one view is that the film supports and sympathizes with feminism, and the interpretation is that the film has shaped Joe through Such a rebellious female character who pursues sexual liberation supports, pays attention to and sympathizes with feminism.
One view is that the film is anti-feminist, and the angle of interpretation is that the film’s portrayal of Joe is too negative. This negativity is based on an anti-feminist standpoint, and the death of the feminist Seligman is a symbol of anti-feminism. .
What is feminism? Here is a definition from Wikipedia: Feminism (feminism, feminism) refers to social theories and political movements that are mainly based on female experience and motivation. In addition to criticizing social relations, many supporters of feminism also focus on the analysis of gender inequality and the promotion of women's rights, interests and issues.
According to this definition, if the film is not viewed from the perspective of so-called feminism, then the film can be said to be an addictive story. No matter what things (drugs, sex, hoarding animals, etc.) a person is overly addicted to, his life is always in order. It's hard to be organized. In the narrative of the entire film, Joe has not been discriminated against or oppressed by many men, nor has he encountered gender inequality. Instead, she often appears in front of the audience as a strong and conqueror. The misfortunes encountered are more due to personal apostasy (if a man is obsessed with sex and does not do business, the end will not be much better). Therefore, it can be said that this film does not involve too many feminist issues. The reason why there are two diametrically opposite interpretations of the feminist interpretation of this film is that the film does not involve too much feminism and the interpreter is far-fetched and over-interprets it.
Therefore, I don't think the film "Female Addict" supports or opposes feminism. I think it is at best satirizing some vulgar feminists. I define the vulgar feminist as: attributing the unfortunate treatment women suffer (especially when these unfortunate treatments are related to sex) indiscriminately to the oppression of the patriarchal system and feel that they are so tall A class of people. Seligman, the character in the film and Joe’s listener, is such a dogmatic and vulgar feminist. He tried to use a popular feminist idea to explain the misfortune of the heroine Joe but was ridiculed by Joe. Comment on Seligman: "Although all this sounds frighteningly close to cliches of our times. (What you say sounds so cliches.)" It
is very simple to declare yourself as a feminist, which is far more than advertised as a scientist, Philosophers are much easier, because feminism is not an honorary title given by society. It has no threshold. Everyone can be labeled as a feminist without being overly criticized and ridiculed. Therefore, the society is full of various vulgar feminists, some of them tend to be persecuted and delusional, and they are too sensitive and easy to catch the wind. They often label others as anti-feminism, remnants of feudalism, defenders of the patriarchal system, etc. , These people have suffered criticisms on gender and sex to a large extent (for example, the pursuit of sexual liberation), so they use feminism to defend themselves or fight back against dissidents. They don’t care about academic issues or the essence and nature of the game between the sexes. Historically, they just wanted to use feminism to embolden themselves and pride themselves on being lofty. (Of course, Seligman does not belong to this part, he is just good to drop the book bag or pretend to be forced)
Many people are dissatisfied with the ending of the film's character Seligman being shot by Joe because he wanted to have a sexual relationship with the heroine Joe. This dissatisfaction stems from such a suspicion: After so many years of asexual life, Seligman suddenly wanted to have sex with the heroine. Is this turning point too fast?
People who live an asexual life are generally called asexuals or ascetics. What kind of Seligman belongs to? The film didn't write much about this. Therefore, Seligman's behavior is really unpredictable.
The so-called asexuality, according to the usual definition, refers to a psychological tendency to lack interest in sexual behavior (this definition is relatively broad). The Wiki defines asexuality as such: Asexuality (or nonsexuality) is the lack of sexual attraction to anyone or low or absent interest in sexual activity. The formation of asexuality has its complex psychological factors. Asexuality only accounts for 1% of the population, and asexual men are even more rare.
The so-called asceticism refers to a theoretical system or attitude toward life that restrains one's desires (especially sexual desire) to achieve a certain goal. There are many materials on asexuality that strictly distinguish the extension of the concepts of asceticism and asexuality. This view holds that asceticism is the result of external conditions imposed, and asexuality is an instinctive reaction in the heart of asexuals. I think this black-and-white division method is unreliable. It comes from the heart and instinctive reaction is a kind of vague state. As a kind of psychological tendency, it is difficult for us to study the extent to which it is constrained. Genetic factors and acquired environment and ideology. If we define asceticism as the principle pursued by ascetics, then after a long period of abstinence, whether ascetics are still interested in participating in sexual activities is also a question (if they have no interest, according to the usual definition, it is already Asexuals anymore). In addition, generally speaking, the so-called asceticists try to eliminate all sexual behaviors, including masturbation and having sex with others, but also often prevent romantic relationships with others. Asexuals just don't want to have sex with others, but they can still have romantic relationships with others.
We may define it like this: For ascetics, they have a strong inner conflict about whether they want to have sexual intercourse with others, but they ultimately choose abstinence. For asexuals, although they may refuse sexual behaviors because of certain experiences or under the influence of certain ideologies, their choice of refusal of sexual behaviors does not need to go through a strong inner conflict. But how to measure the so-called strong inner conflict is still a question worth discussing.
In addition, as a label that appears much earlier than asexuality (asexual can only be traced back to 1830, and as early as in ancient Greece, there was a vocabulary about asceticism-ἄσκησις), yes, it’s all right. A determination of identity, or a label, in an era when there is no concept of "asexuality", many asexuals may use "asceticism" to advertise themselves. For example, we can imagine that there are many who practice asceticism. The religious saints are asexuals themselves, and they are more likely to accept an ascetic life than sexual ones.
Maybe the director Lars Von Trier didn't understand asexuality or asceticism at all, so he could only create Seligman's role based on his conjectures about asexuality or asceticism and even gave him such an incredible and controversial ending.
View more about Nymphomaniac: Vol. II reviews
