MovieChat Forums > Jeepers Creepers (2001) Discussion > Jeepers Creepers as an Incest Metaphor

Jeepers Creepers as an Incest Metaphor


I think if anyone watches this film critically; and is familiar with sociological and cultural taboos of sex; myth & symbol; psychology and Freud; - they will clearly see that Jeepers Creepers is about incest.

I have not seen Jeepers Creepers 2, I have no idea what it is supposed to be about, other than an attempt to make more money - so symbolism and metaphor evident in Jeepers Creepers 1 might not be applicable to Jeepers Creepers 2.

A trained student of psychology could probably write an entire 20-page essay on this, but i will give a short briefing.

Remember now, that it is the brother who says to his sister in an effort to convince her to investigate what was being deposited in the pipe, something to the effect of: what if it were you? wouldn't you want me to see if you were ok?
In a conventional real-time horror-thriller, or just dealing with common sense, this is a poor excuse to go back to investigate the pipe, considering what has happened. But for the type of psychological thriller the director/writer was attempting to craft, this is a perfect reason why they go back.

The Creeper is merely a symbolic manifestation of the boy's unconscious sexual desire for his sister. After the Daarry falls into the pipe; the movie ceases to be an actual real-time thriller, and becomes a dark subconscious fantasy; which in all likelihood occurs in the boys head - perhaps even possibly even as he lays unconscious on the floor of the underground (the realm of the subconscious).

This idea is enforced when we see the brother for the first time after he has emerged from the dark underground nightmare he had been wandering in. He scares his sister who had been sitting in their car and proceeds to stare menacingly in at his sister from the outside of the car window; as a delusional crazy rapist might. We are to led to believe that this is Darry's freaked out reaction to what it was he was witnessing in the underground, but in fact, this is Darry without his 'Jungian mask' of what a younger brother is supposed to be. The Creeper is in fact Darry.

We also see how Darry is threatened by the male policeman they encounter at the bar and who attempts to escort them to wherever it was they were going. This is why the 'Creeper' beheads this man; and then proceeds to take the head; make out with it - and then bite out it's tongue - it is an exhibition in psychological emasculation. Don't forget Darry's pestering curiousity over what had happened to his sister and her boyfriend at the beginning of the film as they were driving before the pipe.

Think about it, isn't it slightly unconventional that the writer would make the two protagonists in this film siblings? In a conventional slasher/monster flick these two would certainly not have been a brother and sister - perhaps two friends, where the underlying sexual chemistry would seem almost normal, but this was a conscious choice by the writer to craft a film with dark underlying themes not apparently obvious upon viewing.

In the end, this sexual desire takes over Darry, in a metaphorical sense.
He cannot handle the sexual feelings towards his sister - so the Creeper takes him away, and 'consumes him' (BEATINU).

As in the Greek Myth of Oedipus - who had plucked out his own eyes upon realizing he had been involved in an incestuous relationship, Darry also has his 'eyes removed' in a somewhat abstract way, as those who have seen the end will know. This symbolizes Darry's realization of what it is he wants. The chilling aspect of this, is that the Creeper (Darry's subconscious) then walks behind what's left of Darry's shell, his Jungian Mask - and the holes of his eyes are replaced by the very human looking eyes of 'The Creeper.' This would lead me to believe that Darry in fact now realizes what it is his subconscious has struggled with all along. The Creeper is now fully awakened within Darry. The Creeper is no longer a demon of the deep subconcious of a teenage boy - the teenage boy is now a sociological Creeper: He is now conscious of his sexual affections towards his sister.

The police, symbolic of society, cannot shoot the demon. Society is impotent when it comes to killing demons of the subconscious.

Even Darry's name, which is short for Darius, can be seen as a hint to the true nature of this film. Darry is named after the Persian emperors Darius II and Darius III (defeated by Alexander the Great) who had each been married to their half-sisters.

There are many other symbolic allusions, most particularly with the pipe. If Freud had seen this film, he might take the two siblings at the pipe as a metaphorical incestuous scene of sexual intercourse, but there is too much to get into over all of this.

So, in short, this film is not about a boogeyman, it is not about shooting up the demon, it is about a young boy deeply bothered by a sociologically and culturally taboo sexual desire towards his sister.

reply

Oh please.

reply

YOU PEOPLE , THE NERDY *beep* MOVIE FREAKS... WHOO THINK EVERYSTORY LINE HAS A SECRET-STORY LINE IN IT. *beep* THE MOVIE IS ABOUT A BROTHER AND A SISTER TRAVLING THRUE A REDNECK TOWN WHERE A DEMON GHOUL IS HUNGRY SMELLS THE BROTHER AND WANTS TOO EAT HIS EYES OUT. NOW HOW DO YOU GET A MESSAGE IN THIS ??? ITS OBVISOULY ABOUT A DEMON TRYING TOO EAT THE KIDS EYES OUT FOR HIMSELF. NOWHERE IN DA HELL DO YOU GET INCEST FROM THAT ??? OK JUST MAYBE JUST MAYBE! THERE WAS A LITTLE HINT MESSAGE BY THE DIRECTER SALVA. WHY WOULD HE RUIN HIS MESSAGES THEME THAT YOU NERDS ARE SO SAYING AND MAKE JEEPERS CREEPERS 2???????????????? WHICH HAS NO BROTHER OR SISTER IN IT AND EVEN HAS DARRY IN IT WITH HIS EYES GAUGED OUT NOT SAYING "I LOVED MY SISTER I WANTED TOO DO HER" BUT NO SAYS "HE LIKES TOO EAT EVERY 23 YEARS FOR 23 DAYS" WHY? CAUSE THATS WHAT THE MOVIE IS ABOUT AND THE FRANCHISE IS ABOUT CONCETERING THEY MADE JC 2. MAYBE IF THERE WAS ONLY 1 JEEPERS CREEPRS YOU NERDS COULD HAVE SOMETHING TOO GOSSIP ABOUT. BUT OBVISOULY WITH A SECOND ONE BEING MADE IT JUST SHOWS THAT THE TRUE MEANING OF THE MOVIE AND FRANCHISE IS ABOUT A BIG AZZ DEMON/GHOUL WHOO SMELLS YOU AND EATS WHAT HE WANTS. END OF STORY!
One-Two,One-Two/Ya Crews I Run *beep* Karate/I Practice Gun-Fu!

reply

hmm, i understand what you're saying, OP, and frankly, it sounds like total *beep* to me.

you people are reading way to much into this, it's a movie about a brother and sister getting chased by a boogeyman type thing... it's not about his undieing love for his sister, it's not about him realizing that he's in love with his sister, and it's not about him accepting his love for his sister. it's a brother and sister trying to escape a flesheating thing in one piece. you want a movie to pull apart with your wacked theories? go watch brokeback mountain. geez.

reply

Wow, this thread is pretty fascinating. I never thought a movie like Jeepers Creepers would actually get me thinking about deep pshycological *beep* like this. The incest theory kind of makes sense. I have a sister and if we were on a road trip alone together, physical contact and incest jokes would definately make things WAYYYY awkward. If the relationship wasn't meant to have deep seated incestous undertones I would bet that Salva doesn't have a sister and you can chalk the whole thing up to bad writing.

But you know I would love for there to be some deep dark meaning behind the movie but in all likelihood its probably 99% gratuitous. I think the only reason the two leads were a brother/sister duo rather than your typical male/female buddies with gradually budding romance is that the final scene would have a lot more impact as the relationship between siblings is alot deeper than friends. I mean if I saw a friend get taken away by some freaky supernatural creature and most likely eaten somewhere down the road I would be pretty upset. But if it was my brother I would be f@cking devastated and most likely a total basket case for the rest of my life. The sacrifice they make for each other has alot more power because they are siblings and so much like each other rather than friends.

reply

Well as much as I like movies have deap undercurents and the incest teory is well presented and easy defedable.
The Homosexual teory is more obvious one.

Im not a phyhologist and dont have much background in its field Im will take a more down to earth aproche with this.
The teories regarding movies, books and songs underlaying themes all wave marit, however it is oftain that authors them selfs have no ideas of them, there come from there subcontious and are not recognised by the artists.
Subcontiously the director have made a incest driven movie.
Countiously he propably was more awere of Homoerotic theme.

Im more for the incest teory simply becose its more well presented.
But this movie has bought themes in it.




====================
Me no speak english well ;-)


reply

you freaks. JC is about a brother and sister being hunted by someTHING.
Anyone that sees more needs to go and talk about "Daddies midnight vists" to a shrink.

reply

I know I'm about a week late to actively participate in this thread, but I couldn't help but put in a comment about these theories. For people in a psychology field, everything has a deeper meaning. It's part of their studies; to look for the inner secret in things. To find that deeper meaning. But the chemistry between the two characters in this movie can probably just be the result of two good looking actors playing alongside each other. Being a guy myself, I know that it would be nearly impossible for me to keep my hands off of the actress portraying Trish. Young actors often have a problem with flirting too much while shooting. Documentaries of shows even as wholesome as The Brady Bunch reveal that chemistry between people comes out. Even while two people are acting. I think the ideas of incest and homosexuality are severely unsubstantiated. Perhaps I'm naive and just want to believe that this movie is just a silly monster movie, but I'm not going to over-analyze this movie into something it isn't just because my professors tell me to.

reply

[deleted]

I must agree that y'all are looking WAY too much into this. Anything can be interpreted as ANYthing if you look at it that way. I could go watch Gladiator, think about it, and present a well thought out argument on, say, why it's actually a pro-pedophile anti-drug movie. It's not, but I could probably find reasons to think that it is. Look, Jeepers Creepers may hold some hidden message to SOME of you, but I seriously boubt that it was at ALL intended. It's a movie about a brother and sister, who are driving down the road for reasons I can no longer remember, see something weird, investigate, and ultimately end up being chased by an ancient demon that wants to eat them (or at least, eat ONE of them.) Plain and simple. And just because it has tho characters that are siblings, doesn't mean it's about incest. I hate that. EVERY time a movie comes out with siblings, people cry incest. Just like the racism thing. The Hills Have Eyes didn't have any black characters, so people said Alexander Aja was a racist. Of course, it's kind of hard to have any black characters when it's about a white family on a road trip being attacked by desert radiation mutants, but people don't see that. Peter Jackson was called a racist for having the craxy islanders in King Kong being black, but I DEFY you to go back to the thirties and find a hidden island with indigenous peoples that are white.
My point is, that people who LOOK for something in a movie will undoubtedly FIND it, regardless of whether or not it's actually there. I personally see no reason to believe that a movie about brother and sister being chased by a man-eating demon driving a big truck is about incest, but that's just me. Also the pedophilia thing, I think that's pretty bogus, too. The Creeper doesn't molest Darry, he eats his eyes, hollows out his skin, and cuts him in half. ANd if he DID molest Darry...well, I'm sure this would've been an ENTIRELY different movie.


---

There are three kinds of people in this world. The living. The dead. And The Living Dead

reply

[deleted]

The number 23 also plays an important role in the film. 23 has important mathematical, scientific, and occult significance. I just wanted to bring that up.

reply

[deleted]

This is a bunch of bull crap! Darry is short for Darryl not Darius. And I'm sure if you went through what Darry went through you'd star blankly at your sister to. And one thing I don't get is how can Darry be in the car with his sister and out beheading a police officer at the same time.
I understand where you're coming from but no. Jeepers Creepers is just a movie out there to make us scared to death of scarecrows, cornfields, and springs. I'm sorry but everything you analyzd and the conclusion you came to is crap.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature!

reply

calicogirl,
Darry is not short for Darryl. In the scene where they're at the diner and the Creeper has left all of Darry's clothes scattered around, Darry picks up an item of clothing and it says "Darius Jenner" on it.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]


lol lol I can't believe how many people are freaking out about someone's THEORIES. lol lol I think its funny people seem to take this so personally. My thought on the movie was always that it was stupid (not saying that to attack anyone else) but just thinking about the theories puts a different spin on it. Nice job everyone who took the time to analyze the movie. I love analyzing movies (obviously the ones that can be). It's really fun to find the little hints and clues there (whether you are right or wrong). Which is why I like the movie Memento. Anyway, awesome theories- makes me want to watch the movie again.



(Manson haters I suggest you look at this: http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/marilyn2.htm)

reply

I've seen this movie twice (not by choice) and I didn't notice anything strange between the siblings. I just felt that it was a crappy movie. If the director did want to tell us something and this was the only way he could do it, then good for him. Personally I thought the movie was good for about twenty minutes. I guess I should have shut it off after that. I love movies and I love being entertained, but I didn't even feel "entertained". This whole incest subplot is very interesting indeed, I was really hoping that there was something to this movie that I was missing.
I've also seen JC2 and I honestly don't remember a single thing about it. To the people that liked both movies... Go for it! There are a lot of movies that I like that most people don't. Not that I like bad movies, it's just that my tastes are not everyone elses. So... enjoy your movie, all. I didn't care for it at all.


Hey, I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule.

reply

woah, The incest thing is bollocks, Holy sh it, I always question my sis about the man in her life because I have a little of that Protective big brother thing going on, No- one is good enuff and all that. This movie shows almost as wholesome a sibling relationship as can be, Since we're all expressing personal opinions though, I feel that those people that have delved into this "theory" are seeing what they want to see, Hence making themselves appear to have a penchant for the subject concerned

....back of the net.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I know this is really old and what I'm about to say is very OT (as an aside, I see more of the homosexual/molestation undertones than I do incestuous ones; I chalk up the chemistry to not so great acting, which is acceptable in this B movie-esque film)and will probably be ignored, but I had to respond to the Alien example you put forth:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18932_alien-film-franchise-based-entirely-rape.html

That quote from O'Bannon seems a far cry from retorting that reviewers opinion.

It is pronounced "EGREGIOUS"

reply

About the Kermode's view on Alien... yes, maybe O'Bannon had a "slasher film" in space in mind, but Kermode must have had Giger's creations for the movie in mind when he said that (the Alien's penile head, the face hugger's anatomy and so on). Seeing it on this level, of Giger's stupendous biomechanics, the subtext is imbued with eroticism.

On the topic, the incestuous reference is interesting when pointed out, but too much reading into it spoils the fun of watching a (and this) movie (which, for the first half hour, is a brilliant example of how one builds terror up).

reply

The same in 300 people were saying it was USA as an Empire and bla bla bla.

Don't Cry for Us, Don't Waste Yer Tears!!!!!!!

reply

With a handle like "Just Blazing", you should probably just stick to smoking weed in your parents' garage, as it is quite obvious by your asinine post that any activity requiring more thought than tying your own shoelaces requires more intelligence than your tiny brain is able to produce without imploding...



"Everything dies, but not everything comes to an end..." - Rev. Thomas Martin, City of the Dead

reply

wow.....its not about incest you freaks

reply

(found it!)

wow. you have a very active imagination.

I think people who want to see something (i.e. incest/homosexuality) will see it no matter what the makers of the movie wanted to project it to be.

frankly, I don't believe it. but good try.

reply

If I remember correctly the director or writer of the film was a molester but I am sorry where you get your ideas from is really stupid. You are thinking way to much about a silly movie.There is no incest thought between them. Thats really sick.

reply

I've been lurking, but like the others, I just had to chime in. I must say that though I can see where the "non-believers" are coming from, I applaud the two posters who have taken their time to look deeper into a seemingly silly teen horror flick, and bringing up a lot of complexities that, in my opinion, have just made the movie even more disturbing. After seeing the movie years ago, I remember feeling sick and awfully disturbed, not mainly by the film's outer surface as a horror flick-because the momentum that it had terrifyingly set up in the first half hour unfortunately faltered throughout the middle of the film-but because I felt that there was some issues, or to put it accurately, underlying themes that one had to dig in deeper to uncover. The two posters have done their job, especially the second one with his homosexual/pedophilia angle.

And in regards to overanalyzing films, there are certain works in the medium that are certainly created by their creators with certain agendas in the minds that translate to folly, or in this case, as a silly teen horror flick, only at first glance, but underneath, there are issues that shows a map, or glimpse, of what goes on in the filmmaker's head or even his persona. Certainly, it wholly depends on the creator's capabilities, and how that extension of his mind/personality translates into his work. Knowing Salva's history, it is quite obvious that he is continually wrestling with his inner demon in his movies. "Jeepers Creepers" and its insipid sequel have the markings of a man and his deep yearnings. I mean, if I didn't know better that the sequel wasn't a stupid horror movie, I would thought of it as a big budget Abercrombie and Fitch catalogue: shirtless muscle jocks and the ongoing homoerotic overtones to a point that you can actually smell the sweat in the air. It's vastly superior predecessor, though, is an exercise in the psychological/metaphysical field that at times the audience is not sure what is exactly the intention of the director. I mean, fine, you can say, "It is as simple as that: a demon, awaken and hungry, tracks down a pair of siblings for disturbing his lair, kill, more kill, get away, rips out his eyes, killer ending, the end." But there is a disturbing sense of "something more". It is not seen, but the audience feels it, and thus, disturbed. I'm a horror buff, but "Jeepers Creeper", though not one of the best horror movies ever, has more psychological underpinnings that are just plain disturbing, compare to, let's say, the recent "The Descent", which I think is absolutely brilliant and terrifying, because of its difference: "Jeepers Creepers" doesn't feel pure escapism, it is a piece of work that represents a slice of life that the director leads, or has led in the past, done and presented in ghastly and gruesome nightmare. "The Descent" is obviously an intelligent horror movie with its exploration of various themes: girl power, revenge, character transformation, etc., and while terrifying and nihilistic, it is pure (or in some sense, fun) at the end of the day. "Jeepers Creepers", on the other hand, just feels...corrupted or tainted by something deeper that is hideous and plain ugly. Its competently made and often filled with horror movie conventions and cliches, but it just feels...ugly and disturbing. In a way, "Jeepers Creepers" is a superior horror flick.

No matter what, though, you either take it or leave it and I can say, that one is prompted by imagination, creativity and the inner works of a logical mind to take the time and analyze things. I mean, why, "Jeepers Creepers" by moi?!? Sacre bleu!!! But I was really prompted by reading the inane comments by other posters. Sure, one can argue that you can pretty much overanalyze everything and come up with the metaphors and allegories that a specific work in the medium supposedly presents. This is wrong: most of the time, you will end up wasting your time. Simply put, some movies are just what they are on the surface. However, there are ones that do deserve to be analyzed to better understand the meaning or at least the intention of its creator. And certainly, you cannot take things in their literal sense. That is just passive activity, generated by hours of mindless films. You have to dig in deeper...Of course, you can say that I have also wasted my time posting this, but there's one thing that I can claim that's rightly mine: it is my time...
So haters and bashers, please reserve the name-calling for yourselves.

reply

Exactly, Johnmichael. I think that it is almost impossible to overanalyze *any* movie -- if a writer writes something, especially something that works on a human emotion (in this case fear), it is often helpful to analyze *why* it works. To say "it's just a scary movie, get over it" misses the point -- there are reasons why a movie "works" or doesn't, and the best genre movies are the one's that often have buried psychological themes running through them.

I think the movie is a brilliant piece of filmmaking, and like Johnmichael says, I think it benefits from its atmosphere that feels "corrupted or tainted by something deeper that is hideous and plain ugly." I wondered why the film stood out in my memory, on the surface it *does* appear to be simple schlock horror film, but consideration of the film as a manifestation of embarassing sexual desire (the killing of the policeman now comes to mind) gives the film added resonance and interest.

Fascinating theories put forth, very interesting.

Glumpy.

reply

[deleted]

bfan, I have no experience in psychology, but I am a keen student of movies, and the metaphors that run through them. If you return, what *do* you make of the sexual nature inherent in scenes such as the Creeper bizarrely 'making out' with the policeman's severed head -- the very policeman that Trish (the sister) expressed sexual interest in? This scene is almost inexplicable outside of the incestual interpretation. The brother's continual fixation on inbreeding is another strange plot point. Taking into account the standard formula for teen horror (where sexual consumation almost always ends in an attack from the monster), it seems a pointed, deliberate device to make the hero and heroine (who we would expect to 'fall in love') siblings, and to isolate them as 'partners' outside of the confines of family. I think the combination of these unusual plot points and characterisations lends credibility towards this theory.

Glumpy.

reply

the sexual nature inherent in scenes such as the Creeper bizarrely 'making out' with the policeman's severed head


It looked like making out, at first, to freak the audience out but it's revealed it was just trying rip out the policeman's tongue. That's it

-- the very policeman that Trish (the sister) expressed sexual interest in? This scene is almost inexplicable outside of the incestual interpretation.


I'm not sure why Darry gets that impression from but Trish says or does nothing, that the audience sees, to show that she has any sexual interest in the cop. Darry was in a pretty messed up state of mind after what he's been through and just wasn't thinking rationally.

The brother's continual fixation on inbreeding is another strange plot point.


Other than him yelling out "inbreeder" at the start after the Creeper drives ahead of them, he makes no other reference to inbreeding. Again, reading something into nothing.

reply

wow

reply

Um...I'm a fourth year Psych undergrad and the above is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard in my life.

Dude...in the words of Freud...sometimes a cigar, is JUST a cigar.

reply

or, just a horror movie.

WHY WON'T ANYONE JUST LEAVE IT ALONE AND JUST CALL IT A HORROR MOVIE? Leave it at that.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

What people seem to be forgetting is the role of the number 23 in the whole underlying incest storyline! 23, or rather 2 and 3 are pivotal to the metaphore. 2, or 1+1 represents brother and sister, while 3 is obviously 2+1, or the former together with Darry's alter persona: The Creeper. But it is in the combination of the 2 and 3, resulting in the "5" that the director's true intentions reveal themselves; 5 being the exact number of fingers on Darry's left hand and, which by no means could be mere coincidence, also EXACTLY the number of fingers on his right hand. The usage of these aforementioned hands during the act of sexual intercourse with his sister needn't be explained, I imagine. But when we add to this pair of hands, the 5+5, those of his sister (or, put simply, multiply the 5+5 times 2 [or brother + sister]) and afterwards add the 3 (indeed, the Holy Trinity with Darry's inner demon as the Holy Spirit!), what result do we get ? Yes, no less than twenty-three!

I rest my case.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

i think it was cool that it was brother/sister ---made it more sad at the end when darry dies. unconventional in a good way...

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

The director is a convicted child molester. There is some pretty sick inuendo's in these movies, but I'm just not sure incest is in there.

reply

Both the incest and the molestor metaphor are very interesting and I could agree with both of them (unlike most commenters, I especially like the incest one because it's one I hadn't thought of and it's a lot subtler). But I don't think there's one correct reading of the movie and a number of wrong readings. Perhaps Salva just wanted to make a fun horror movie, but his story turned out a lot richer than he intended. We don't know for sure. I think it's a very good thing that those interpretations, and probably more, are possible.

reply