Jeepers Creepers as an Incest Metaphor

[deleted]

Because none of this is obvious. If it was obvious, people would be talking about it, wouldn't they? It's interesting theory anyway. I don't deny that the leads have sexual chemistry but I do think the incest angle is reaching just a littl ebit.

your a moron

To OP:
Wow. I didn't believe any of this, but made myself be open-minded while reading this, as to avoid having any biased opinions. And while I have to admit that this theory is very in-depth and believable after reading all the facts and connections, I'm not convinced that this is what the intent of the movie was to be portrayed as. The way I look at it is, as with almost any poem, song or movie, there is almost always a more "obvious" message, moral or point, as well as many other, more in-depth ones. Although this is a very educated theory, I think that that's all it is. Certain people get certain messages from certain things, and if looked into deeper, you can most likely always find some underlying truth or message. But there are, as seen in previous posts, other theories on this film that, when given with enough factual evidence to back it up, are just as legit and make just as much sense as this theory. If looked into in depth, a lot of seemingly obvious meanings to stories become open to interpretation when the obvious meaning is set aside and the story is explored further. I guarantee that if you were to go out and watch another movie, any movie at all, if you looked into it and picked it apart piece-by-piece, such as this was, you would also find a less obvious interpretation of the film. I'm not saying that the initial message is wrong or right any more than the alternate one is, I'm simply suggesting that just because certain theories seem dead on, it doesn't mean that it's the intended message.

Is incest obvious? Or is it more likely the Creeper is an unconscious representation of a predilection for young men/boys? The Creeper kills or ignores women/old men in the movie, and we only see him bring young men/boys back to his lair. We never see a female or old person taken to the lair. Of all the bodies we see already in the lair, they all look young, and there are only one or two who appear to be female: One on the ceiling **may** be female, but it's difficult to say exactly; the other is Darla.

Darla's head was supposedly taken, and her body left behind. Unless the Creeper later recovered her actual body from the morgue or grave, that would suggest a possible third female. However, it's important to note in the initial attack of Darla, while her entire boyfriend was taken, only her head was taken (a rejection of the female body). The Creeper may later feel remorse for having separated the heterosexual lovers, and later rejoined them in death (signifying the internal struggle of the Creeper, guilt ridden over his socially unacceptable desires).

Think of the sister's plea at the end. "I have what you want. I'm the same inside." Still, she's rejected by the Creeper. HuH?

There are psychological theories other than those proposed by Freud. If you only use Freud as a lens, of course you're going to read incest into it. Apply another lens (such as the history of the creator) and get another interpretation. Apply the lens of Capitalism vs. Socialism and you can twist the metaphors and symbolism in that direction, as well.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Just another point to solidify the Creeper being the metaphorical manifestation of Darry's incestious desire, Darry actually plays the Creeper in the final scene. And of course, as burningchrome points out, when the Creeper puts his face behind Darry's at the end, it symbolizes the Creeper's (incest awareness) full awakening in Darry. It all just fits together so well. I already knew this film was about incest, but when I discovered this fact, I couldn't believe it. It's an underlying theme, but it's made obvious in so many ways.

I agree with red_hyro more. It also explains a little more why the Creeper did not want Trisha: it wanted a man!

"The director was watching Jaws as a youth, not reading Herodotus, and *****has said in interviews that he identifies with the monster in horror films rather than the heros.***** It is obvious that the Creeper is the director himself, seen as a monster by others; however, unlike in Salva's real life, he is able to violate young men with impunity, and overpower/outwit those who would attempt to stop him or keep the young man away from him."



and that's all she wrote.

every Salva film is about pedophilia/Salva's fascination with young boys. Sometimes there's something that comes across as pure and beautiful and heart-breaking in its beauty, like Powder, but it's all the same at its root: Salva gets a hard on for little hairless boys.

What a depressing movie.

The only positive out of all this is that at least Salva is making movies instead of being a serial killer. As far as we know.

But again, as interesting as burningchrome's analysis -- and it is extremely interesting -- red hyro hits this one out of the ballpark.

I totally agree with you on this. Here! Here!

I had already perceived this prior to reading your post. It's present even in the sequel too.

I think those who see incest in this movie prob have a desire within themselves to sleep with their sister

Did it occur to you that maybe the brother is OVER PROTECTIVE? That maybe the sister tends to go with the wrong guys??? You guys have only sex on your mind. And he was freaked out, not drooling over his sister. I would be freaked out too if I saw all those mutilated bodies.

Anyhow, I could also write 20 pages but rather not waste my time debating the "sexual" undertones of a MOVIE. Plus the first post sounded way too pretentious with all that fancy psycho-analysis jargon. And Freud is a disgrace, a sexual deviant himself.

I'd have to say I agree with this theory.

If you look closely, you'll see that all of the professions of the Village People are portrayed on the missing persons board in the Police Station



Oh, if you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic...

You people are really over-analyzing thie B attempt at a horror movie

the majority of child molesters are heterosexual your ignorant bigot

[deleted]

by red_hyro »
As much fun as it is to break out the Jungian/Freudian exegetical tools and go to town on a piece of art, you're really off base and stretching with your suggestion that this film is 'really' about heterosexual incest. It is pretty obviously the metaphoric fantasy world of a homosexual child molestor, who is represented by the Creeper. This is why the film has the siblings rather than the usual male/female combo with a developing romance throughout: the film is not very interested in anything heterosexual or female, but rather with a young boyish man and his hairless body, which is eventually violated by another man. You'll notice most of your interpretations make as much or more sense following this interpretative schema.

If the author, who is a convicted homosexual child molestor, was giving us the wink that this story was 'really' about heterosexual incest by alluding through Darry's name to two Persian kings from ancient history who were not particularly known for their marriages to their half-sisters, you must think he is a more obscure version of James Joyce, because that is quite frankly ridiculous. The director was watching Jaws as a youth, not reading Herodotus, and has said in interviews that he identifies with the monster in horror films rather than the heros. It is obvious that the Creeper is the director himself, seen as a monster by others; however, unlike in Salva's real life, he is able to violate young men with impunity, and overpower/outwit those who would attempt to stop him or keep the young man away from him. This is why the camera spends so much time gazing at bare boy flesh, (hence the slowing tracking shot at the end) why the other choosen victim of the Creeper found in his lair is another young effeminate man without body hair. Many of Salva's films have these general themes of sexual relations between man and boy. See the sequel, his previous film 'Powder', as well as the upcoming 'Peaceful warrior' which concerns the relationship between a young man and a wise older man named 'Socrates'.

Now, if you were to suggest that this character's name alludes to Socrates the philosopher, who is well known in contemporary homosexual culture as having advocated man-boy love in the world of Plato, and that this points towards a homoerotic undertone to the film's main relationship, I would back you on that one. Of course Salva did not come up with the name, the film being an adaption of a book, he merely chose to make another film centered on a man/boy relationship: what a coincidence.

While it's fun to do so, I'd save the overinterpretion of films for those of Ingmar Bergman or similarly literary directors, as they provide richer stories and consciously insert symbolism which could bear the weight of such an abstract misinterpetation and make it seem remotely plausible for those unwilling to bow down to the interpretor armed with jargon from Jung/Freud and a unfamiliarity with the point of Sophocles' Oedipus the King.

i agree with red_hyro. i mean the incest theory was way too farfetched. my brother and i act like that all the time. we ask eachother about our love lives, we mess around, he protects me but that doesnt mean we are in love with eachother. that would be gross. red_hyro's interpretation of it was better.

boo! you whore!

[deleted]

How can I tell that your full of *beep* you used the term "many moons ago"...Buddy your no Conan, just saying.

totally. no hidden meaning, just a crap film.