As queixas de Mia Goth sobre a postura do Oscar com filmes de horror (RANT)

X (USA, 2022)

Hello my dears. I am the Raven who speaks to you. 

In general, I always have a high regard for A24 Studio productions. Like any other big studio that works on many titles year after year, A24 has its hits and misses. However, the respect I have for them is directly connected with a commitment that guides all their movies: the principle of making social comments, of acidly criticizing the explicit ills in horror films (that are good at portraying them, but not so good to comment them), to add content and reflection to the film and not to be satisfied with the barbarism itself. In some cases, when the script is really well thought out, the A24 films also succeed in the sense of subversion, by problematizing unnatural issues that have been naturalized in everyday life. The simple lines that “things are as they are” or that “the world is like this and always will be” are commonly repudiated by the studio: although its films are not always satisfactory in problematizing violence, at least directors, screenwriters and producers are asking about its origins, conditions and reflecting on which dimensions we are affected. Even when they don't comment on what is visually presented to us, a scene can still give room for the cinephile to think about what he has just watched. That's what we see in "X" for example, when we discover that adult film actress Maxine (whose real name may very well not be this one) is the daughter of the pastor we also see preaching on Texas TV in the 1970s. Director Ti West does not comment on the issue, he just establishes such an unexpected connection at the end of the film and leaves a possible reflection for us. Contextualizing with the type of program and the historical context in question, we can well ask ourselves: would the religious father be a fundamentalist fanatic? What kind of life was his daughter, now addicted to cocaine and a prostitute, had with him? In the case of religious fanaticism (which is also a means of violence and oppression), what role would it have played in Maxine's rebellion, who abandoned puritanism and fell into the terrible world of the pornographic industry? It's questions like these that A24's films don't necessarily answer, but almost always do some kind of provocation. A feature that, I repeat, makes me respect the Studio very much.

When “X” was announced, my first reaction was laughter (and in a good way). By choosing a horror subgenre such as slasher, which is so stereotyped and historically misogynistic, the studio would have a difficult task if its intention was to create an avant-garde work. But what we discover when watching “X” is that it is far from this commitment. The film is a traditional slasher in the purest sense of the term, visibly a homage to “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”. We see this in the choice of a scenario analogous to the Texas arid environment, although the film was produced in New Zealand, where it is cheaper and more financially viable. The costumes are very reminiscent of what was used by the cast of the 1970s classic by Tope Hooper and Kim Henkel, and the fact that the antagonists of “X” are an elderly couple is another point of approximation. Or did someone forgot about Leatherface's grandfather? The gas station that the group finds before arriving at the farm (the scene of the massacre) is also a clear reference, as well as the van they use to make the journey. Even the internal camera shot, from the car's windshield backwards, demonstrates how Ti West's gaze sought Tobe Hooper's.

It wouldn't be impolite to say that "X" is basically "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" through and through. The differential here, however, what makes this film different from the examples of the Leatherface franchise, are precisely the characteristics of A24 studio: the commentary, the inversions, the way in which the studio likes to take traditional stereotypes of films and the horror subgenre and subvert them. Examples are not lacking in “X”: Leatherface's grandfather was completely disabled, unlike the couple we meet here, who, although they already have extreme physical limitations, were not dead. Dead are all who underestimate them. A typical moralistic stereotype of slashers is that characters who have sex are the first to die. “X” goes the opposite way: the first to suffer at the hands of Pearl and her partner are those who, during the film, had not yet had sex, which ends up being comical when we consider that the small team rented the farm of the elderly people, in the middle of nowhere, to make an independent pornographic film (without the couple being aware of their real intentions, of course). Little did they know that the owners also had a history with the adult entertainment industry, old wounds, trauma and that their exposure to this content would cause a pathological eruption of unresolved mental issues.

Honestly, I expected to have a lot of fun with A24's subversions and stings. But, as a final balance, I understand that Ti West was more traditionalist than subversive. “X” pleases both those who watch for the commentary (that is, who expect a more intellectualized posture) and those who are not very concerned about this exercise, who travel only in the shallow part of the film, just waiting for the bloodshed. The film is not a masterpiece in either extreme, which makes me rate it only as average. That said, breaking with the worldly spirit of slashers (without mischaracterizing them) is a very difficult task and Ti West's effort, in my opinion, was commendable in this regard. In the end, the film had a message, but remains a typical slasher with some slapstick scenes. I value the intellectual movement, because the mere attempt to make comments about the pornographic industry and its evils, or even the subtle way that comments on the conservatism of the time through the religious program on TV and in the facial expressions of the people who watch it, are elements that enrich the slasher and distance it a little from common sense, from the prejudice that there is nothing but blood in this type of film, nothing that we can think of useful for life.

The cinematic form itself (the tool) is never simplistic: simpletons can be those who make use of this tool, which makes me very reticent with any attempt to stigmatize subgenres or the horror genre as a whole (I prefer to criticize the simpletons, not the form of retraction). Overall, I liked "X", it's a solid title in A24 filmography. However, I think that it is not a sensational film, that it still needs more context and questioning to actually be included in the hall of the best that the studio has ever produced. I imagine that Ti West must also share the opinion, since he took advantage of the health and restriction measures during the pandemic (required by New Zealand, a country that dealt exemplary with the issue) to concurrently write the script for the prequel, called “Pearl” – project that left the actress and greatest value of the cast, Mia Goth, quite interested. As the director, Goth realized that "X" was just the embryo of something that could be much more interesting. In my case, it was only when I discovered the concept of “Pearl” (the prequel and second film of the trilogy, which will end with a third volume called “Maxxxine”), that I became interested in watching “X” and contextualizing myself with Ti West’s objective, who also writes the script, produces and edits these films.

Ti West is young, but very meticulous and systematic, a guy who works hard so that the final product turns out exactly as he envisions. The first film of his that I watched was “The Inkeepers”, followed by “The Sacrament”. Both left good impressions on me, but nothing that justified a sigh. Watching “X”, and then appreciating “Pearl”, I assess that Ti West is on the rise in his career, maturing the writing and researching his direction. With regard specifically to "X", I believe that with the closing of "Maxxxine", this first film will be even more valued, since "Pearl" works in a way to substantiate and deepen issues that are still superficial in "X". As an ongoing trilogy, with the same creative minds in development, these films have the ability to build on each other, to give us a great big concept and richer vision compared to enjoying each installment in isolation.

The prequel “Pearl” was my main motivation for watching “X”, but actress Mia Goth also had a considerable share of responsibility for my curiosity about the films. Incredible as it may seem, her debut is over a decade ago, in the controversial “Nymphomaniac”. Time flies. The appearances in “Marrowbone” and in the remake of “Suspiria” kept the actress on my radar, as they were moments that qualified her as a young talent, one of the names to pay more attention to in future works. Fortunately, Goth does not disappoint in “X”: acting in two distinct roles (as Maxine and Pearl), she justifies Ti West's interest in extending the partnership, making Goth the great central figure of his trilogy. Goth's delivery wasn't just emotional. Maxine and Pearl are different in terms of expression (though they share a dot-connected biography) – but physical delivery also demands flexibility. Pearl's elderly appearance built, thankfully, with just prosthetic makeup. The application, according to the actress, took 10 hours – and then she went to the set and spent another 12 hours acting. Very physical, tiring work. Goth, immersed in Maxine, as well as Pearl, monopolizes the cinephile's attention just for her, even though the cast also includes Jenna Ortega, another young actress with good potential (who here plays Lorraine, a not very bright character, the opposite of Jenna’s common energy and perspicacity).

Accompanying Pearl's misery and her poorly elaborated loss of youth (and of the body that in the past was also used and objectified) is even more interesting than the crocodile that resides in the property's lake, which has its special moments there, not only destroying one of the cast members, but also enhanced by an aerial shot taken by Ti West, where he films Mia Goth naked cooling off in the water without noticing the approach of the large reptile. By the way, her history with nude movies and sex scenes is nothing new. While she's a great actress, let's be frank in acknowledging that she's here because she also doesn't mind being naked, which a movie with such a name and theme demands. For my part, I hope that Goth is not stigmatized or labeled for the rest of her career due to the racy scenes she did so far: it would be horrible to see an actress with such potential being reduced to a mere sexual object, ironically one of the themes of the film. Goth is truly a talent and it always pleases me to see how she carries the training and learning from her previous experiences. She learns very quickly and increases her repertoire with each film. In “X”, for example, we can see in Pearl's dance, which she projectively (and macabrely) interpreted in the blood-red light, some vestiges of choreography used in “Suspiria”. A scenario where talent is suppressed because of the historical stigma that haunts actresses who have gone nude in Hollywood would be the real sin. In this sense, I am rooting for Goth not to be labeled or invited only to films with a horror nature and that demand nudity. She have much more to offer than that.

Finally, I will talk about the two dimensions assumed by the letter X in the film. The first, of course, is the sexual one, which refers to the classification assigned by the Motion Picture Association (MPAA) between 1968 and 1990. The X classification was initially used to indicate to movie theaters films with the most suitable content for the public aged 16 years or older. However, at that time the evaluation was still very generic, different from the standards we have today where movies with non-explicit adult content and pornographic ones receive different ratings. The lack of specificity made several professional producers and independent directors of explicit cinema invest in low-budget films, classifying them as X and making them reach some movie theater, thus raising much more money than they usually did. It is in this historical (and also technical) context that the characters of the film in question are inserted, as well as the belief that they will get easy money and have some kind of fame.

“X”, as expected from an A24 film, does not only highlight the issue I just mentioned. It also makes clear how easily at-risk women could be seduced by such a promise. Although the discussion of the harms of pornography has not yet been deepened in this first film, “X” leaves a considerable gap for them to be thought and worked on in the following titles, “Pearl” and “Maxxxine”. The pornographic industry is not portrayed here in the idealized way, linked to the ostentatious marketing standards of the late 20th century and today. Quite the opposite. Empty promises and the false idea of ​​freedom go hand in hand with Maxine's cocaine addiction, a very important element for a film like this. Professionals in the sex industry are a group that, due to objectification inside and outside this market, receive a stigma that haunts them until the end of their lives. Discarded as soon as they start to get old and the endless surgeries are no longer able to disguise this natural phenomenon of life, many deepen even more the addiction to drugs that they developed in their heyday, an escape valve as it were, a crooked way of anesthetizing the malaise and psychic suffering. The rate of substance use and suicide within the adult entertainment industry has always been gigantic and alarming, but little commented on, since our society (conservative and moralistic) cares little about the health and dignity of those who work in it. Sadly, many people don't even see sex workers as human beings.

But, I speak a little about the second dimension that I mentioned earlier, which not everyone may have noticed or associated right away. I think that “X” is also a letter used by Ti West ludically, which makes the film anticipate, giving constant hints to moviegoers about how the characters will die. In addition, West also inserts elements of classic films in some scenes, especially the aforementioned “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and “Psycho” by Alfred Hitchcock. The scene with the cameraman RJ in the shower is one of the mentions and at the same time a provocation, since it is a man and not a woman who is the focus of the lens. But note that the shower scene is an element that foreshadows RJ's death, even if it was different from Janet Leigh's. The car found submerged in the lake is also a direct reference to how Norman Bates tried to dump Marion Crane's automobile and the cinematographic techniques used by West in scenes like these are very close to those used by Hitchcock. That said, the director also doesn't miss the opportunity to pay tribute to himself, as in the name he gave to the gas station, a reference to “The Inkeepers”.

The ludic sense of X that I mentioned is associated with the exercise of trying to find some advance information, which is hidden in scenes or images. When Bobby-Lynne exits the strip club at the beginning of the film, there is a large colorful mural in the establishment, depicting a woman being attacked by an alligator, whose bite removes part of her bikini. And we know how she dies afterwards, right? Elsewhere, Wayne talks to RJ about the content of the movie he's producing, which he says will make "people's eyes pop out of their skulls." The fate Pearl has in store for him is not far off, and these are just two examples of the many Xs that Ti West meticulously hid within the film. His only slip up happens in the photos of the missing people, stamped on milk boxes. In reality, this type of announcement began to be made around 1984, five years after the events of the film. Stamping photographs on merchandise was part of a campaign run by the National Child Safety Council.

In the near future, I will return with some thoughts on the next volume, the film “Pearl”. Corvid greetings!

[English Version] X (USA, 2022)

X/X:A Marca da Morte (EUA, 2022)