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?