Destroy All Monsters: NOCTURNAL ANIMALS Is Sadly On-Point For Women In Hollywood

Columnist; Toronto, Canada (@tederick)
2
Sign-In to Vote
Destroy All Monsters: NOCTURNAL ANIMALS Is Sadly On-Point For Women In Hollywood

We might call Tom Ford's Nocturnal Animals divisive, except I'm unsure who exactly it has successfully divided; one half of film Twitter from the other, I suppose. The film is intentionally noxious, centered as it is around a vulgar potboiler about West Texan revenge. It's also a story about a man taking a more indirect, "artistic" revenge on an ex-partner for her having dared to have an abortion. In structure, tone, and outcome, Nocturnal Animals is very much a case of men waving their dicks in women's faces, just because they can.

This places the film in an unofficial sub-genre: the "intentionally or not" films. I like these. (Die Hard 4 is, "unintentionally or not," a hell of a movie about how emasculated America felt in the years following 9/11.) In the case of Nocturnal Animals, it's "intentionally or not, this movie is a working model for how movies, and the movie industry, view men and women differently." Nocturnal Animals is nauseatingly true to a world where men are artists, and women are fodder.

The film is composed of several interlocking "realities:"

The real world - introduced at the start of the film, we meet art gallery owner Susan Morrow (Amy Adams). She is (unhappily) married to Armie Hammer, who is cheating on her. Her previous husband, Edward (Jake Gyllenhaal), is a writer who has sent her a draft of his novel. The novel is called Nocturnal Animals.

The novel world - Susan reads, and envisions, the events of the novel. We might note that she is pulling details from the real world (to which we continually return) to flesh out certain faces in the novel world. In the novel world, Jake Gyllenhaal is cast as Tony, a man who, along with his family, is attacked on the highway one night. We might interpret this to mean that Susan is filling the real-world Edward into her mental picture of the lead role in his novel. She does not, however, cast herself as Edward's wife in the novel world; Amy Adams somewhat-lookalike Isla Fisher takes this role instead.

The past (real) world - While reading the novel, Susan also recalls moments from her defunct relationship with Edward. Here we learn that they met in college, fell in love, and were both (at some point) interested in becoming artists - though Edward bluntly pushed forward with his writing, while Susan deferred to art curation rather than art creation.

On one level, Nocturnal Animals is a diagram of how creators might use their creative work to address, articulate, and exorcise their experiences in the real world. We learn that Susan aborted a child before ending her marriage to Edward, and that Edward only found about this after the fact.

Susan (and the audience) reads the content of Edward's novel as parallel. In the novel, Edward's wife and daughter are kidnapped right in front of him during the roadside incident. They are later found raped and murdered. Sure, this could be the processing of trauma. This is also where I begin to have serious concerns about how Nocturnal Animals, the film, is doing its business.

The implication is obviously that Edward is developing his own emotional catharsis for the dissolution of his marriage and the "loss" of an unborn child with Susan. And because Nocturnal Animals is a film made and controlled by men, naturally, Edward is doing this by leaning on the oldest and most miserable trope in male-dominated cinema (and fiction in general): violence against women.

Within the framework of Edward's novel, he is positioning himself as a "beta male" who did not take appropriately aggressive action to prevent the taking of "his" women. Within the real world framework beyond, we as an audience get to watch Susan react to her ex-husband's positioning of her as a surrogate receptor of a gang rape, witness to her own daughter's similar assault, and ultimately, a murder victim.

The unspoken, but very loud, subtext from Edward: this is what I think about when I think about you.

Rather than being repelled, Susan is drawn further into the story. She assesses her own feelings of guilt about the way she treated Edward, with little (if any) indication that she might have been, say, within her rights not to keep a child in a loveless marriage just because it would have made her husband happy.

Instead, Susan enters into a subtly abusive non-relationship with Edward in the present day, continuing to devour his creative work while admitting to others that she may have made a mistake (her second, equally unhappy marriage is perhaps a factor here). She dials Edward up for dinner and drinks while he is in Los Angeles, playing perfectly into what we must presume was the silly endgame of his entire silly scheme: he stands her up, using his novel as the ultimate mic drop on the women who "did him wrong" some years prior.

As such, Nocturnal Animals classifies its own menagerie thusly:

Men - are fathers, cops, rapists, murderers, but most importantly artists, gifted with the ability to interpolate their own suffering into something compelling, even if it abuses others in the process. Within the novel framework, even Michael Shannon's character - a cop who learns he has terminal cancer - is able to use that trauma as a means to an end (in his case, bringing gunslinger justice to the murderers, without worrying about long-term consequences).

Women, on the other hand - are mothers, victims, (unborn baby) murderers, and certainly not artists, having sold out before the story even begins, preferring instead to support the artistic works of others. When their usefulness expires, they are (in the novel) brutalized so that yet another white man can learn yet another white lesson about his masculinity, or (out here in the real world) left behind nursing their third scotch - past their prime and their usefulness.

Nocturnal Animals is clever enough with its structure that it nearly manages to conceal just how ugly its basic concept is. This is a crude story about awful men being awful, driven by values so conservative that they might have come from the 1940s. And I can't help thinking it lays out rather perfectly where the men in charge of making movies would love women to remain: neutered consumers, consuming stories of their own violation.


Destroy All Monsters is a weekly column on Hollywood and pop culture. Matt Brown is in Toronto and on Letterboxd.

2
Sign-In to Vote
Screen Anarchy logo
Do you feel this content is inappropriate or infringes upon your rights? Click here to report it, or see our DMCA policy.
Amy AdamsJake GyllenhaalTom Ford

More about Nocturnal Animals

More about Destroy All Monsters (Matt Brown)

KurtDecember 14, 2016 1:54 PM

From a filmmaking point of view (themes aside) this is one of the best films of the year.

GarthDDecember 14, 2016 3:31 PM

Interesting, because I saw this as a really obvious, blatant story about how sad and pathetic the husband/writer character was. He wasn't strong enough a person to protect his family, so he did just about the most passive thing he could do, which was write a story in which he (I'm not sure Amy Adams casts Gylenhaal's character as Tony so much as Gylenhaal's character did it to himself) is more than an impotent bystander, but manages to get revenge. It is, I think, also telling that even in his built up novel-universe, he wasn't able to stop his wife and daughter's murder, but was merely able to take a small measure of revenge (I say small, because in the realm of revenge I have to think that when the bad guy doesn't seem to give a damn, the revenge can't be that satisfying).

And then he does an even more pathetic, passive-aggressive thing in inviting her to dinner and then not showing up.

cjohnstonDecember 14, 2016 5:28 PM

Can't (and Won't) disagree about really ANYthing about this..
~
...just as a matter of discussion though; and, possible confusion on the part of myself - there ARE those other films out there though where the (principle) female character is not just a "thing" within the overarching context of the script and film.... ...Perhaps You ARE though simply and solely speaking of that happenstance within the context of THIS film..

cjohnstonDecember 14, 2016 5:32 PM

i might even be so emblazoned to posit that (even when themes ARE considered); this is STILL right up there as one of the years Best...

....Jarring and near appalling and squirm inducing opening aside.

KurtDecember 15, 2016 9:19 AM

Two things:

1) Ebert's rule, "It's not what the movie is about, it is how it is about it" (An expression which is surprisingly open to interpretation...themes, craft, philosophy, and now progressive bonafides?)
2) When wielding the 'progressive hammer,' sometimes everything starts looking like a nail!

I like Matt's interpretation (above) of the film a lot, but it only makes things a better, more ickily-complex film in my eyes.

TylerDecember 15, 2016 3:31 PM

The author of this article quite conveniently left out the fact that Amy Adams' character was cheating on Jake's character and got the abortion behind his back with her future husband, while he knew nothing about it. For all we know, he could have supported her in this decision, but the audience will never know because her character decided to hide everything from him.

Sales ManDecember 15, 2016 6:38 PM

wow. deep. too much psychology... we want fuckin in the desert, romancin on the hood ---alright? thats it.

cjohnstonDecember 17, 2016 1:15 PM

a response or two; pertaining to this......
...also about that book you recommended some weeks ago..
~
While in all likelihood i'll get to it l8tr today --it will nonetheless have to wait a bit..
a.) cruddy uncertain weather out and about + b.) 10or so hour workday + c.) schizophrenic hit-or-miss technology that seems to suddenly and instantaneously be running amuk.. ..............
~ ~
More thoughts and comments later; but - it will haveta wait..