What is a Security Auditor?

I’m often faced with a moral dilemma: what do I tell people when they ask me what I do? The easy answer is to tell them that I’m a hacker. This makes me appear interesting and usually invokes a good conversation but is it true? Not really. My job title is IT Specialist but if I say that, it does not speak to the fact that I am largely focused on security, not providing IT services. I suppose I could go with IT security auditor but again, I feel that I am skirting the truth. I am not, technically, an auditor (see my job title). My role, however, is closest to this final title: IT security auditor. That raises the question “What is the role of an IT security auditor?”

Maybe it would be best to start with what it isn’t. An IT security auditor is neither a hacker nor a penetration tester. The term hacker is often used incorrectly, especially in the media, where it is often used to describe malicious individuals targeting critical systems. In actuality, a hacker is simply someone who tinkers with computers, networks, or other electronic devices, often taking them apart to learn more about them. A penetration tester, or pen tester, is a security professional who breaks into networks using any means necessary, in order to identify holes in security. Pen testers usually run exploits that they find on the Internet or that they create themselves against a network, computers, or software. These exploits can bring a system down in a variety of ways, including crashes and unintentional information exposure. Pen testers use these and other sophisticated methods in an effort to mirror those used by sophisticated attackers or seen in sophisticated malware.

IT security auditors, by contrast, typically look at broader spectrum controls and do not run packaged exploits against the networks they test. IT audits are typically designed to identify ’low hanging fruit’ or easily identifiable weaknesses in systems, networks, or operations. The end goal of an IT security audit is not to breach a network and pull out sensitive data. Instead, it is to help identify controls that, when implemented, will protect against unsophisticated attacks. This is why an IT security audit and a pen test can compliment each other; one is more narrowly focused, yet deep, and the other is more broadly focused, and only goes a little below the surface. As the Annual Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report points out, most victims of breaches are targets of opportunity and most of the attacks are not highly sophisticated. In other words, identifying and implementing simple or intermediate controls, or removing the ’low hanging fruit‘ can significantly increase an organization’s security posture.

A lot of emphasis is placed on attack sophistication. Sophistication, however, is a fuzzy concept. A truly sophisticated attack should use only the resources necessary to achieve the end goal. Thus, writing, testing, and running exploits do not necessarily equate to a sophisticated attack; indeed, too much time spent on these activities can simply be wasteful. Instead, sophistication should be viewed in terms of attack success, attack detection, and overall effect. Regardless of the attack vector, did the attacker achieve his goal? In other words, did a system, network, or data breach occur? Or, if the goal was to cause a crash, did the crash occur? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then a sophisticated (or sophisticated enough) attack has occurred.

Breaches can happen through password guessing, password cracking, social engineering, phishing attacks, authentication bypass, physical access, or any number of other vectors, and can be carried out by expert attackers and newbies alike. The objective is not sophistication but success.

Many attacks go undetected for months or even years. Some of these attacks result in exfiltration of data and others do not. Some of them are present for long periods of time but the purpose is unknown. Regardless, undetected unauthorized access to systems for any period of time, regardless of sophistication, is a successful attack in and of itself. For this reason, IT security audits should focus on detection methods such as logging, reviewing, and intrusion detection techniques.

Lastly, the effect of an attack can range from almost no impact on personal, business, or financial operations to complete devastation. Depending on the organization, a blemish to reputation as the result of an attack can cause more damage than the attack itself. For these reasons, it is not pragmatic to look only at the sophistication of the attack itself. One must also look at the lasting effect of the attack. It can take days, weeks, months, or even years for some individuals and organizations to recover from a successful attack. Thus, it is important for security audits to assess the response and recovery process, including compensating and recovery controls, following an attack, not simply the detective and preventive controls.

All things considered, attack sophistication as it is typically portrayed is not the key concern for IT security audits. Instead, audits need to look at the entire picture, focus on simple and intermediate controls, including detection, and be sure to address response and recovery in order to minimize overall effect. Whether the attacker be a state-sponsored cyber gang with disposable resources or a script-kiddie sitting in his mother’s basement eating cold pizza and punching keys, we should not ask “How sophisticated was the attack?” but “What is the effect?” Additionally, a good security audit ends with practical, cost-effective, and useful recommendations that address the cause and not the effect.

For more information on IT security auditing, look into CISSP and CISA resources, such as:

https://www.isc2.org/cissp/Default.aspx

https://www.isaca.org/Pages/default.aspx

Gender Imagery in Film, Pt. 6: Conclusion (Child Sacrifice and Supposed Female Dominance)

Interlaced into the aforementioned circumcision incident, the viewer is hit with the most devastating blow of the film: She watched her son fall out of the window to his death, and did nothing. The flashbacks to the prologue are cut at a different time and a different angle, revealing new information for our digestion. Even if we were sympathetic throughout the journey as She tortured her husband, identifying, even commiserating, with her internal psychological struggles, we are now left feeling like the carpet was pulled out from under our feet, leaving us dumbfounded and foolish for having even attempted to make a connection with her pitiful soul. She makes Disney’s Maleficent look like an innocent little angel – for what kind of wickedness it must take to watch your child die and not even make an attempt to stop it. On the contrary, it appears that she even gained pleasure at the moment in watching the event unfold before her – possibly provoked by the same boorish drive that led Abraham to nearly sacrifice his son, Isaac.[1]

Between the violent content of most modern action films and the images of trauma and catastrophe that the mainstream media displays, it is quite easy for the typical moviegoer to tolerate and even get pleasure from violence in film. Von Trier was not shocking anybody by depicting a woman who beats up her husband and consequently not leaving his mark on the viewer’s mind. Like Cruella de Vil and her nastiness toward puppies, the way to truly make She a hated character was to have her embody the unthinkable. Once this information is brought to light, She loses all likability, and von Trier’s goal of equating woman with all that is wicked and vile has been accomplished.

Left to her own devices, the Antichrist will reject nature, and her natural position as subordinate to man, and turn to a practice of dominance over all. Viewers can begin to see this unfold in Chapter Two as She becomes more deeply driven into her own mania. At the same time, the surrounding environment becomes increasingly more hostile toward He, visually tying her trip down the slippery slope toward iniquity to the effects on man in the world. Acorns begin to pelt the cabin, He begins to get bitten by some large beetle-like bugs, baby birds get eaten alive by ants and other birds of prey, and as the chapter progresses toward the next chapter, we begin to see the forest literally begin to fall apart. A wide panning shot of the forest floor shows the son, dressed in the same pajamas as in the beginning of the film, carrying his teddy bear, and glowing, walking, presumably, away from his mother – perhaps indicating that he is attempting to escape her dominance. It provides another new insight into the child’s death – that maybe the son was actually attempting to escape his own situation

In Chapter 3, He discovers from the autopsy report that the bones in his son’s feet were deformed and then finds numerous photographs amongst his wife’s study materials that show his son’s shoes on the wrong feet. In a reversal of the practice of feet binding of women, She has instead exerted her influence over her son by binding his feet. It is unclear exactly why She bound her child’s feet, but it can be certain that it was done purposely, further lending credence to the notion that the son was making an attempt to escape his mother’s power. Upon learning of this torture, He feels the whole of the forest’s acorns pelting his flesh – he has come to realize that his wife is the architect of destruction – and he is afraid.

She continues to enact dominance over her male counterparts further into Chapter Three, primarily through sex, even making an argument that her husband doesn’t love her because he refuses to hit her during sex. In a drastic display, She runs into the woods and, again associating her ties with nature, masturbates violently while wrapped up in the exposed roots of giant tree. He follows her out, compelled by her sexual urges, and engages her in sexual intercourse, while also folding to her wishes to hit her. As they perform, limbs of immobile bodies are seen knotted like branches into the tree – the seemingly dead arms signify yet another connection between her sexual drive and the deaths of the many.

Afraid that He is going to leave, She attacks him with a block of wood, even smashing his penis, knocking him unconscious. Again, driven by sex, unable to refrain, she proceeds to masturbate him until he ejaculates blood onto her clothing. She then proceeds to drill a hole in his leg and, roughly mimicking the crucifixion, inserts a metal rod attached to a heavy round drum, fastens a nut to the other side, and disposes of the wrench. He is left, quite literally, anchored down and prevented from leaving her. However, he does make an attempt at escape by dragging himself into the woods and hiding in a hole in the ground. Pulling away from the Adam and Eve myth and moving toward the tale of Jesus, the rod in the leg symbolizes the torture and crucifixion of Jesus, while the husband’s escape mimics the New Testament tale of the via dolorosa, or “way of suffering,”[2] as Jesus supposedly dragged himself and his cross, essentially, to his grave. While in the hole, He sees one of the three beggars, the crow, and for fear that the crow will expose him, he attempts to beat it to death. The crow is resurrected and She digs him out of his “tomb.” Once more, Antichrist is connecting the end of paradise to another aspect of religion and life – he, like many prophets and scribes before him, makes a connection between the Old Testament and the New Testament, however factually unsubstantiated and horrifically arrogant it may be.

In the end, Antichrist puts forth the notion that had Adam destroyed Eve, women would not have suffered over 2 millennia of hate and violence. On the contrary, woman would have been free to reclaim her position alongside man as a co-leader over nature. Ultimately, it is man’s job to free woman, as He freed his wife from her own torment, thus releasing a multitude of faceless women back into civility. As a man, director von Trier created a piece of art, aimed at other men, that allows them to affirm their own internal misogyny and to reestablish the social rules by which they live their lives. As Sturken and Cartwright note, “In the history of art, the fact that paintings were geared toward male viewers had as much to do with the commerce of art as it did with the social roles and sexual stereotypes of men and women”[3] – the same would hold true for moving picture media, as the most common method of conveying social meaning today. It is clear that the movie is intended to have male spectators, as the male part is characterized by rationale and seen, though very blasé, to be the film’s hero, and in turn the hero over nature, life, and misogyny. If a woman were to adapt a male looking gaze, she may well end up as She had, upon assuming the male gaze over her study materials: detesting herself and women alike for the “wrongs” of which they supposedly committed.

Ultimately, the final statement of Antichrist, and in turn, on Eden and life, is that everything that was once beautiful is no longer – and this is the fault of Eve. Von Trier’s morality makes women out to be immoral and malevolent and in turn removes himself and his male counterparts from any blame. This attitude can be easily summed up through Nietzsche’s view that in every artistic morality, “man adores part of himself as God and to that end needs to diabolicize the rest.”[4] We no longer require the Bible to tell us that women are the destroyers of paradise, because we have Lars von Trier. Let Antichrist serve as a warning of the effects of religious fear-mongering. In the words of the late, great comedian, George Carlin, “The Christians are coming, and they are not pleasant people.”[5]

-------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] HarperCollins, Genesis 22:1-24
[2] HarperCollins, John 19:17-37
[3] Sturken and Cartwright, 79.
[4] Nietzsche, 152.
[5] Carlin, 8.

Extenuating Circum Stances, Pt. 1: Introduction

As the father to both a daughter and a son, I was struck by the oddity that, while I was asked by several people, including medical personnel and non-medical, interested parties, whether or not I was going to have my son circumcised, not a single person asked if I was going to have my daughter circumcised. Indeed, some people assumed that I was having my son circumcised without asking, as if leaving him uncircumcised was not an option. What is the basis for this assumption? Is it based on social, political, economic, religious, medical, or a combination of factors? And why is there not a similar assumption, or even a question, regarding circumcising our daughters? In order to answer these questions, an examination of circumcision must account for social, economic, religious, cultural, and other factors that have shaped the history and development of the practice, and the controversies that ensue, along the binary lines of gender.

While routine male circumcision is not seen as medically necessary by most medical associations in the world – more on this to come – routine, non-medical circumcision rates in the United States remain high. In fact, routine male circumcision remains the most common surgery in the United States[1] with over 1 million boys being circumcised each year. There is a decline in routine neonatal circumcision; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report in 2011 that showed a drop in newborn male circumcision from 62.5% in 1999 to 56.9% in 2008 using data from the National Hospital Discharge Survey.[2] Still, the United States stands alone as the last medically advanced nation to routinely perform this surgery on infants. In this sense, male circumcision is a uniquely American phenomenon with a complex history that intersects religious, social, political, economic, and scientific domains. The primary arguments for the widespread continuation of circumcision today tend to come from religious and social points of view, while the arguments against come primarily from scientific views, but economics also finds itself playing a unique part in the reduction of circumcision, particularly in the Western U.S., where immigration of Mexican and other Latin American individuals is high and some states have removed Medicaid coverage of the surgery.[3]

When it comes to the female genitals, however, the United States stands nearly as a whole at the opposite side of the spectrum. The majority of the world’s female circumcision occurs in Africa and several countries in Asia and the Middle East. The World Health Organization has estimated that about 101 million girls aged 10 and older have undergone female genital cutting (abbreviated FGC) in Africa alone.[4] The practice is largely encouraged for religious and social reasons, including ensuring chastity and proving the sexual purity of a girl to her husband. In the West, most opponents of FGC belie any notion of social benefits, insisting that the consequences for FGC far outweigh any possible benefits. And this is the essence of the controversy, what I refer to as “The West versus the Rest,” though, admittedly, this may not be the most accurate description. The debate over FGC is not simple by any means; on its surface it is a about female genitals, but deep down it is about culture, ideology, social status, and, indeed, gender relations.

For the purposes of remaining as neutral as possible while discussing the practices, controversies, and analysis of both male and female genital modification surgery, I have chosen to refer to both practices with the phrase “genital cutting.” While male circumcision is rarely referred to as male genital cutting (MGC), this phrase will be used to avoid confusion and to better compare it to the genital cutting practices of FGC. FGC, meanwhile, will be used to avoid underrepresenting the risks, procedures, or complications resulting from cutting female genitals (i.e., female circumcision) or overstating the horrors typically only associated with the more sever forms of FGC (i.e., female genital mutilation, or FGM). As will be discussed below, different groups prefer different terms depending on the specific cutting practice and its significance to their ideology or tradition.

[1] http://academicdepartments.musc.edu/surgery/divisions/pediatric/procedures/circumcisionhttp://academicdepartments.musc.edu/surgery/divisions/pediatric/procedures/circumcision

[2] http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6034a4.htm?s_cid=mm6034a4_w

[3] Bell 2005:129

[4] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/index.html

Extenuating Circum Stances

I'm in the process of conducting some new anthropological research on the controversies surrounding male and female genital cutting. Note, I am choosing not to use the term circumcision where avoidable, instead relying on the more neutral phrase "genital cutting" as circumcision tends to denote only male foreskin removal and does not account for the wide range of surgical procedures performed on female genitals worldwide. Additionally, the phrase "genital mutilation," which is commonly used in the West to refer to female genital cutting (FGC) draws attention to the horrors of FGC, while not accounting for the less drastic acts of clitoral and clitoral hood "shaving" or "clipping" and FGC that only involves piercing. Not all FGC is as drastic as some groups make it out to be, which involves total infibulation, or the complete removal of the clitoris, outer and inner labia, and is followed up by the sewing shut of the vaginal opening leaving only a small hole for menstrual fluids and urine. While this does occur, if you read the posts to come, you will no doubt see that this is not the only form of FGC.

As a brief intro, I will include the abstract from my research here. I will be posting my introductory section within the next two weeks, followed, hopefully, by a section per week.

Abstract: To cut, or not to cut? That is the question. The arguments for circumcision, both male and female, while often coming from religious or ethical groups, state medical benefits that arise from removing the foreskin, clitoris, or labia. For many years, however, arguments have been made against circumcision denying those same benefits. Opponents of male circumcision often cite its barbaric nature and argue that the medical benefits are largely overstated. A common argument is that while the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated in 2012 that a decline in male circumcision could result in higher rates of urinary tract infections, HIV, and HPV in men, the AAP neglects to account for the lower overall rates of such issues in European and Asian countries with larger populations of uncircumcised men. Regardless of such arguments, the cultural and religious views of many individuals in the United States and many third world countries, particularly those with significant Abrahamic religious influence, continue to result in traditional infant male circumcisions. At the same time, in the United States, female circumcision and clitoridectomy are rare and may be considered by many to be heinous acts. This begs the question, then: what is the difference between male and female genital mutilation and why is one considered to be more cultural acceptable than the other? Additionally, what are the cultural beliefs that allow one group to not only largely accept genital mutilation but encourage it? The controversy surrounds the notion that genital circumcision, both male and female, particularly when concerning children and infants, is a human rights issue. This notion, however, is deeply divided along gender lines, along with economic, social, and religious lines.

Gender Imagery in Film, Pt. 5: Self-Mutilation and Female Circumcision

Religion has never been a stranger to self-torture and mutilation. This is particularly true of the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In his infamous work Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche states, “From the start, the Christian faith is a sacrifice: a sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of the spirit; at the same time, enslavement and self-mockery, self-mutilation.”[1] In many instances, the self-torture is one that is purely psychological: fear of Hell; fear of physical torture; fear of fire and brimstone; self-censorship and anxiety over “impure thoughts;” &c. In other instances, the focus is on the physical shell. Certain sects of Catholicism have been known to practice self-flagellation as a form of repentance. Muslims, particularly radical Muslims, have been increasingly involved in suicide missions to promote their faith – suicide bombing arguably being the ultimate form of self-mutilation. Male circumcision is certainly a form of mutilation and, though it is typically performed on children and not self-inflicted, it can be if older men  decide to have it done. Female circumcision is another animal altogether, with consequences far more destructive than that of male circumcision. Perhaps it can be considered ironic, or, at the least, a contradiction in terms, that God allows us to slice skin off of our sons’ penises while insisting that our body is a temple.[2] In any event, the notion of physical mutilation is surely on familiar terms with religion.

Though Antichrist offers an overflowing handful of graphic violence in the second half of the film, it is the self-inflicted female circumcision scene that is almost certainly the most stomach churning and, arguably, the most misogynistic. If only one scene in the history of film had to be chosen to depict the culmination of hundreds of years of religious intolerance, resulting in an unmistakable fear and self-loathing instilled into the minds of women, it could be this horrendously vivid scene. By depicting an act so heinous, one that is still occurring in many cultures and subcultures today worldwide for a variety of reasons, von Trier is drawing a straight line connecting woman’s wickedness with her clitoris. The oppression of the woman, Antichrist purports, is a direct result of the intensity derived from her pleasure center. A pleasure center that, by the way, still baffles scientific minds today.

Building up to the aforementioned circumcision, She physically and emotionally tortures her husband, and begins to torture herself emotionally. Her sexual impulses drive her psychotic behavior and upon realizing that her desire for sexual pleasure is the cause of her son’s death, shown through flashbacks to the prologue, she grabs a pair of rusty shears, conveniently located underneath her buttocks. Once She has removed her clitoris, He is able to “free” countless women – women without faces, without identities, without any direct connection to Eve – from the bonds of their own self-hatred.

Despite being as gruesome a scene as any horror film one, further speculation of the entire sequence reveals something rather laughable: von Trier is a complete narcissist. As She inflicts the wound on herself, it is He who gets the credit for freeing the women enslaved to their own desires, not She. He wins. Yes, this is still misogyny, but the root must certainly be von Trier's own narcissism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Nietzsche, 250.

[2] HarperCollins, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

Gender Imagery in Film, Pt. 4: Antichrist

It has been a while since my last post. I have been focusing on some new changes at work, with my family, and in academics. This post focuses on the Lars von Trier film, Antichrist. When I last left off, I spoke of Disney's representation through many of their films of the female as a representation of the sins of Eve.

And a metamorphosis into sin it is, that She, female lead of Antichrist, undergoes throughout the 2009 Cannes film festival’s most detested film. Lars von Trier’s Antichrist is the product of one man’s internal struggles with his personal Christian beliefs and fears, and is a strikingly visual interpretation of woman as executor of iniquity. His vision runs the gamut from male dominance to female dominance, from child sacrifice to self-mutilation, from psychiatry to psychologically volatile, from sex to torture to freedom. In short, Antichrist could take its tagline from Nietzsche himself: “The Christian resolve to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.”1 Even comedian, social critic, and philosopher, Bill Hicks noted the tendency for Christian fear-mongering. He said “The whole image is that eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love. That's the message we're brought up with, isn't it? Believe or die! Thank you, forgiving Lord, for all those options!”2

The Danish writer-director penned the screenplay and began filming it while in a deep depression and after having forgone the use of anti-depressants3, which could explain the daunting imagery, discouraging, dismal tone and complete lack of censorship. Additionally, it may be the only film in the short history of moving pictures to hire a “researcher on misogyny.”4

The film is divided into chapters, visually, each one explicitly titled and providing a distinct division between parts – similar to the way in which most books, including the Bible, are divided into chapters distinguishing a change in space, time or subject material. The film’s main title and all the subsequent chapter titles are drawn on a chalkboard, each one written different becoming darker and more embittered until the epilogue title. The use of a chalkboard could signify that the film is going to teach the viewer a lesson, mimicking the use of a chalkboard in a school setting. There are four chapters in total, named Grief, Pain, Despair, and The Three Beggars, as well as a prologue and an epilogue. Besides the previously mentioned link between the chapters of the film and the chapters in the Bible, the film ties the chapters to images in the film. The three beggars are shown briefly in the prologue as three pewter statue soldiers, labeled pain, grief, and despair. Later, in the beginning of chapter 3 (Despair), He, played by Willem Dafoe, finds them amongst his wife’s research materials, depicted this time as constellations of a fox, a crow, and a deer, and later sees these constellations in the sky while a voice over says, “I’ve never seen such constellations.” In addition, all three animals appear at regular intervals throughout the film, often at the end of the chapter that shares their namesake.

The connection of the three beggars to the zodiac imitates the same proposal that the Disney films introduced through the imagery of the villainesses in tying women to witchcraft. The first time He sees the deer, at the end of chapter 1, they share a moment of silent communication before the deer runs away, revealing a dead fawn hanging from out of its mother’s vagina, being kicked around in slow motion, both reflecting the death of his child and foreshadowing information that is to come concerning his wife and son. The appearance of the deer is significant to both He and the viewer, as it mimics the relationship between mother and child that is a major plot point for von Trier. Furthermore, the slow motion shot and high pitched whistle with no dialogue draw an immediate union between the end of the prologue and the end of chapter one, relying heavily on the viewer’s interpretation of visual images to make these distinctions.

Antichrist opens with a lengthy slow-motion sex scene, filmed in black and white, set against the Handel aria “Lascia Ch'io Pianga” from the opera Rinaldo, which, even as it builds in character, sounds full of lament and sorrow. As the couple engage in fully graphic and rather raucous coitus, their toddler son is seen climbing onto a desk, then onto the sill of an open window and, predictably, falling to his death. Following the art house technique of interpreting scenes of intensity in a most dramatic fashion, the boy’s super slow-motion fall is cut to moments of the mother’s orgasmic ecstasy in a long, drawn out, borderline painful manner. After witnessing the boy’s teddy bear plow face first into the snow below, the viewer is left with the uneasy feeling that the boy’s death is a result of the parents’ sexual encounter, and that there exists some tie between his mother’s sexual pleasure and his death. There hangs the impression that the family is being punished for allowing the woman sexual gratification.

Furthermore, the decision to show explicit sex, with a close-up shot of penile-vaginal insertion, heightens the connection that von Trier is making between the original sin, sex, and death. Before Eve’s sin, there was no shame5 surrounding nudity and sex, whereas today there is a large amount of discomfort and the resulting censorship of anything sexual. Von Trier’s overt sexual imagery in one way references itself (a movie about sex should surely have sex in it; this opening sex scene foreshadows upcoming sexual scenes) and in another references history’s discomfort with sex. As the viewer is caught off guard, likely having never seen such a scene in a non-pornographic film, he or she is imbued with the same shame and anxiety that Adam and Eve felt upon recognizing their nakedness. In a certain sense, Antichrist is saying that Eve’s sin has resulted in film and art censorship through the unveiling of the human sense of embarrassment. It is woman who has ruined paradise and brought upon us shame and death, both tied to the act of sex, the same act that creates life – because of woman’s wickedness, the creation of life is now, too, the destroyer of life. Just as there can be no divorce without marriage, there can be no death without life. While still contemplating the connection between these two drastically different displays of life and death, the viewer is thrust into the next chapter.

The remainder of the film is shot in color, though von Trier keeps the colors cold, damp and unwelcoming, like a moldy cellar – so strong are his color, cinematographic, and prop choices that as a viewer, you can practically smell the old furniture bathed in cat urine in the couple’s shabby Seattle home or the rotten stench, like decaying hamster bedding, as the main characters trample through the woods en route to their cabin. Von Trier favors long shots with little dialogue, allowing the viewer to feel as if they themselves are immersed in the scenery, feeling the same discomfort, fatigue, disillusionment, sadness, and fear that He and She experience. He relies on an atmosphere of realism, despite the rather unrealistic characteristics of his storyline. Sturken and Cartwright note that realism “has been a fundamental goal of many styles of art, because art has often functioned to reflect society and nature back to its spectators.”6 Antichrist, as a work of modern art, or even postmodern art, intends to relay a feeling of pragmatism, of possibility, of reality, in the face of the oncoming less practical, more metaphysical, myth-like horrors that unfold as the plot thickens. Antichrist could be considered both modern, with its realistic depictions of sex and the historical treatment of women along with its linear frame and its ties to classical literature and art, and postmodern, as it questions the notions of what is actually real and really provides us with no clear resolution in the end. Like many religious and spiritual films, Antichrist relies heavily on a blend of reality and mythology, similarly to the book in which it derives its “originality” and its substance, The Bible.

Returning to the three beggars, just as they return throughout the film, the ties to the biblical trinity is undeniable. Many ancient religions put particular emphasis on numbers, particularly those that were polytheistic – Judaism and Christianity are no different. Though today, the Jewish and Christian establishments claim monotheism, there exists in the Bible evidence to the contrary. Generic references to ancient god Baal can be found littered throughout the Old Testament7, as well as references to other divine beings, including “sons of god”8, “nephilim” and “angels”9, “satan” 10and, of course, Jesus11. Recognition of other divine beings, let alone other beings existing in the same heavenly realm, negates the possibility of monotheism. Christianity attempts to “Jedi mind trick” believers by claiming that the three are really one (which, coincidentally, defies all logic and rationality), and has therefore settled on the notion of a “Holy Trinity.” The three beggars represent von Trier’s interpretation of the Christian trinity, easy for the meticulous observer to spot when other mythical references are revealed.

Perhaps, the most obvious references are provided to us by the characters in a self-referential way. Sturken and Cartwright, in reference to the view that producers of art construct an intended meaning, say that filmmakers, amongst other artists, create images “with the intent that we read them in a certain way” while still maintaining that the producer is “not in full control of the meanings that are subsequently seen in their work.”12 In particular, von Trier intends his audience to be aware of Antichrist’s connections to Christianity: the name of the cabin in the forest in which his main characters experience their fall from grace is named “Eden;” He draws a triangle similar to the food pyramid on a piece of paper, representative of She’s psyche, in an attempt to understand her fears, and, at different points of time in his attempt to analyze her mental state, he labels them with the words “Eden” and “Satan;” the research materials that belong to She have wood-carving style pictures of witch burnings, which were largely produced during a period of religious persecution against women of otherness [otherness being anything outside of the societal-religious norm: insubordinate, intellectual, atheist, &c.]. Once he can create the obvious connections to religious teachings, he can truly begin to deconstruct his own spiritual interpretations and thrust his views onto the spectators. Those spectacles can be subdivided into their own categories: self-mutilation and female circumcision, child sacrifice, and female dominance, though all three intertwine and overlap.

---------------------
1 Nietzsche, 172.
2 Bill Hicks, Rant in E Minor, Rykodisc, 1997.
3 Sean O’Hagan, "Interview: Lars von Trier," guardian.co.uk, 12 Jul. 2009. Web. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jul/12/lars-von-trier-interview>, 17 Apr. 2010.
4 Antichrist, dir. Lars von Trier, perf. Willem Defoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg, DVD, Zentropa Entertainments, 2009.
5 HarperCollins. Genesis 2:25
6 Sturken and Cartwright, 111.
7 HarperCollins. Judges 2:11, 10:10; Numbers 25:3; Deuteronomy 4:3; &c.
8 HarperCollins. Genesis 6:1-8; Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7; Daniel 3:25; Psalm 89:6; &c.
9 HarperCollins. Genesis 6:4; 1 Peter 3:18-22; 2 Peter 2:4-5; Jude 6.
10 HarperCollins. Job 2:1-7; John 8:44; James 4:7; Revelation 20:10; &c.
11 HarperCollins. The New Testament
12 Sturken and Cartwright, 45-46.

Gender Imagery in Film, Pt. 3

The characterization of witches, faeries, wicked stepmothers, and other negative roles for women play into all forms of commercially available art, especially film. Disney’s animated films could warrant a paper on misogynistic imagery in and of itself. For example, many of the Disney villains are actually villainesses. Lady Tremaine from Cinderella[1] is the ultimate evil stepmother: self-centered, tyrannical, power hungry, and a backstabber to boot. The Queen from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs[2] is willing to have her stepdaughter murdered to feed her own ego. The tale combines imagery of witchcraft (the magic mirror on the wall) with allusions to women’s desire for preening and narcissism. Half-woman, half-octopus Ursula from Disney’s The Little Mermaid[3] is a combination of similar misogynist stereotypes from tales of witchcraft and Biblical stories. Ursula is an evil sorceress who is arguably the least attractive of the villainesses, being half-octopus, overweight, and with a stereotypical lesbian short haircut and a big mole on her face. Her two cohorts are eels, or water serpents, mimicking the serpent of the Genesis myth. Cruella De Vil is a villainess so evil, she kills puppies. Like Ursula, she has short, grey (or white) hair, and has decidedly inhuman features. Cruella’s face is more demonic, or even witch-like, and her demeanor is quite psychotic. Like Lady Tremaine, Cruella’s only concern is for wealth and status, without concern for who gets hurt along the way[4]. The typical association of selfishness without regard to female characters is yet again linked to the tale of Eve’s selfishness in Genesis.

Perhaps the villainess who portrays evil in the most magnificent way is the stunning Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty[5]. She embodies the attributes of the aforementioned desperadas, while throwing in a few accoutrements at no extra cost. Maleficent damns a baby to exile and death, practices sorcery, and eventually turns into a giant serpent-like dragon in an attempt to distinguish the fair prince. She is drawn with typical Christian imagery influenced features normally associated with Lucifer (who is often considered to be the serpent of the Genesis myth, though there is no real link between the two in the original text), as she is tall, thin, and beautiful with horns and seen as leading little goblin-like demons. Revelation 12:9 describes both Satan as a dragon and the presence of his angels: “The great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan… and his angels were thrown down with him.[6]” If the visuals were not enough, Maleficent even summons upon “all the powers of hell.” She immeasurably reflects the traditional Christian view of both Satan and the woman as an evil entity. In all cases mentioned, these womanly villains are obsessed with wickedness and their psychotic personas are reflected not only in their actions, but in their appearances as well.

The measure of a female character’s evilness is not the end of the measure of a film’s misogyny factor, however. The relatively recent saturation of “chick flicks” has solidified the American female stereotype of a dimwitted, appearance- and shoe-obsessed shopaholic. Female roles are so standardized in the Romantic Comedy genre, they might as well come with labels from major market brands or advertisement agencies, showing them to be exact replicas of each other, produced in bulk for the cinematic masses. Any given film starring the likes of Jennifer Lopez, Sandra Bullock, or Matthew McConaughey, et al., is sure to have similar themes, similar visuals, similar dialogue, and similar characters: the sassy black friend; the self-absorbed blonde bimbo; the single, childless businesswoman; the sex-obsessed ethnic minority. By characterizing women in a way that says, “proper women must fit into these rigidly defined categories,” the film industry, and the “chick flick” subgenre in particular, are pulling out the stops, and spreading this misogyny thickly onto the female moviegoer, in a most ridiculous, non-romantically-comedic manner.

Returning to Disney’s animated classics, the positions of the central female characters, often princesses, though not evil, are very descriptive about gender roles and gender neutrality. Snow White and Cinderella, for example, are both women who work as slaves, but in two different capacities. Cinderella is quite literally a slave to her stepmother and stepsisters. She is treated not as a member of the family but instead as an insignificant worker bee who is unworthy to partake in their life of luxury, which is actually the result of her father’s fortune. Cinderella accepts her situation, but hopes that someday a prince will rescue her. Snow White, in a similar fashion, struggles with stepmother issues, only to a more serious extent. She, like Cinderella, accepts this fate, and in the meantime, takes over the household chores for a group of seven male strangers, while waiting around to be rescued from herself by a handsome and wealthy prince. Little girls grow up seeing these images of women, even as members of royalty, as slaves to household duties. And nearly all of the Disney classics enforce the notion that to live happily ever after, the woman needs to marry a man of wealth and status. A surprising converse would be the tale of Aladdin, wherein the wealthy princess, Jasmine, rejects the attempts of her father to have her marry into wealth, and instead falls in love with and marries a poor street kid [do not be mistaken, however, Aladdin is not without its faults. It may be one of the most racially controversial Disney films, as Aladdin, Jasmine, and the Sultan are all seemingly white characters, not Arabic. The only dark skinned character is, of course, the evil character, Jafar][7].

The typical Disney princess, including both Cinderella and Snow White, as well as Aurora (Sleeping Beauty), Belle (from Beauty and the Beast[8]), and Ariel (The Little Mermaid), have issues relating to their fathers. In some cases the father is dead or missing, and in others he is distant or easily disappointed. The only way for the princess to find genuine happiness is to find another man, similar to her father in status, to whisk her away to a magic life full of true love and animals with human traits. The princess will know true love as soon as Mr. Right arrives – there is no need to bother with dating, introductions to friends and family, and definitely no reason to ask any “get-to-know-you” questions. It is important for the princess to not waste any time with formalities, because she could end up single – then who would save her from herself when she begins her immoral metamorphosis into pure sin?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Cinderella, dir. Clyde Geronimi, et al., perf. Ilene Woods, VHS, Disney, 1950.
[2] Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, writ. Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, perf. Adriana Caselotti, VHS, Disney, 1937.
[3] The Little Mermaid, dir. Ron Clement and John Musker, perf. Jodi Benson and Pat Carroll, VHS, Disney, 1989.
[4] 101 Dalmatians, dir. Clyde Geronimi, et al., perf. Betty Lou Gerson, VHS, Disney, 1961.
[5] Sleeping Beauty, dir. Clyde Geronimi, perf. Eleanor Audley and Mary Costa, VHS, Disney, 1959.
[6] HarperCollins. Revelation 12:9
[7] Aladdin, dir. Ron Clements and John Musker, perf. Scott Weinger and Robin Williams, DVD, Disney, 1992.
[8] Beauty and the Beast, dir. Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise, perf. Robby Benson and Paige O’Hara, VHS, Disney, 1991.