‘The Brood’ and The Body: A Patriarchal Fantasy Reinforced

By Tayler Bakotic

Introduction and Thesis

David Cronenberg’s 1979 film “The Brood” features Samantha Eggar playing the role of the mentally-unhinged Nola Harveth. After a psychotic break that follows the dissolution of her relationship with her husband Frank Harveth, Nola checks herself into the SomaFree Institute under the psychiatric supervision of Dr. Hal Raglan, who is the founder of psychoplasmics, an unorthodox form of psychotherapy that encourages patients to address their anger through physical changes to their bodies. Though the movie is often interpreted as a divorce horror story, in the following essay I will defend a viewing of the movie as a patriarchal fantasy: a depiction of the horrors that ensue when the feminine subject gains complete, autonomous control over the process of reproduction, and how the masculine subject is tasked with the perpetual duty of restoring order by eliminating threats to patriarchy.  

 

Defining Terms

First, let’s define what it means when I discuss the feminine and the masculine. My use of the word “feminine” pertains to the gender binary: the commonplace, patriarchal understanding of the feminine as submissive, weak, quiet, and a manifestation of bountiful motherhood and nurturing. Inversely, when I discuss the masculine, I am talking about the notion of ‘masculine’ within the gender binary: the idealized patriarchal conception of the male subject as everything that the feminine subject is not, i.e. dominant, strong, assertive, and courageous. Lastly, let me define patriarchy: a society in which men hold most of the power and have majority control over public and private sectors of life (see Sylvia Walby’s Theorizing Patriarchy, 1990). 

 

A Brief Examination of Frank and Nola

Nola and Frank Harveth are undergoing a divorce, which is made undeniably clear when Frank speaks to his lawyer about preventing Candy, their daughter, from seeing Nola anymore after Candy comes back with bruises on her body after visiting Nola at the SomaFree Institute. Frank describes Nola as “crazy,” and claims that entered into a relationship with him because she “hoped some of his sanity would rub off on her.” He has no romantic interest in her throughout the film, and the film makes it difficult to imagine him ever having an interest in her at all! However, this is distinct from Nola. During Nola’s sessions with Dr. Raglan, she yearns for Frank’s love. She expresses a desire for the reunification of her family and believes that when her mental health improves, this will happen. 

Therefore, baked into the very structure of the film is a power dynamic that is played out through gender: their individual differences in desire. In other words, Nola’s unrequited love further characterizes the feminine subject as powerless, emotional, and utterly dependent.

 

Nola Within Patriarchy: A Power Limited

Nola is a difficult character to watch because she is a representation of the feminine subject failing to subvert the feminine ideal, and thus failing to construct an authentic gendered liberation. This is largely because Nola is under patriarchal influence at all times. Therefore, her rebellion, though at times compelling, is never fully realized due to the limits that patriarchy places on it. Remember, Nola is under the care of Dr. Raglan at the SomaFree Institute throughout the duration of the film. Not once does Nola step outside of the SomaFree Institute throughout the film. Her schedule is completely under Dr. Raglan’s control, and once Nola begins birthing the brood children, Dr. Raglan begins plotting how he can exploit Nola for the benefit of his own research in psychoplasmics. On the other hand, Nola’s relationship with herself is mediated by Frank’s perception of her. In a session with Dr. Raglan, she says that “nothing is wrong except with herself” and then shakes her head and says, “No, no that is Frank talking, twisting my words.” Thus Nola’s agency and perception are constantly mediated by Frank and Dr. Raglan’s individual motivations, making it nearly impossible for Nola to realize her own power. Moreover, Nola’s inability to realize her individuality brings up the tension between authentic feminine self-hood and patriarchal-influenced “self-hood” and how one can discern the difference.

 

Nola’s Re-conception of Motherhood and the Brood’s Rejection of Candy

However, it can be argued that Nola does exercise her agency. After all, Nola kills her abusive mother and permissive father as an act of revenge. She kills Candy’s grade-school teacher Ruth Mayer out of jealousy. But, Nola is only exercising her agency indirectly; when Nola exercises her autonomy, it is through her brood, the non-gendered children of her rage. Unlike her, they are able to escape the binds of patriarchy because they never existed within them. They were conceived from women alone, and born without gender. The brood subverts the patriarchal notion of motherhood as intrinsic to the female body and woman subject. Instead of unconditional love and snuggles, the brood children feed off of Nola’s rage to survive. Thus, Nola reconceptualized what motherhood can be, and her genderless children encouraged her in this process. 

It makes sense that the brood children reject Candy. Candy is born to Nola and Frank, and thus is subject to patriarchy. Just as the brood children threaten the system of patriarchy itself, Candy threatens the brood’s social system. The existence of Candy beckons Nola further inside the bounds of patriarchy, causing Nola to yearn for a stable family unit instead of her subversive brood. The brood children cannot have this. They need Nola to remain in a state of constant anger and rebellion so they can survive. Thus, their desire to eliminate Candy is consistent with Nola’s desire to abandon patriarchy. That is, the brood’s desires are actually Nola’s desires, though Nola’s desire to harm Candy seems to be repressed and subconscious in her desire to be different than her own abusive mother.

 

Love Triangles: Ruth Mayer, Frank, and Nola

Frank is consistently late to pick up Candy from school causing Ruth Mayer, Candy’s kindergarten teacher, to stay after hours watching her. The film construes this exploitation of labor and Ruth’s time, as something enjoyable. One incident features Frank rushing, already late, up to the playground where Candy and Ruth are playing. Before they see him, Frank watches them and smiles: the dynamics between Candy, Ruth, and himself reflect a patriarchal social order. His fantasy continues as he announces his presence with the words, “You two look like you’re having fun.” Rather than apologize to Ruth for his repeated lateness, he assumes that Ruth enjoys nurturing children; even off the clock. Consistent with his fantasy, Ruth does not display irritation at him but instead beams in joy upon his arrival and claims she was having lots of fun. 

In the following scene, Ruth eats dinner at Frank’s house. Though there does seem to be some reciprocal interest between them, the dinner is not romantic and is instead a makeup parent-teacher conference. Ruth tells Frank that she can tell that Candy is not being mothered because of Candy’s desire for Ruth to play “mother and daughter” with her. Moments after hearing this, and upon receiving a troubling drunk phone call from Nola’s father, Frank gathers his things to leave. Slightly disrupting the patriarchal fantasy, though not enough to threaten its structure, Ruth says, “I have a feeling I’ve just been recruited to babysit.” Thus, Frank values Ruth because of her compliance: she doesn’t complain when he is late, she enjoys mothering and nurturing children, and she takes the shape of the babysitter when needed. Under patriarchy, on or off the clock, the woman subject is supposed to gleefully demonstrate her femininity, and thus far in the film Ruth Mayer has done just that.

However, Ruth ends things with Frank after Nola calls home while Ruth is babysitting. Nola accuses Ruth of having sexual relations with Frank as well as being the cause of the dissolution of her family (50:30). This scene illustrates one of the most powerful yet pernicious myths of patriarchy: that women are to blame for other women’s failures. In patriarchy, women’s antagonism against other women is encouraged. This is because, without the strength of the unionization of women, there is no threat to men’s control of social power. After all, imagine if Nola had killed Frank instead of Ruth. It seems unlikely that Nola would have met the same fate if this were the case.

 

Patriarchy’s “Handling” of Nola and Her Willful Submission

After Ruth’s death at the hands of the brood children, they capture Candy and bring her to their dormitory at the SomaFree Institute. Upon suspecting that the brood children have taken Candy, Frank goes to the SomaFree Institute. Arriving, he runs into Dr. Raglan, who he at first does not trust; Frank believes that Dr. Raglan has some control over what is happening. However, once Dr. Raglan explains how little control he has over Nola and the brood children, they form an alliance and create a plan to save Candy. In other words, patriarchy loses its control over Nola, and they must work together to restabilize the social order. 

The plan is simple: Dr. Raglan suggests that Frank go into Nola’s room and tell her what she wants to hear, while he goes into the brood’s dormitory and saves Candy. Dr. Raglan tells Frank that as long as Nola is not angry, the brood children will remain in a neutral state. Therefore, Frank enters Nola’s quarters and lies to her, assuring her that he is now ready to be with her and “go wherever she goes” (1:21:03). However, Frank cannot hold back his disgust when Nola shows him her external womb. Cronenberg depicts the woman who treads outside of the binary as monstrous and alien. Like a monster, Nola literally tears into the thin, filmy flesh of her external womb with her teeth and licks the bloodied newborn brood with her tongue. Therefore, Cronenberg effectively creates a scene in which the viewer sympathizes with Frank instead of Nola. Or, in other words, the viewer yearns for patriarchy and becomes scared of whatever the alternative may be. 

Once Nola realizes that Frank is disgusted by her, she becomes angry. In turn, the brood children become agitated and kill Frank before he can save Candy. Then, the brood children begin to attack Candy. Though Frank tries to convince Nola he is not disgusted by her, Nola does not budge and only becomes angrier. Once Candy yells, Frank tells Nola to make the brood children stop attacking her. However, Nola wants to kill Candy. At this point in the film, Candy is no longer merely the daughter, but a symbol of power that Frank and Nola both desire. Thus, when Nola shouts that she’d rather kill Candice than let Frank have her, she is asserting her power. This may be an uncomfortable scene for the viewer who believes that motherhood is inherently good and just. However, as Nola tells Dr. Raglan earlier in the film, sometimes mommies do hurt their children, and in this moment Nola feels, in a desperate defense of her own power and womanhood, that killing Candy may be the only means to securing her own liberation. However, these feelings are short-lived. 

Once Frank realizes that Nola really will kill Candy, or once Frank realizes that Nola will unabashedly assert her own dominance, Frank asserts his own and threatens to kill Nola. However, something odd happens here. Rather than Nola continuing to defend herself with vigor as she had been, she instead tauntingly shouts “Kill me, kill me” and allows Frank to choke her to death, disappointingly surrendering herself to Frank and patriarchal authority altogether. So, why the sudden one-eighty? Why doesn’t Nola fight back harder, perhaps summon some brood to kill Frank? Why once Nola is at peak power and anger does she regress into her feminine place? The answer is simple: because the movie is a patriarchal fantasy. Nola’s submission to Frank serves to reinforce that great pillar of patriarchy: that the woman needs saving from herself! Therefore, in the unlikely killing of Nola, the male viewer’s fears are sated. There is no reason to dread any feminist or other social power undermining patriarchy, because, even in the bleakest of situations such as Frank himself was in, some deus ex machina will save the day and patriarchy will be necessarily reinforced. In other words, Cronenberg does an excellent job of reinforcing the supposed necessity of a male-dominated society.

 

Conclusion: A Call for a Perpetual Reenactment

The ending of the film follows Frank and Candy driving home after Candy is rescued from the brood. This is a time for celebration. Frank has just successfully defended the masculine ideal: he was the “hero” who destroyed a threat to patriarchy. However, though Frank’s defense against competing social structures may be over, the final image of the film indicates that it is not the last fight the masculine subject will have to fight in the defense of patriarchy. The final moments of the film zoom into Candy’s arm and focus on two welts, indicating that Candy has the power her mother possessed, the power to construct a competing social structure by disintegrating another. Therefore, just as Candy’s power is deemed generational, so must be the masculine subject’s efforts to prevent this power from ever being fully manifest.

So though Frank’s patriarchal fantasy was realized, he has merely saved the day… until next time. The open-ended conclusion and cyclical nature of the film are needed to fulfill the larger patriarchal fantasy: all men, not just Frank, must be part of this ongoing struggle to ensure that masculinity is fixed as strong, courageous, and assertive, while femininity is fixed as weak, timid, and submissive. It is the patriarchy’s fear that if these categories are not constantly reinforced as fixed and static, then something far worse may happen than Nola’s brood killing people… Perhaps men too could be weak!