the attitude to males, they are either pathetic or rapists. It's a very pro-feminist movie but one written by a male. As such it may be felt that some issues may be simplified thanks to this. The film is well directed and suggests Lichtenstein may be one to watch. He is assured behind the camera and creative in his writing. He has created a film that is morbidly funny, although this is at the expense of it being even remotely scary. It's probably more horrifying than terrifying. It's pacing is also a tad slow for the first half, although a sense of dread is built it takes a little too long to get going. At least the characters it takes the time to establish are interesting, although maybe not likable, as opposed to, say, Cloverfield which spent an age establishing shallow sketches with nothing going for them whatsoever. The performances are on the whole good, with Jess Weixler as Dawn proving to be a very promising talent. She is definitely the best thing about the film with a very mature performance as a sexually innocent woman adjusting to the changes in her body. Then the second half is pretty much relentless penis dismemberment, yeah you read that right! The problem is that while the first half sets up a pretty sombre exploration of the themes I've talked about it becomes a comic B-horror from the Gynecologist scene onwards. It's very amusing and pretty sick and manic, but it's an almighty swing from what has already happened. It's like watching two separate movies. It seems that Lichtenstein may have been unsure exactly where to go with his initial premise. It's a bit of a shame but that two halves are both decent to good movies that, although don't quite work as a whole, are still at turns interesting and entertaining.

The best way to take Teeth is as a very dark comedy about female empowerment. If you can do this then you may find a lot to like in this film. It is flawed, but it is interesting and a lot more complex than the initial premise may suggest.