Monsters are supposed to scare people and represent their fears. In most monster movies, the monster is a huge, ugly, non-human beast that terrorizes the city and destroys everything. But in the 1985 film The Stuff, the monster appears to be an innocuous dessert; what does that say about the fears of society? Jeffrey Jerome Cohen, an expert on monster culture, explains this and more in his article “Monster Culture (Seven Theses)” reprinted in the textbook Monsters in 2012. Cohen’s first thesis of monster culture, The Monster’s Body is a Cultural Body, argues that “The monster’s body quite literally incorporates fear, desire, anxiety, and fantasy, giving them life and an uncanny independence” (12). According to Cohen, the outward appearance of the monster reflects the fears and anxieties of the culture from which it originated. The first thesis says that the monster is not just a monster; it embodies the things the society wants to cast out as different from it, made into flesh.
The Stuff uses “stuffies,” zombie-like frozen dessert addicts, to represent the mindless desire for “stuff” that is the omnipresent feature of consumer culture. The concept of “enough” is contrasted with the idea of “everything” throughout the movie, especially in the catchy slogan for The Stuff: “Enough is never enough!” (34:19). Through clever advertising and colorful packaging, The Stuff works its way into the homes of consumers across America. However, the tasty yogurt-like product is more than it appears, and soon begins taking over the minds of the people who have grown addicted to it. But the consumers do not see it as an addiction; they buy it because it makes them happy. In the article “Hedonic Treadmill” written by Shane Frederick, consumerism ...
... middle of paper ...
..., it is possible to not become caught up in the consumption craze and in the event that a sentient yogurt comes from underground, it wouldn’t reach the level of disaster shown in the movie.
Works Cited
Cohen, Jeffrey J. “Monster Culture (Seven Theses).” Monsters. Ed. Brandy Ball Blake and L. Andrew Cooper. Southlake, TX: Fountainhead Press, 2012. 11-33. Print.
“Enough, adj.” Def. 3a. OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2014. Web. 26 June 2014.
“Everything, pron.” Def. 1c. OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2014. Web. 26 June 2014.
Frederick, Shane. “Hedonic Treadmill.” Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. Ed. Roy F. Baumeister, and Kathleen D. Vohs. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2007. SAGE knowledge. Web. 8 July 2014.
The Stuff. Dir. Larry Cohen. Perf. Michael Moriarty, Andrea Marcovicci, and Garrett Morris. New World Pictures, 1985. DVD.
In society, there have always been different roles in defining the boundaries between right and wrong; Monsters take a big part of that role. In Jeffrey Cohen’s “Monster Culture,” Cohen explains seven theses which provide a clearer explanation of how monsters take a part in establishing these boundaries. The oldest Anglo-Saxon story written- “Beowulf”- provides three different monsters which all connect to Cohen’s seven theses. In the older version, however, the monsters do not relate to humans in any way, except that they are enemies. The modern version of Beowulf portrays Grendel’s mother to still be evil but also have relations with the humans in the story.
The Monster is a short story that was written by Toby Litt in 1968. From beginning to end, from a third person point of view, we learn bits and pieces of information about a ‘monster’ of sorts, living in a world full of questions. This monster does not know, or understand what, or who, he is, and neither does the reader. The audience is often left wondering just as much as the main character is, resulting in a story that keeps readers hooked. The monster is simply called a monster, and never told if it is, or is not so. The Monster is a short story in which Toby Litt uses experimental story structure, a unique voice, and an unusual theme to challenge conventional story telling.
In Jeffrey Jerome Cohen’s essay, “The Monster Theses,” he analyzes the characteristics of a "monster" and explores the course in which they are created. He interprets monsters creation in six different ways; claiming initially that they are symbols and representations of culture. "The monster in an incorporation of the outside." (Cohen, 460). Cohen defines the monster as an outsider to the cultural world in which they are. "The monster is a difference made flesh" (Cohen, 459), Cohen describes how the difference are what makes us human or "flesh."
Ever thought of where monsters come from? Do they just appear in our world, or are they procreated by fellow monsters, maybe, created by humans and their desires. During the renaissance and romantic era, a belief roamed around consisting of the idea that any child not resembling their original procreators was considered deformed, therefore also considered a “monster.” Many factors were considered to affect a child’s resemblance to their progenitors, such as women imagination, and desires, absolutely crossing of the role of paternity in the creation process. Although she succeeds in providing many good examples of women’s imagination being a primal factor in procreation, Marie-Helene Huet, in her essay, “ Introduction To Monstrous Imagination,”
Monsters are the physical embodiment of fear. Monsters are the physical embodiment due to a wide variety of reasons. The most important being: Monsters’ apparent invulnerability/incredible strength, represent the bad part of society, most often look ugly, represent evil/nightmares itself, are intelligent, and some deviate from the norms are the reasons why monsters are the physical embodiment of fear. Monsters’ incredible characteristics are what strike fear into the hearts of others. In many myths, monsters are a weakness to societies. For instance, the heroes of Rome fight these monsters in order to overcome them which is the symbolic overcoming of weakness by the community. The fear monsters represent is primarily human fear as monsters are generally on good terms with animals and human fear is far deeper than animal fear.
8- McDermid, Douglas. "God's Existence." PHIL 1000H-B Lecture 9. Trent University, Peterborough. 21 Nov. 2013. Lecture.
For centuries, authors have placed human features on their fears allowing their public to confront a concrete creature rather than an abstract idea. The fear of death resulted in stories regarding vampires and mummies, fears of the unknown resulted in stories about creatures invading the Earth, fears of reincarnation resulted in stories of mad scientists creating life from death. With the invention of the motion picture in the late nineteenth century, these fears were able to be seen using human actors and actual “monsters” making both the fears and the fulfillment greater. As more of these films were created, audiences grew more tolerant of the once frightening monsters forcing directors to go even farther. To continue this trend, filmmakers soon were creating more fear than they were relieving creating another psychological void that needed to be filled. Sensing that the realm of horror films and many other genres of film were saturating the film industry, Mel Brooks wrote and directed two films in 1974: Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein. Th...
In "Monster Culture," Cohen widely talks about and investigates monsters regarding the way of life from which they climb. Keeping up the formal tone of a scholastic, he battles that monster climb at the intersection of a society, where contrasts develop and nervousness increases. The beast is an exemplification of distinction of any quality, whether it be ideological, social, sexual, or racial, that rouses trepidation and instability in its inventors. The creature or monster is habitually an irritating half breed that challenges categorization its hybridism defies nature. Yet despite the fact that there are unreliable monsters, real individuals can get to be monsters as well. Keeping in mind the end goal to bring oddity under control, the individuals who submit to the standard code of the day bestow huge personalities to the individuals who don't. Nervousness is the thing that breeds them and characterizes their presence. In this manner placing the beginning of creatures, Cohen strives to uncover our way of life's qualities and inclinations. For the larger part of the article, the monster is just the subject of our examination, an extraordinary animal under our investigation.
Which I’m sure was an empowering moment when those effect by the bomb first watched the film. Another example of monsters symbolizing our fears are vampires. Vampires have been used in a variety of angels, but they started out as the fears of the unknown. They were conceived during the outbreak of the plague and other diseases. Dracula on the other hand was a metaphor of human evil. He can help us understand the monsters we meet in everyday life disguised as everyday people. Dracula is known as the prince of darkness. In “Dracula as Metaphor for Human Evil” author, Steven G Herbert claims ”Count Dracula is the quintessence of the evil creatures we meet in our everyday life, the darkness embodied in our fellowmen and in our own hearts. The vampires symbology can help us recognize the monsters without even as we confront their reflection within.” (62) Godzilla, Frankenstein, and Dracula are all prime examples of societies fears and vulnerabilities and the hidden truths for why we create
...ernational Journal Of Applied Philosophy 21.1 (2007): 1-24. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Feb. 2014.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig; G. E. M. Anscombe, P.M.S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte (eds. and trans.). Philosophical Investigations. 4th edition, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print.
Peter Brooks' essay "What Is a Monster" tackles many complex ideas within Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and the main concept that is the title of the essay itself. What is the definition of a monster, or to be monstrous? Is a monster the classic representation we know, green skin, neck bolts, grunting and groaning? A cartoon wishing to deliver sugary cereal? or someone we dislike so greatly their qualities invade our language and affect our interpretation of their image and physical being? Brooks' essay approaches this question by using Shelley's narrative structure to examine how language, not nature, is mainly accountable for creating the idea of the monstrous body.
Nowadays, people are still enticed by fear, they have a curiosity for the supernatural, evil and frightening. Although modern day society is supposedly politically correct, we are still an immoral society and many of us would treat a creature like Frankenstein’s creation or a vampire like Dracula like a monster. In this way, the novels still have social significance.
The. Much Ado about Nothing. Ed. A. R. Humphreys. New York: Routledge, 1994.
We live in a world where creatures have abilities that can blow our minds, however we are ignorant of this. We live in a world where a constant power struggle is occurring between these secret species, a struggle that most human beings have no inclination to. We live in a world where people who know the truth are sworn to secrecy, and those who proclaim this truth are considered crazy and locked away; to be sane is to be ignorant. Well, that is what I would love to be true. In actuality, I am fascinated with the topic of monsters; I love them all: lycanthropes, Frankenstein’s monster, witches, fae, necromancers, zombies, demons, mummies, and my favorite: vampires.