Where Eli Roth’s Hostel attempted to be repulsive yet failed, Brett Leonard’s Feed succeeds, all the while remaining aesthetically justifiable in its gruesomeness. By expanding the Gluttony sequence in David Fincher’s Se7en and positing an antagonist reminiscent of Jonathan Demme’s character Buffalo Bill in The Silence of the Lambs, Leonard issues the viewer a bastion of ideas laden with meaning as we are presented with a brutally honest exploration of social and individual psychology, sexuality, master and slave morality, and consumerism. Ultimately, Feed is a masterpiece of visual as well as theoretical abrasion which few will be able to bear in that it refuses to turn away from its inquiry into the human predicament.
A cybercrime investigator in Sydney, Australia named Philipp Jackson (Patrick Thompson) locates a well-protected feeder/gainer website. Curious, Philipp travels to Toledo, Ohio and tracks down the moderator of the site, Michael Carter (Alex O’Loughlin), who is currently feeding a girl who has recently surpassed six-hundred pounds named Deidre (Gabby Millgate). Midway through his inquiry, Philipp successfully cracks the administrator’s code and discovers that the seemingly harmless soft-porn fetish site is actually a snuff raffle which permits users to bet on when the current gainer will die due to complications from excessive obesity.
Leonard’s Feed revolves around the cultural phenomenon referred to as “Feederism.” Feederism is a symbiotic, consensual relationship in which one person, the “feeder” or “encourager,” provides food and promotes consumption on the part of the “feedee” (the term is shifted to the more phonetically and semantically succinct “gainer” in the film). The long-term goal of the practice is to achieve a desired, agreed upon weight gain, which may possibly render the feedee dependent upon the feeder for food and hygiene in that the former may become immobile during the event. There are many motives for such an activity, such as the celebration of food and/or the act of consumption, the seemingly continual hedonistic pleasure experienced on behalf of the feedee, as a denunciation of the standardized ideas of beauty, or as a manifestation and realization of a fat admiration fetish (referred to as an “FA” fetish).
Leonard creates a highly complex, aggressively honest killer in the figure of Michael for his motive, though at first appears tritely simplistic, is later revealed to be intentional in that what we were issued and lead to believe was a superficial sketch of a murderer is a veil hiding the character’s multifaceted pathology. As seemingly arbitrary as the manner in which it is presented, Michael explicates to Philipp that his interest in being a feeder is purely philosophical in that it is a statement against the socialized notions of beauty. He rebukes the anorexic, curveless model, devoid of body hair, as pedophilically reminiscent to that of a prepubescent boy more than a woman. However, it is later disclosed that Michael killed his own bedridden mother, who was so obese she was unable to move, before removing all the fat from her corpse, thus making her “beautiful again.” This convolution is further exacerbated by the fact that Michael’s wife, Mary (Mary Sulaiman) is a rail-thin outline of a woman. What we are left to surmise is that Michael’s neurosis finds its genesis in a dominating, though arguably not crippling, inferiority complex which reasons that by creating a socially-defined figure of grotesquery that, ex post facto, no other male will exhibit any interest in her, thereby thwarting the threat of Deidre leaving him. Michael’s acquisition of his mental sanctity is further promoted by his making Deidre immobile during her “obesiation.” More disturbing than Michael’s brutally straightforward logic is the comfort level in which he operates. Some critics might state that his verbosity is the result of poor characterization, yet I argue that this adds to his pathology, making his insecurities all the more authentic in that, outside of attempting to prove himself to others, his vocalization is his own attempt to reassure himself of the legitimacy of his own actions.
Masterfully, Leonard tweaks his premise by simultaneously juxtaposing while paralleling his protagonist with his antagonist. The film opens with cuts between scenes of Deidre being fed and entertained by Michael as Abbey (Rose Ashton) and Philipp are having vehemently directed, forceful intercourse, spurred on by Philipp’s jealousy. Thus, the director visually intertwines the two couple’s plights, which houses the irony that, in many respects, Deidre and Michael’s socially-deviant relationship is more authentic than the standardized coupling of Michael and Abbey. The epitome of the bond between the former pairing is evidenced in Michael’s face after Philipp shoots Deidre. Granted, Michael was fattening Deidre up in order to gain financially (I would argue that only the most naïve person, especially the gainer, would enter such a pact without being aware of the possible ramifications and that, by and large, a Freudian death drive is ultimately in place with such an individual), but even the most steadfast economic pragmatist could not engage in such an action without the (gradual) involvement of one’s sympathy (we see Michael having sexual relations with her at one point during the film). Yet, not only does Philipp mirror Michael in the latter’s insecurities by way of his jealousy directed at Abbey, when Philipp is undercover, he fabricates a tale of having been abandoned by “the One,” a five-foot, two-inch girl of 308 pounds, Leonard thus coyly suggesting the character’s subconscious interest in a woman whom he would not have to fret over.
Having already presented a steadfast portrait of abrasive, but nonetheless honest, sexual psychology, Leonard continues with one of the most poignant conceits in contemporary film, aptly expressed in Michael’s statement that, “Those who consume survive and those that don’t get eaten.” Not only does this succinctly represent the state of nature in society via Darwin’s survival of the fittest, but considering the materials being depicted, it serves as an scathing criticism of Western consumerism as those who own and market fast food are the ones metaphorically feeding (off of) the masses. This motif is further developed once Michael takes the remains of a previous victim and begins feeding them to Deidre, thus the director extends his theory to the point of satire as we watch the culmination of both the literal and symbolic result in the consumer’s death while the “feeder” financially profits as a consequence.
The outstanding script by Kieran Galvin continues to align pertinent ideas as Nigel (Matthew Le Nevez) is used as a mouthpiece (the only instance of gratuitous didacticism) as he ponders upon the Nietzschian Master/Slave relationship of the feeder and the gainer. Obviously, without a gainer there can be no feeder, but unlike many symbiotic bonds of this nature, this particular pairing can be philosophically inverted once more in that the latter is permitted to demand sustenance as the former becomes a servant to the gainer’s culinary whims. The only other complaint which might be uttered against Leonard’s film is that we witness Philipp capturing an Armin Meiwes type character in the act (Meiwes is known as the German Rotenburg Cannibal who advertised on the internet for a volunteer willing to be eaten). Yet this scene serves duel purposes in that it allows the viewer to witness the investigator’s prowess as a cybercop as well as foreshadows the ethical paradox of whether or not an action in which the “victim” willingly succumbs to a crime can be considering lawfully illicit.
Arguably the only thing more disturbing than Deidre utterance of the phrase “Feed me” like a demented, overgrown Audrey in a little shop of horrors is Brett Leonard’s unwillingness to lessen the logistical blow of Michael and the character’s rationale as the director unabashedly continues to delve deeper into the figure of Michael and the society which created him. Feed is nothing less than a masterpiece which should not be missed but, regrettably, many will not to be able to gain (sorry, I couldn’t resist) from its monumental insights in that many begin their evaluation based upon the subject matter and, as such, will be averse to consent to the fact that the gruesomeness of what is being presented onscreen compliments the grisliness of the scenarios which follow, for much the same reason that a multitude of individuals have never made it through Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange. Bottom line, if all filmmakers would permit their productions to reveal themselves as earnestly and truthfully as Feed, we would have a history of cinema which would easily surpass the prowess of all the other arts combined.
-Egregious Gurnow
- Interview with J.R. Bookwalter - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Andrew J. Rausch - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Rick Popko and Dan West - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Director Stevan Mena (Malevolence) - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Screenwriter Jeffery Reddick (Day of the Dead 2007) - January 22, 2015
- Teleconference interview with Mick Garris (Masters of Horror) - January 22, 2015
- A Day at the Morgue with Corri English (Unrest) - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Writer/Director Nacho Cerda (The Abandoned, Aftermath) - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Actress Thora Birch (Dark Corners, The Hole, American Beauty) - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Actor Jason Behr, Plus Skinwalkers Press Coverage - January 22, 2015
