Badmovies.org Forum

I've read a lot about the veiled pedophelia in Jeepers Creepers.  I've just got to wonder if people are reading a little too much into it, though.  Jeepers Creepers does about the same thing Nightmare on Elm Street 2 did, it messes with the audience's mind by doing things to the male lead that are normally done to the female lead.  I, personally, would never have read any hidden pedophilic messages in the movie had I not heard them from other people and, I'll bet, most of those people themselves wouldn't have read into it if (director) Victor Salva's past was not known.

Just to play Devil's advocate, though, I'll ask this:  If those hidden messages do exist in Jeepers Creepers, perhaps Salva is trying to *apologize* for what he's done.  The things that happen which can be read as disguised pedophilia are portrayed as awful, evil things that shouldn't happen to anyone.

When I 1st saw this film I had no idea that the director had been previously charged with sex crimes.  It was on this phorum and the I.M.D.B. that I finally saw the truth about him.  I enjoyed this film but after watching it I recognized
hidden, buried elements in it that could amount to pedophilia.  WHAT A SICK f**k!!  He should be a prison b***h instead of a movie director!!

about the same thing Nightmare on Elm Street 2 did, it messes with the audience's mind by doing things to the male lead that are normally done to the female lead

The problem with comparing Elm Street 2 with the other Elm Street movies in the treatment of the lead role is that the male lead in "Freddy's Revenge" was such a whining wimp of a character.  The female leads in the other movies were much stronger in character and perseverance and will-to-fight than Jessie ever was.  In fact , it was Jessie's girlfriend who did all the real work and ultimately saved the day.

The 'role reversal' doesn't bother me, the fact it was done so badly does.  Actually, think about the role reversal in reverse.  If any female lead acted as helpless and whiny as Jessie and had to be saved by her strong willed boyfriend, it would be seen as condescending at best .  Swicthing the roles didn't  help it any.  

I would love to see an "Elm Street" movie with a male lead role that actually had as much strength and depth as Nancy and Alice.  Jessi ain't it

Squishy pointed out some 'undertones' in the movie in the "Movies With Disturbing Messages" post.  Or maybe Andrew posted a link to them when we were all babbling about pedophiliac movies (or books or moviemakers or whatever) a little while back.  He made some good points.

How much was put in there intentionally, or unintentionally, is beyond me.  I haven't seen the movie and have no intention to do so.

Just to clarify: was the director charged or convicted?  I don't know the background, but if he wasn't convicted, we might consider presuming him innocent.

You can read anything into anything with enough creativity.  I once had a born again Christian tell me Star Wars was a religious parable.  I think Jeepers Creepers was about a big ugly monster that replenished himself with other peoples' body parts.  There is nothing new introduced by that movie, at its core it is just a rehash of some old Grimm Brothers plots.

Dano wrote:
>
> Just to clarify: was the director charged or convicted?  I
> don't know the background, but if he wasn't convicted, we
> might consider presuming him innocent.
>
>

Good point Dano, but Salva's guilty as sin, he pled guilty to the charges becuase he was caught redhanded with a videotape of himself going down on the child star of Clownhouse.

Chadzilla:  Good point Dano, but Salva's guilty as sin, he pled guilty to the charges becuase he was caught redhanded with a videotape of himself going down on the child star of Clownhouse.
*****  Thanks for the info, Chad.  My question now is why the hell isn't he still in jail?

I still have trouble connecting the movie to pedophilia, although the possible undertones may have been what attracted the guy to  the script.  As I said it was basically a variation on the old fairy tale themes, and most of those were intended as warnings for children to stay away from strangers (pedophiles included).

Salva WROTE the script, so I think that people are really reading a lot into it.  If you buy the autuer theory, then there could be subconscious subtext to the narrative.  However some have pointed out that Salva downplayed the chance to explore the pedophiliac subtext in greater detail because of his history.

Not having seen the movie in question (just clips of it) I cannot say.  I might watch it someday, just not right now.

Salva did do prison time, also paid a fine, and jumped through all the flaming legal hoops repeatedly (whether he did community service and underwent therapy for his behavior, I don't know).  He registers as a sex offender wherever he goes and, as far as all reports that I have read, has been a law abiding citizen, albeit one reluctant to discuss his criminal past in greater detail.

Some footage of Jeepers Creepers had to be retooled when the school he was to film at saw the director's Sex Offender registration and booted the crew out.

I am curious as to what he did with the upcoming sequel.

                  Yeah,you are right,Akira,for Victor Salva having both pedophilia and gay undertoned themes in "Jeepers Creepers",regarding Darry and the creature's semi-sexual attraction to him,which do suggest Salva's real life sexual feelings toward young guys(remember,"Scream" scribe Kevin Williamson also shares these same feelings,with "Dawson's Creek" semi-reflecting his same feeling for young,over 18 guys),who are hopefulyy over 18,in Mr. Salva's case.

Salva did do prison time, also paid a fine, and jumped through all the flaming legal hoops repeatedly (whether he did community service and underwent therapy for his behavior, I don't know). He registers as a sex offender wherever he goes and, as far as all reports that I have read, has been a law abiding citizen, albeit one reluctant to discuss his criminal past in greater detail.
*****  Yeah, my questioning as to why he is out of jail wasn't so much that I doubted he was punished as much as I am baffled by our society's practice of releasing those kinds of people ever.

Dano wrote:
>
> You can read anything into anything with enough creativity.
> I once had a born again Christian tell me Star Wars was a
> religious parable.

Not entirely, but elements of it are certainly borrowed from scripture, as are many classic stories. For example, Luke Skywalker is obviously a Christ figure. There are other parallels.

Not entirely, but elements of it are certainly borrowed from scripture, as are many classic stories. For example, Luke Skywalker is obviously a Christ figure. There are other parallels.

Only very indirectly.  George Lucas was a big fan of Joseph Cambell's.  Joseph Cambell did a lot of work with societal myths and archetypes that keep occuring throughout  various societies and their myths, legends, and stories.  Star Wars represents George Lucas casting those archetypes into a concrete story with a Sci-Fi setting.    Luke represents a  particulr archetype, and Cambell would claim that Christ represents a similar archetype.  So the only real correlation between Luke and Jesus is that, according to Cambell (and probably Lucas), they both represent concrete examples of the same archetype figure

I've got enough reason to hate Jeepers Creepers, just on the basis of it being a really disappointing movie with a lot of wasted potential and lazy writing.

As for the pedophilia, I have to ask why, considering his past, would the director touch this story with a ten-foot pole? It's a story about a monster that preys on young people, and a teenage boy in particular. Salva should know that enough can be read into it to draw unfavourable attention to himself. My conclusion is that it is no coincidence. He has to be trying to say something.

Is it an apology? I doubt it. If it were an apology, then why does the monster get away with these dispicable things, in spite of everyone's best efforts? Why do people pay dearly for trying to stop him? Why the implication that it is just going to go right on happening?

Is this a statement on what a deep-rooted problem pedophilia is? If so, the demon could still be killed off with supreme effort on the part of the heroes. That would at least suggest that something can be done. The way it plays out seems more like Salva is saying that sexual predators are here to stay, that pedophilia is a fact of life, and we'd better get used to it.

Fearless Freep wrote:
>
> Only very indirectly.  George Lucas was a big fan of Joseph
> Cambell's.  Joseph Cambell did a lot of work with societal
> myths and archetypes that keep occuring throughout  various
> societies and their myths, legends, and stories.  Star Wars
> represents George Lucas casting those archetypes into a
> concrete story with a Sci-Fi setting.    Luke represents a
> particulr archetype, and Cambell would claim that Christ
> represents a similar archetype.  So the only real correlation
> between Luke and Jesus is that, according to Cambell (and
> probably Lucas), they both represent concrete examples of the
> same archetype figure
>
>

The influence is still scriptural, whether directly or indirectly. The bible has been influencing art and literature for a very long time, even if some people want to deny it. You don't have to be a religious person to acknowledge its significance as a collection of literary works.

The bible has been influencing art and literature for a very long time, even if some people want to deny it.

Oh, I definately agree; as a genral principle

My only point was that tieing Jesus to Luke is a fairly indirect path.

I for one don't really like the correlation, either, because as a Christian myself., I find Luke a rather weak messiah-figure.  Luke is a savior figure, Christ is a savior-figure, that's about as far as it goes, because George Lucas liked the idea of the savior-figure, not really Jesus himself.  Or rather, Lucas would reintepret who Jesus is not in a Christian tradition but in a more universalism tradition, which I would object  too

I think "Out Of The Silent Planet" and "Perelandra" make much better modern, sci-fi parallels of Christ

There definitely was a new-agey feel to the religion of Star Wars, with the Force and all.

I agree that there are some very significant differences between Luke and Christ. The one that immediately springs to mind is that Luke was a saviour in a much more material sense, destroying the Death Star, saving his friends and helping to topple the Empire. In spite of all the Jedi philosophy, Luke wasn't a spiritual leader. He helped his father find redemption, but that was more of a personal thing. It only helped the others indirectly, because Vader killed the emperor.

The bible has been influencing art and literature for a very long time, even if some people want to deny it.
*****  I agree with this too, but not in the case of Star Wars.  Luke's clear direct ancestor is King Arthur, not Jesus.  They were both dreaming peasant kids who, with the help of a wizard, discover (when the acquire a sword) they have a greater destiny as a warrior.  You may argue that Arthurian legend was rooted in the Bible I guess, but I bet it has stronger pagan antecedents.

The born again Christian's point of view is that Han Solo is "born again" in the course of Star Wars, lapses and is punished in Empire, and is reborn again in Jedi.  Obviously Han's character undergoes a change -- especially in Star Wars -- but the connection to Christianity is a stretch for me.

The Arthur parallel works pretty well. I'd say that legend has its roots in a few places, as most do.

I agree that the idea of Han Solo being born again is a bit of a stretch, especially since he didn't lapse in Empire. He learned to care about others in Star Wars, and remained a loyal member of the rebellion straight through. He was punished for past wrongs in Empire, after he reformed. He also had no significant spiritual awakening in Jedi.

Jeepers Creepers - I thought it was a decent movie and at the time I watched it, I'd forgotten hearing anything about the director, so I watched it with an open mind. I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary in it, just that they decided to fool the audience and make the victim not who you thought it would be. The only problem I had with the movie was the psychic lady who served no purpose other than to provide exposition. I've seen many other movies with more disturbing scenes in them. There was one that I forget the details of now, but practically every other scene featured at least one teenaged boy in jockey shorts. I think people are just reading too much into it in light of the director's past.

Star Wars - I actually have a paperback book called The Force of Star Wars which is an entire book devoted to discussing how Star Wars can be be directly related to the Bible. I didn't realize at the time I bought it, exactly what kind of a book it was, I just got it because it was a Star Wars book.

John wrote:
>
> Star Wars - I actually have a paperback book called The Force
> of Star Wars which is an entire book devoted to discussing
> how Star Wars can be be directly related to the Bible. I
> didn't realize at the time I bought it, exactly what kind of
> a book it was, I just got it because it was a Star Wars book.

Was it interesting?

>Was it interesting?

 Kind of, but the Bible quotes got a little annoying after a while.

This is not about "Jeepers Creepers," which, I have not seen. So, I can't comment on any pedophilia which it may contain, but, it is about pedophilia and the horror film, especially in vampire films.
<
Indeed, the rumor has it, that pedophilia goes back to the original "Dracula" in 1931, but the cries of the child, as it was attacked, were so horrorific to audiences of that day, that that scene was later cut from the film. But, here are some films from which the pedophilia was not deleted.
>
Horror of Dracula with women who like little girls.
Black Sabbath with a man who likes little boys. Not only is it pedophilic, it is also incestuous in nature.
Dr. Terror's House of Horrors with a woman who likes little boys.
Kronos with a man who likes little girls.
Vampire Circus with a man who likes little girls and little boys, and a woman who likes little boys.
Dracula (1979) with a man who likes little boys.
Fright Night with a man who likes little boys and little girls.
Lair of the White Worm with a woman who likes little boy scouts.
Bram Stoker's Dracula with a woman who likes little girls.
>
But, these are all fictional films, the German "Tenderness of Wolves"dealt with a real life vampire, who liked little boys.
<
And that does not include the little vampires, both male and female, in "Interview with a Vampire," "The Lost Boys," "Near Dark," and "Vamp." And how did these little vampires become a vampire, if they were not preyed upon by a man and/or woman., who liked little boys and/or girls.
>
Indeed, the British "Ultraviolet" has one episode that deals exclusively with the preying upon the young by adults and the subject of pedophilia.
<
This is not to say that the subject of pedohilia makes these horror films any better or any worst then any other horror film. It is just to point out that the subject of pedophilia goes a long way back in horror films, and that "Jeepers Creepers," is not the first horror film to deal with the subject, if it indeed deals with that subject.

I don't think it's fair to classify all vampire movies that have young victims in them as portraying pedophilia. A vampire is a vicious creature that kills for food and if the first person they see is a child, they're going to prey on it. Or they might just want young victims because their blood is fresher.

I don't think it's fair to classify all vampire movies that have young victims in them as portraying pedophilia.
*****  I don't think it's fair to classify ANY horror movie that has young victims as being about pedophilia.  The victims are young because the audience is young, plain and simple.  If horror movie audiences were 80% people over 75, then the two kids on their way back from school in Jeepers Creepers would have been two grandparents on their way back from Bingo.  The movies target their audience for maximum scare effect.

I don't think it's fair to classify all vampire movies that have young victims in them as portraying pedophilia. A vampire is a vicious creature that kills for food and if the first person they see is a child, they're going to prey on it. Or they might just want young victims because their blood is fresher.

Most carnivores go after the easier targets.  The weak and the young, especially.  Watch any nature show with big cats :)  Vampires are the same way.  Simply because a child (or young woman) is far less liekly to pose a serious threat of fighting back than, for example, a healthy man.

It is probably incorrect  to classify all vampire films, where the child is a victim, as being paedophilic in nature. Since, as Fearless Freep and Johjn have rightly pointed out that a child is usually  weaker then an adult,  and thus easier prey for a vampire, especially a female vampire.
But, it would be as wrong to totally deny the possible sexual implications that may exist between an adult vampire and a child victim, or any victim for that matter.
For example, why until Anne Rice,  did male vampires exclude for the most part male adult victim?. Because of the implication of homosexuality, if both victim and vampire were male.. Since the neck is an erogenous zone for some people, and since some people, if not myself, equate certain bites as sex, then a bite on the neck from a vampire, can be equated as an act of sex,  whether consensual or not.
And if certain vampires are portrayed as all powerful, and they only use their victims to feed, like certain carnivores.  Why do they prey on c hildren?
Two examples from my list above, though there are other examples from my list, and other examples not listed by me.
Fright Night: If Jerry Dandridge (Christ Sarandon) is quite caple of making men his victims, as his first announced victim was in the film. why does he feel a need to prey upon victims like "Evil Ed' Thompson (Stephen Geoffreys) and the girl (Amanda Bearse), unless there is a certain sexual attraction between the characters.
Lair of the White Worm: since Lady Sylvia Marsh (Amanda Donohoe) also proves quite capable of snaring male adults as victims--her first named victim in the film was Mr. Trent (Christopher Gable)--why does she feel the need to prey upon a boy scout named Kevin (Chris Pitt)? And why, of all the places she could have bit him, when he stood up naked in the bath, did she bite him on his penis? Unless for some sexual reasons in her actions.
And as for the child being weaker then the adult, even the mouse has been known to kill the snake and drive off the cat. Enjoy!

A lion can bring down a large, healthy, male  range animal, but if easier prey is available, why bother?

You know what else is messed up?  The Narcophelia in Deranged.  I got that movie for free on the Motel Hell DVD (double features)...by the way, I really do mean for free, the dvd is only 10 bucks despite there being 2 movies...anyway, I got it for Motel Hell, and then I was shocked to see that the free DVD had narcophelia on it.  Damn!  How sick is that!?

"Narcophelia"  Is that sex with undercover DEA agents?

>"Narcophelia" Is that sex with undercover DEA agents?

I thought it was sex with people who fall asleep during the act.

Fearless Freep, with all due respect, that is apple and oranges. For the most part, a lion is an instinctive animal. Thus we should not expect any better behavior from them.
While a human, and in this regard, a vampire is for the most part, a reasoning animal.
Thus we should expect better behavior from them.
And, by the way, most of the hunting in a pride is not done by the male lion, but, by the female lioness

While a human, and in this regard, a vampire is for the most part, a reasoning animal.
Thus we should expect better behavior from them.

Exactly, above all, we should expect more intelligent behavior from them. It simply makes more sense to go after the prey that's a) easier to bring down and b) less likely to present a serious threat in return. Even football players do it by throwing toward the less skilled cornerback  or running toward the weaker side of the line.   Or walking Barry Bonds to pitch to Benito Santiago.  You avoid the more dangerous opponent to go for the weaker opponant less likely to hurt you in return.

I just wacthed Dracula 2000 the other night, for what it's worth.  I noticed he had no real problem with going after men when need be

And, by the way, most of the hunting in a pride is not done by the male lion, but, by the female lioness

Doesn't really matter; pick any  predator animal.    If need be, they can take down a strong opponant, but the odd are lower and the danger of getting damaged in return is higher, so they tend to go after easier prey.

Any sexual inclination between an adult vampire and a child victim  is a personal issue with that vampire and not inherent in the predetor/prey relationship

I guess this is where we agree to disagree, Fearless Freep. Though, of course, you are right in your argumens, af far as it goes.. But, if one can take down a stronger prey in a film or real life, why pick on a child. I say not. But, in a film does it bother me, as much as it does in real life. No, of course, not, because a film is only an imaginary event. While real life is real, andthus bothers me more. And you are right again. It is personal,. Which is something else we'll probably have to agree to disagree on.