I'll take one parasite, please!

For this week, I had originally planned on taking my own bait and respond to the question that served as the last line to last week’s blog: “Should we question and be exposed to new ideas, even if it makes us shiver?" But while I was re-reading the post I found myself focusing on the D.C. quote that I had embedded about how all of his films have “a little demon in the corner that you don’t see, but its there.” Perhaps it was the fact that I had just watched Constantine (oy vey) or perhaps it was because of my religious upbringing, but whatever the reason, I began to chew on this idea of demons.

The first thing I though of was the fundamentalist Christian interpretation of my youth; the evil, fiery agents of spiritual evil that take over people’s bodies and make them speak the word of the Devil. And I mean really, what could be more parasitic then that? I believed in demons when I was little because the Bible said to. In stories demons were scary, so naturally they were wonderfully exciting. But my faith in them waned along with my faith in the validity behind the stories of Jesus walking on water, the Virgin Birth, and David and Goliath. Now the idea of a demon seems silly and archaic.

But then I began to think, what about modern and secular demons? What about the little devils inside us all? My ex-alcoholic of a grandma says that she had a demon. Her demon was a voice that told her to have just one more drink. It put her under an irresistible spell that lead to her drinking to get out of control. People eat uncontrollably, they are shopaholics, smokers, adulterers, junkies and liars. We all have something inside ourselves that we are battling, fighting, and grappling with. These impulses and thoughts eat away at us, both physically and mentally, and sometimes overtake us. Our struggles define us both as individuals and people, as the success of self-help books, diet plans, organized religion, and daytime talk shows reveal. The devils inside us act much like the parasites of the animal world act; eating, manipulating and living off of their hosts.

I am an avid listener of National Public Radio. I only follow sports because of Frank Deford’s Wednesday morning commentaries on Morning Edition. I know Eleanor Beardsley is reporting from Paris and that Ari Shapiro reports on the Department of Justice on both All Things Considered and Morning Edition. And I love to hear Sylvia Poggioli says her last name when she signs off. Anyways, the point is that I love NPR and a while ago, probably while tuned into KWSU-AM: 1250, I remember hearing a story about a man who joined the Muslim Students Association even though he wasn’t Muslim. Although I don’t remember the man in the story’s name I’ll call him “John.” I remember the surprising part about John’s story was that prior to joining the MSA he had hated Muslims. Here was a new sort of parasite, a new sort of demon; hatred.

John had gone to Iraq and originally all had gone "well;" things were relatively nonviolent. But then the climate began to change. Shooting began to breakout on both sides, first in defense, but then John found himself wanting to open fire on the Iraqi people. After his time in Iraq was over, he returned to the United States where he found himself tensing up when he passed mosques or when he saw men with beards; sometimes he would even go out of his way to avoid them because he believed that they wanted to kill him. Sometimes he even wanted to kill them. Eventually John was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). And the therapy helped, but he still was experiencing feelings of hate towards Muslims. He hadn’t been prejudice before his term of duty and he knew he was not a killer yet he was still having violent thoughts towards the Iraqi people. So, he did some self-prescribed exposure therapy and joined the Muslim Students Association at his university. I remember hearing that John was extremely nervous and sweaty the first day, and that he was shocked to even be a room with Muslims without a gun. But by the end of the segment, John was good friends with the president of the club, was a dedicated club member, and was working on being a more loving and understanding person.

Perhaps John’s story is not your typical parasite tale involving tapeworms or slug goo, but I believe that his hatred acted in a rather parasitic manner. His experience in the Iraq War brought out the worst in him and ultimately changed him, and honestly I cannot that it would not do the same to someone else. In the radio story it took so much for John to beat his inner demon and it shows how hard it can really be to overcome hatred and prejudice. It shows how much damage a parasite can do to its host and it leaves me feeling not at all surprised at the fact that bridging cultural gaps and overcoming hatred happens so rarely.

In class, we watched a short clip from the cartoon Pixie and Dixie and Mr. Jinx. The kitty character Mr. Jinx felt such strong hatred (although portrayed in a comical way) towards the mice Pixie and Dixie. Why? Did he, too, have a little controlling devil voice finely calibrated to every part of himself? Was there a parasitic force at work inside him?

What I am attempting to portray in this rambling piece is the variety in which parasitic forces exist. Tapeworm vs. human. Toxo vs. rat. Agent-of-spiritual-evil vs. god-fearing-Christian. Hatred vs. war veteran. Phallic blood leech vs. Canadian. Kali vs. ________.

Shivers

Right after my English 203 class (Writing in Context: Parasites) I go over to Fraser Hall for Sociology 268: Gender and Society. In Soc 268 we are discussing gender roles, difference between gender, gender codes and messages, societal influences, and social stratification. And all of this immediately after watching David Cronenberg’s 1975 film, Shivers. Although I do not pretend to have any particularly strong feelings on the subject of gender, I found myself noticing the way in which the male characters and the female characters were portrayed in Cronenberg’s film and how their scripts related to the gender roles that exist in the context of Canadian/American society.

Perhaps the first and most obvious observation of the gender differences was the fact that the principle victims of the parasites are women. But it is not only this fact that stood out to me but also the fact that they are the victims of men. For it was a man, Dr. Hobbs, that developed the parasite that infected and transformed the women promiscuous, violent, and sex driven zombies. Dr. Hobbs radically changed these unwilling women. Yes, it is true Dr. Hobbs himself does die, but not before he brought suffering, violence and havoc.

A clear example of male control over women is in the opening scene in which Annabelle, Hobbs’ teenaged mistress, is being chased by Hobbs. At first it appears that this is a scene of sexual aggression on Hobbs’ part, but later it is revealed to be a homicide/suicide. This scene lead me to wonder, why does Hobbs kill Annabelle?

Annabelle had been sleeping with (and thus transmitting the parasite) other men in Starlight Towers, presumably unknown to Hobbs. So was his violence towards her a punishment for her promiscuity? Or was it a reaction to the out of control nature of his project? Rollo Linsky, Hobbs friend, explains to Dr. St. Luc that Hobbs wanted to “hopefully turn the world into one beautiful mindless orgy.” So did Hobbs come to the conclusion that such a scenario was a bad one and should be stopped? Or was he simply overwhelmed by Annabelle’s sexuality, a thing he wanted to keep all for himself? This then lead to a few more questions; Had Annabelle been engaging in sexual behavior before the parasite? Had she been a willing subject for Hobbs to implant the parasite? Did the parasite make her have sex with other men, or was that of her own free will? Was sleeping with the other men a way of getting revenge on Hobbs for not only implanting her with the parasite but also for the sexual acts he had done to her when she was only 12? But whatever the reasons for Hobbs and Annabelle’s actions, the result is Annabelle dying because of Hobbs’ invention. And it seems that although Hobbs was able to bring about change in Annabelle, he was unable to control the results.

Nick Tudor, a resident of Starline Towers, was one of the men who slept with Annabelle, despite being married to his wife Janine. I got the impression that Nick and Janine were not a happy couple. Janine tried to be a good wife and Nick, who came across in the film as self obsessed, ignored her, yet she continued to care for him. Because he did sleep with Annabelle, he was infected. Hobbs’ goal was to make people more in touch with their bodies, but when this happens to Nick, it leads him to rape and abuse the body of his wife. He proves to be the oppressor.

But what I found perhaps the most interesting was the constant “flux” between the roles of victim and victimizer that women played in Shivers. For example, Betts, a woman and friend to Janine, becomes infected while she is in the bathtub and soon after this Janine comes into her apartment. Betts then tells Janine that she wants her to make love to her and the two women kiss. This is a total reversal of the previous trend of men dominating women. The parasite has brought about this change, ultimately changing gender norms. This scene proves that a woman (Betts) is no less domineering then a man (Nick), a rare concept. This scene makes another rather destabilizing point in regards to gender by having two women kiss. The transition from heterosexual to homosexual has been made. Increasing openness and awareness of homosexuality in western culture lead to a whole new set of gender messages, norms, roles, and codes.

So, is it the violation of societal gender codes part of the reason that makes viewers squirm at Shivers? I found this quote by Cronenberg:

Certain audiences won't accept Shivers at face value, but that is a devil in the film. Each of my films has a little demon in the corner that you don't see, but its there. The demon in Shivers in that people vicariously enjoy the scenes where guys knock down and do what they want to do to people who are inside. They love the scenes where people are running, screaming, naked through the halls. They like these scenes, but then they might just hate themselves for liking them. This is no new process; it is obvious that there is a vicarious thrill involved in seeing the forbidden.

I think Cronenberg is essentially saying that some topics are so sensitive that they must be explored. The issue of gender is a complex one that is rooted deep in our society so when it is prodded, poked, or introduced to something new and foreign it makes us uneasy. But isn’t the pushing of boundaries essential to growth? Should we question and be exposed to new ideas, even if it makes us shiver?