 |
| Francesca Eastwood gives a powerful performance in Natalia Leite's provocative and divisive film M.F.A (2017) |
I tend to shy away from rape-revenge films, as I find that they are often overly sexualizing and exploitative, and often too triggering in the way they represent sexual assault. Still, rape survivors have stated that they sometimes find the cathartic nature of revenge explored in these films somewhat liberating. Therefore, I attended the 2017 Fantasia Film Festival screening of Natalia Leite's (2017) version of rape-revenge,
M.F.A., with a degree of enthusiasm and trepidation, as I hoped that the combination of women director and writer (Leah McKendrick who plays Skye in the film) would bring a necessary degree of freshness and sensitivity to the subgenre. After sitting on, and mulling over, this film for a few days, I would say that it mostly succeeds, although I still have some reservations. While I try to avoid spoilers in my reviews, I think some might be inevitable here, so be forewarned.
 |
| Noelle's assault brings out her burgeoning talents |
M.F.A. follows Noelle (Francesa Eastwood), a young artist fulfilling an M.F.A. in fine arts at a ridiculously small arts school in Southern California. She is shy and tightly wound, her art work uninspired and subject to withering critiques by her fellow students. She's invited by the smarmy Luke (Peter Vack) to his house for a party, and when they retreat to his room upstairs, what starts off as a sweet make-out quickly turns into a vicious and brutal rape. This scene is terribly hard to watch, and thankfully is one of only two sexual assaults represented in the film. Nevertheless, both assaults are harrowing, and Leite in the Q & A states that she very carefully tried to focus on her female characters' distress and POV. In some ways, she's in a tough position, trying not to be gratuitous, while simultaneously highlighting the brutality involved in order to make sense of Noelle's rather intense response to the ordeal. I still think that she could have shot these scenes more carefully; I think some guys could totally read them as a turn-on. After Noelle tries the "usual routes" for dealing with such assaults--therapy, reporting to the school, joining a survivor's group--she realizes that these types of experiences are ubiquitous and rarely find proper justice. While I appreciate that the film shows a variety of approaches that different survivors take to their assaults, it really suggests that Noelle's take is the only one that acomplishes anything. Once she decides to take matters into her own hands, the results are both powerful and ultimately destructive.
 |
| Noelle enacts her own form of "justice" on rapists and abusers |
The ways in which Noelle achieves payback are both brutal and frequently satisfying, and Eastwood's performance makes you root for her throughout her transformation. Yet the intensity of her response, and the specific changes that she undergoes, leave me really unsettled. While the first murder could be seen as "accidental," Noelle starts to really get off on the blood and guts involved. She becomes a much better artist after her assault, which is damn problematic; the philosophical discussions about art being about "truth" are kind of hackneyed and don't really fit. Second, she also becomes a super sexy femme fatale who seduces all the guys she ultimately kills. The fact that she becomes some sexpot that gets off on killing really undermines some of the more serious issues the film is raising. I do not have a problem with her evolution into a vigilante, or the fact that the film rather smartly emphasizes that this type of reaction/behavior has consequences. What I take issue with is the fact that Noelle becomes so overtly sexualized, that the film comes across as more titillating then it should. The laughter of the guys behind me made me squirm (as it did an audience member who admitted that she too was a rape survivor). Sure, people laugh sometimes when they are uncomfortable, but trust me--this film is NOT a comedy.
The television show
Sweet Vicious tends to get the balance right between vengeance and humor, and
M.F.A. at times reminded me of that series, with its combination of pitch black irony and social conscience. Yet, at other times
M.F.A. seemed to share more in common with some of the rape revenge films it is trying to critique (
I Spit on Your Grave,
Last House on the Left). I still think Leite's film is a remarkable accomplishment and well worth watching, and I regretted seeing it alone because I was eager to discuss it with others, particularly female Fantasia attendees. During the Q & A, the majority of the audience (including me) were really silent, trying our best to digest what we just saw. I'm still chewing on the film, which I think means that it has significant impact, and also suggests that Leite and McKendrick may have some important cinematic stories still to tell. Still, the film has some problems. I recommend
M.F.A. with a warning to be prepared to be disturbed and challenged.
