I Don't Want to See Your Degenerate Films

Sarah Hawkinson of the "Possessed by Horror" YouTube channel recently provided a strange review for a film called The Rule of Jenny Pen.  She said: 

I believe that a movie that makes me feel bad is not a good movie.  An unpleasant movie is not worth my time and money.  A movie should enrich the viewer - through beauty, insight, or moral clarity.  A feel-bad movie is certainly not something that I will praise and recommend to other people.  If The Rule of Jenny Pen is too uncomfortable to rewatch or share, it lacks social utility.  You're unlikely to say, "You have to see this - it'll make you feel awful!" because that's not a compelling endorsement.  It's something that Bizarro would say in a Superman comic book.  A film of true quality is enthusiastically recommended for shared enjoyment.

Films were traditionally viewed as a form of entertainment.  Generally, people watched a film to feel joy, excitement, inspiration, or catharsis.  I have never strayed too far from this idea.  A film that leaves you feeling "weird in a non-entertaining way" or anxious without a clear payoff (deeper insight or emotional resolution) betrays this purpose and is, at best, a hollow experience.  

The Rule of Jenny Pen shamelessly presents extreme depictions of elder abuse.  Dave Crealy, played by John Lithgow, is a dementedly sadistic resident of a nursing home.  He terrorizes other residents with a hand puppet he calls Jenny Pen.  He pulls catheters out of a bedridden resident, throws urine on a resident, abandons a dementia patient in the woods, and forces a resident to engage in degrading sexual acts with the hand puppet.  His exploits are is nasty and gratuitous.  A Metacritic review critiques the film for "single-mindedly see[ing] its elderly characters as objects of disgust or receptacles for harm."  While some discomfort in movies in a drama or thriller can be meaningful if it leads to reflection or catharsis, unrelenting or purposeless discomfort is unproductive.  The Rule of Jenny Pen is unnecessarily cruel and lacks a clear thematic resolution.  The sadism overshadows the narrative and betrays the audience's trust.  In this case, the discomfort becomes exploitative rather than meaningful.  The film's excessive and gratuitous harassment themes cross and has nothing to do with storytelling. 

The defense of an excessive film typically includes lots of hyperbole about how great art pushes boundaries and explores the full spectrum of human emotions, including fear, anxiety or disgust.  You've heard it before.  Films like Climax or Mother! are celebrated for their ability to evoke intense, unsettling reactions, which their supporters allege can be more memorable than feel-good experiences.

Viewers who make this type of argument will insist that they prefer films that challenge them emotionally or intellectually, even if the films are not fun.  Hawkinson suggests that The Rule of Jenny Pen's discomfort is "kind of the point," implying that its ability to unsettle is central to its objective.  People like Hawkinson believe that a strict focus on enjoyment limits the scope of what art can do.  In their minds, films like The Rule of Jenny Pen aren't meant to be fun but to provoke, challenge or expose harsh truths.  Such films can, according to them, foster reflection or discussion, enriching viewers in ways that go beyond entertainment.  Yes, I know the argument well.  Their point is that, if The Rule of Jenny Pen uses its harassment theme to comment on power dynamics or psychological instability, its discomfort is a feature, not a flaw.  

Let's agree that the film provokes.  But to what end?  Glenn Kenny of The New York Times suggests that the film's discomfort serves a broader exploration of aging's indignities.  Brian Eggert of Deep Focus Review believes that the film delivers a message about standing up to bullies, noting that Crealy's terror "has only gone on so long because others refuse to speak up."  So, it's an anti-bully movie?  It's like an Afterschool Special?  Katie Rife, a critic on the Roger Ebert website, wrote, "Jenny Pen deals with some very serious (some might even say traumatic) subjects, sticking its finger into the open wounds of medical gaslighting, elder abuse, and sexual abuse - both of children and of elderly women - and wiggling it around a little."  That sounds like gaslighting.  Is it really the aim of the filmmaker to enlighten viewers on elder abuse? 

We can at least agree that discomfort by itself has no value.  It is only if The Rule of Jenny Pen aims to unsettle or confront viewers with the disturbing reality of harassment or mental decline that the film can be regarded as successful.  The Rule of Jenny Pen must lead to new perspectives on those issues for it to be a valuable experience despite the initial unease.  But I doubt that screenings of the film have prompted conversations about elder abuse or mental health.  Crealy's torment of nursing home residents is unlikely to serve a deeper purpose.   

Hawkinson notes that the film is "well done."  I've often heard the argument that a masterfully crafted film deserves respect even if you don't care for its themes.  But good acting or good cinematography doesn't matter in the end.  I remember Roger Ebert talking about a costume drama.  He admitted the story was bad, the direction was bad, and the acting was bad.  But he insisted that the movie was worth seeing for the excellent art direction.  I don't agree.  It's sad to see a talented art director waste their talents on a bad film.  

Viewers made it clear in online venues that they didn't think the film was worth the cost or effort.  Several viewers complained that the film failed to deliver the expected thrills of a horror film, preferring instead to showcase sheer misery.  An IMDb user review stated, "The result is a film that is more depressing than terrifying."  

The film evidently lacked the engagement needed to justify its emotional toll.  A viewer on Rotten Tomatoes commented, "Very strange movie.  Doesn't really have a good story line to follow. The guy is just weird."  A Metacritic review advises, "Please, do yourself a favor and don't waste your time or money on this one."  An IMDb user found the film to be "pretty boring" despite high expectations.  Another IMDb user found the bullying "pretty extreme" and "a little uncomfortable," even for someone accustomed to horror.  The film's runtime (1 hour 43 minutes) has been criticized by many for feeling overly long due to repetitive scenes.     

The film's plot holes, such as the lack of security cameras or staff oversight allowing Crealy's unchecked terror, frustrate viewers who value logical storytelling. An IMDb review notes, "It doesn't make sense… A shame wasting two exceptional actors' performances in a movie lacking logic."
 
Some people are masochists, embracing a film's discomfort as a strength.  Rife acknowledges that the film "glues you to your seat and makes you want to leave the theater at the same time."  An X post by @FreddyInSpace calls it a "deeply unpleasant… twisted nursing home nightmare" but says, "I thoroughly enjoyed [it]… A sad, disturbing horror film that's perfectly orchestrated to piss you off.  Let it."  Rife praised the film as a great black comedy.  I cannot find anyone else who finds the film funny.  An IMDb reviewer suggested that the film's ability to "burrow under [the] skin" is a mark of success.  I don't need a film to burrow under my skin.  I don't want to leave a movie theatre feeling as if I have contracted scabies.  

Let us not be quick to dismiss a viewer's emotional experience and the practical utility of a movie (enjoyment, rewatchability, recommendability).  The Rule of Jenny Pen is undoubtedly a waste compared to films that uplift or engage positively.  Life by itself manages to evoke fear, anxiety and disgust.  The world needs great entertainment more than it needs "great art."