Special Effects director (the guy’s name is in the DVD extras but I wasn’t able to catch it and I don’t want to go back to the library and dig it up again for 5% of a course grade when I still have one more final paper to do in less than 7 days…), on Ginger Snaps (2001), commented multiple times on how specific director John Fawcett’s vision of the creature was – pale, sweaty and sickly looking, and hairless. He talked about how this was a nightmare for lighting a shot because no matter how dark they made the set the pale tone of the creature make-up would pick up the light and reflect it.

This actually parallels what de Lauretis says about the etymon of “monster” and how it arrests vision; the paleness of the transformed Ginger’s skin highlighted her “to-be-looked-at-ness” to borrow a term from Laura Mulvey. But instead of the looking being a choice of the viewer, there is something inherent in the creature design that demands to be looked at and forces the gaze of the viewer, thereby shifting the power balance in favor of the image/monster/object and reclaiming it for the female, made object by the Oedipal Narrative.


One thought on “Wolf-Ginger”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s