Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma (Jane Schoenbrun, 2026)

[Mr Sausage]

On a literal level, the line is an insecure, self-conscious person belittling their own interests so they don't seem uncool. Their whole character development is to embrace this aspect of themselves and no longer belittle their interests, intellectual ones included. They literally, on the level of story, perform their own intellectual interest as a way of finally orgasaming during sex.

Huh? Gillian Anderson's character says the "flesh and fluids" line, not Hannah Einbinder's, and she does so in direct response to Einbinder's extended over-intellectualizing of slashers (hence why I said the line "is placed in the mouth of a character with the wisdom of years and moral/(un)intellectual superiority"). I'm not sure what you mean by this, as the arc you describe happens to Einbinder's character, not Anderson's, as influenced by Anderson's retort. The movie absolutely takes Anderson's position on this attitude; it caricatures intellectual readings of film as a method by which insecure people defend themselves and then sweeps them aside. That rubbed me the wrong way.

My bad. I misremembered who said the line.

But the film bears out none of the things you're saying, which is what so puzzles me. It's like you heard a problematic line and just stopped there. Like it was enough for the sentiment to be voiced at all for the movie to be condemned on that alone, and then the whole of the movie is read through the lense of that one line rather than vice versa. You've badly misread the film--I don't know how else to put it. The whole thing Anderson's character teaches Einbinder's is that, to properly enjoy sex, they need to embrace their own dissociation. The route to non-intellectual pleasure lies through intellectualization, not in rejecting it. The detritus of pop culture, be it junk food or junk films, is the source of both pleasure and knowledge. Self-awareness is reframed from a method of avoiding intimacy to the method of experiencing intimacy. The film is pretty explicit about all that. So why cling to a reading the film cannot be making?

And the line isn't actually about slashers. It's about sex. You'd have to believe the film were dismissing sex, too.

Seems like you do know what it means, and it's apparently 'these films have no intellectual merit and nothing much going on in them.' Which is so incorrect on the face of it that it's hard to know what to say. You keep saying variations of "this might be on me", but I don't think you really believe that.

I don't mind the rest of this post, but I do mind your saying this. I was really looking forward to this movie, saw it in pretty ideal conditions (packed house full of 20-somethings like myself, all of whom were really into it in a respectful, excited way), and had a really painful experience in the theater, but one for which I don't blame the film or Schoenbrun or anyone else but myself. I didn't like the film, I didn't respond to what I thought it was doing, and I felt alienated from my peers, all of whom were laughing at jokes I didn't find funny and responding emotionally to something that didn't move me. I really wanted to, but I didn't. I felt uncomfortable and separated from the audience, which is probably why I simultaneously felt so motivated to write a negative response to the film and why it was so difficult (personally, no one here did anything) to do. After I did, another user here reached out to express their sympathy at those feelings, which I appreciated.

So yes, I don't actually feel all that confident that my stance on the film works outside my own head (even if I don't think the substance of that critique, or my interpretation of the "flesh and fluids" line, was actually that slashers have no intellectual merit). When I kept saying that my negative response might be more idiosyncratic than I wanted it to be, I wasn't being smarmy or sarcastic or trying to prove a point. In not liking the film, I felt left out, and I would appreciate being given the benefit of the doubt when I said so. Hey, if you want, you can take my strong emotional response to the film as another point in its favor.

Sorry it rubbed you the wrong way, but you seemed so confident in your readings while at the same time saying you weren't sure. I frankly didn't know what to do with that. Again, I don't mind that you don't like the movie, it's a very peculiar one that's not going to work for everybody. But I am a bit stymied at my inability to make any inroads or seemingly get my point across. I'm not used to getting such resistance from someone who keeps saying they're unsure. And at the same time, I'm frustrated by what seems like a need to justify your negative feelings by discovering some kind of secret moral error in the film. It's not the first time, either: you found Sinners secretly racist, The Substance secretly misogynist, and now Teenage Sex and Death... secretly anti-intellectual. Seems like whenever your opinion is at an extreme enough variance from the consensus, you try to get the film to eat itself by reading it as committing the very sin it's rejecting.

You're just so off base here. No one makes a whole film about the vital importance of a horror franchise on the main characters, whose very title is flatly conceptual, whose main character ends up living out her own intellectual project and her preteen obsession simultaneously, and somehow believes slasher films are beneath intellectual notice. Surely you see how unlikely that is?

[Never Cursed]

I'm sorry for frustrating you, but I think we're talking past each other at this point, and I'm not enjoying it anymore (like I've been saying, my fault, not yours). But I can respond to what you've said.

Spoiler

Let's eschew the "flesh and fluids" line (and I don't think it's a defense to say that it's really about sex, as even if it is, we're back to the same sex-is-violence thing) and go to the other thing you've brought up. I don't think we agree as to what Anderson and Einbinder's sexual gratification-by-dissociation is employed to mean in the film - in brief, you're taking it as a sign of accessing pleasure through intellectualization, where for me it's the exact opposite, a conscious choice to detach from reality and let go of the words that help explain it. The dissociation that the two employ is spectatorship and self-objectification through another's eyes (again, note the mocking running "Ray Blanchard" reference through the film, naming a quack academic sexologist who postulated that trans women are "autogynephiles," or aroused by the idea of themselves as women) rather than self-awareness. They do not imagine themselves, but rather, Little Death gazing at them. On the basic level of invoking academic concepts, this is a performance of intellectual interest, but I don't think it uses the ideas coherently. I think the film is aware of all these concepts, but neither relates nor distinguishes them well, even while paying endless lip service to the methods by which films function. Spectatorship and self-objectification are meaningfully distinct from dissociation and fantasy, and they connote different things, especially when it is women/femme/trans people that are being gazed at. I agree that taking one line out of context and examining the whole movie through it as a lens would be an unfair and unproductive method of reading a film. But a lot of separate elements within the film cohered in my viewing to suggest an unintentional anti-intellectualism: the aforementioned categorical slipperiness in the context of voluminous, encyclopedic technical and theoretical film knowledge; the repeated name-checking of a bigoted, anti-trans academic as author of queer sexual fantasies; the mockery of creative conceptualization and theorization as anathema to creativity and pleasure alike (putting the words inherent to those practices in the mouth of a confused filmmaker and her evil, money-grubbing superiors). I know what the film is saying it's doing. But what is it doing?

I'm frustrated by what seems like a need to justify your negative feelings by discovering some kind of secret moral error in the film. It's not the first time, either: you found Sinners secretly racist, The Substance secretly misogynist, and now Teenage Sex and Death... secretly anti-intellectual. Seems like whenever your opinion is at an extreme enough variance from the consensus, you try to get the film to eat itself by reading it as committing the very sin it's rejecting.

Okay, but all of these movies at least attempt to demonstrate some kind of strong moral compass (anti-racism, anti-misogyny, pro-queer-self-discovery), thus opening the success of these efforts to criticism? Two of these (the Schoenbrun being the exception) were quite openly attempting to make political statements using their main characters. I've seen and discussed plenty of movies that I've hated that didn't inspire strong moral or political reactions. I'd say my reaction to Sinners and Camp Miasma were relatively similar, in that I thought they were well-intentioned movies whose conceptual incoherence and general poor quality of writing led them to say things counter to their stated intentions. (Though Jane Schoenbrun is a MUCH more talented filmmaker than Ryan Coogler - someone ought to give them Sinners-level money to make a big swing, even if I end up hating it as much as this). I think it is very easy, on the other hand, to make the case for The Substance as a giddily and intentionally misogynistic film. Brian C did as much in the dedicated thread when he observed that the movie hates "everyone and everything." So I don't really see the pattern that you are describing.

It also disheartens me to read that you think I am "trying" to get movies to do anything, particularly to destroy themselves with their own strengths. I promise you, I'm not "trying" to make them do anything. And if it somehow pertains to "the consensus," what was the "consensus" on The Substance, and what is the "consensus" on this film that just came out and which I didn't read any reviews of prior to the writing of my first post?

[Mr Sausage]

I'm sorry for frustrating you, but I think we're talking past each other at this point, and I'm not enjoying it anymore (like I've been saying, my fault, not yours).

It's gotta be at least partly my fault. You're hardly to first to not enjoy arguing with me! I can get pretty fired up in these kinds of arguments, so if I'm being unpleasant, apologies.

Spoiler

Let's eschew the "flesh and fluids" line (and I don't think it's a defense to say that it's really about sex, as even if it is, we're back to the same sex-is-violence thing) and go to the other thing you've brought up. I don't think we agree as to what Anderson and Einbinder's sexual gratification-by-dissociation is employed to mean in the film - in brief, you're taking it as a sign of accessing pleasure through intellectualization, where for me it's the exact opposite, a conscious choice to detach from reality and let go of the words that help explain it. The dissociation that the two employ is spectatorship and self-objectification through another's eyes (again, note the mocking running "Ray Blanchard" reference through the film, naming a quack academic sexologist who postulated that trans women are "autogynephiles," or aroused by the idea of themselves as women) rather than self-awareness. They do not imagine themselves, but rather, Little Death gazing at them. On the basic level of invoking academic concepts, this is a performance of intellectual interest, but I don't think it uses the ideas coherently. I think the film is aware of all these concepts, but neither relates nor distinguishes them well, even while paying endless lip service to the methods by which films function. Spectatorship and self-objectification are meaningfully distinct from dissociation and fantasy, and they connote different things, especially when it is women/femme/trans people that are being gazed at. I agree that taking one line out of context and examining the whole movie through it as a lens would be an unfair and unproductive method of reading a film. But a lot of separate elements within the film cohered in my viewing to suggest an unintentional anti-intellectualism: the aforementioned categorical slipperiness in the context of voluminous, encyclopedic technical and theoretical film knowledge; the repeated name-checking of a bigoted, anti-trans academic as author of queer sexual fantasies; the mockery of creative conceptualization and theorization as anathema to creativity and pleasure alike (putting the words inherent to those practices in the mouth of a confused filmmaker and her evil, money-grubbing superiors). I know what the film is saying it's doing. But what is it doing?

Not only have you still not found any meaningful anti-intellectualism (category slippages and lack of coherence it is not), this is the third time you've buried that criticism in a dense description of all the conceptual material the film's working with. I wonder if you realize how often that's been happening. I think you ought to let that criticism go. It's founded mainly on an early conversation where one character, who at that point comes across as a charming kook, teases another character, which you've then spun out into a widespread mistrust of anything the film is doing, including some good natured poking fun at itself. If you can't distinguish a movie having some good natured fun at its own expense from genuine anti-intellectualism, you've lost your sense of proportion.

It also disheartens me to read that you think I am "trying" to get movies to do anything, particularly to destroy themselves with their own strengths. I promise you, I'm not "trying" to make them do anything. And if it somehow pertains to "the consensus," what was the "consensus" on The Substance, and what is the "consensus" on this film that just came out and which I didn't read any reviews of prior to the writing of my first post?

"Try" is a figure of speech. I don't actually think you, Never Cursed, can literally make a film do anything. By consensus I just meant the widespread praise and acclaim all three films have received (or at least in the Schoenbrun's case, one packed audience which you felt alienated from). Nothing more than that. As for Brian C, he argued The Substance was misanthropic, which was very different from your moralistic condemnation. But I didn't much understand his complaints either: poisonous satires have a long history in art. Does he feel the same about Gulliver's Travels or Miss Lonelyhearts? They're twice as poisonous as anything in the Fargeat. The Swift even has quite a go at ivory tower intellectuals--I wonder if you'd find it anti-intellectual, too! I found the whole 'flappers' segment pretty funny myself.

I guess what I'd like from you is slightly more charity and a lot less suspicion. Teenage Sex and Death... may well be an impenetrable goofy mess with nothing novel or interesting to say. I can respect that position and wouldn't care to argue about it too much. But I can say with certainty that the movie is not, unintentionally or otherwise, anti-intellectual in any sense of the term I understand. That's a claim I'll fight you on. And I've got a lot of energy for that kind of argument.

[The Narrator Returns]

I’ll say that Never Cursed is not alone in having a strong negative reaction to this, I’ve seen some really disheartened reactions from previously some of Schoenbrun’s biggest boosters (I was told at least one of them was a regular on the “Jane Schoenbrun Fan Discord” lol). It may very well either resonate hard and deep like the other Schoenbruns (I’m fairly certain it has, awaiting a rewatch in the next few days) or play like a grotesque parody of what once was resonant. Like there’s a percent chance anyone seeing it will get the “soup party” version.

[The Narrator Returns]

I’ll say that Never Cursed is not alone in having a strong negative reaction to this, I’ve seen some really disheartened reactions from previously some of Schoenbrun’s biggest boosters (I was told at least one of them was a regular on the “Jane Schoenbrun Fan Discord” lol). It may very well either resonate hard and deep like the other Schoenbruns (I’m pretty certain it has, awaiting a rewatch in the next few days) or play like a grotesque parody of what once was resonant. Like there’s a percent chance anyone seeing it will get the existentially dispiriting “soup party” version.

[Never Cursed]

It's gotta be at least partly my fault. You're hardly to first to not enjoy arguing with me! I can get pretty fired up in these kinds of arguments, so if I'm being unpleasant, apologies.

No, it's me. I would have more of an appetite for this if other stuff wasn't keeping me on my toes and the experience of watching the movie hadn't been so uncomfortable. I'm sure I would be more forgiving of the movie if I had enjoyed it at the immediate level - found it funny, notably well-made (well, it is pretty, so I can give it that - the matte paintings are nice).

As for Brian C, he argued The Substance was misanthropic, which was very different from your moralistic condemnation. But I didn't much understand his complaints either: poisonous satires have a long history in art. Does he feel the same about Gulliver's Travels or Miss Lonelyhearts? They're twice as poisonous as anything in the Fargeat. The Swift even has quite a go at ivory tower intellectuals--I wonder if you'd find it anti-intellectual, too! I found the whole 'flappers' segment pretty funny myself.

I mean, Brian C did say that the movie was "disgusted by the women it portrays," so I feel safe calling his take both moralistic and anti-misogynist. And I wouldn't have so much hate for The Substance (or Camp Miasma) if it were as funny as Gulliver's Travels! Let's say that my job requires me to know a fair bit about eighteenth-century England and what the Royal Society did then, so I can say with certainty that, in Swift's case, distrust of intellectuals and academics in that context was quite well-earned. If you read what people working in what we might call the harder sciences were up to at that point, you might well feel compelled to caricature them as trying to extract sunbeams out of cucumbers or treating indigestion by using bellows anally - you wouldn't be that far off!

I’ll say that Never Cursed is not alone in having a strong negative reaction to this, I’ve seen some really disheartened reactions from previously some of Schoenbrun’s biggest boosters (I was told at least one of them was a regular on the “Jane Schoenbrun Fan Discord” lol). It may very well either resonate hard and deep like the other Schoenbruns (I’m fairly certain it has, awaiting a rewatch in the next few days) or play like a grotesque parody of what once was resonant. Like there’s a percent chance anyone seeing it will get the “soup party” version.

And for what it's worth, I still value Schoenbrun as a filmmaker and want them to get the opportunity to do more. As much as I did not like the movie, they should be given the opportunity to take even bigger swings with more money!

And Christ, the "Jane Schoenbrun Fan Discord". Not in a million years.

[Mr Sausage]

I’ll say that Never Cursed is not alone in having a strong negative reaction to this, I’ve seen some really disheartened reactions from previously some of Schoenbrun’s biggest boosters (I was told at least one of them was a regular on the “Jane Schoenbrun Fan Discord” lol). It may very well either resonate hard and deep like the other Schoenbruns (I’m pretty certain it has, awaiting a rewatch in the next few days) or play like a grotesque parody of what once was resonant. Like there’s a percent chance anyone seeing it will get the existentially dispiriting “soup party” version.

Interestingly, I was chatting with one of the badge-holders at Fantasia who goes every year, and he said Miasma was getting universal positive acclaim, which is rare for the festival. And sure enough everyone else I talked to just adored it, and my screening was booming with laughter and cheers. I actually went in expecting not to like the movie (the trailer and the goofy bluntness of its central metaphor had me worried), but I was completely taken with it.

Let's say that my job requires me to know a fair bit about eighteenth-century England and what the Royal Society did then, so I can say with certainty that, in Swift's case, distrust of intellectuals and academics in that context was quite well-earned. If you read what people working in what we might call the harder sciences were up to at that point, you might well feel compelled to caricature them as trying to extract sunbeams out of cucumbers or treating indigestion by using bellows anally - you wouldn't be that far off!

Oh, cool! If you ever feel like it, I’d love to hear more about what you do and all the lunacy that came out of the Age of Reason.

[The Narrator Returns]

And for what it's worth, I still value Schoenbrun as a filmmaker and want them to get the opportunity to do more. As much as I did not like the movie, they should be given the opportunity to take even bigger swings with more money!

If nothing else, this told you that there’s reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last.

And Christ, the "Jane Schoenbrun Fan Discord". Not in a million years.

It’s not exactly “I wouldn’t be a part of any club that would have me as a member” but an online space of only people who attached hard to We’re All Going to the World’s Fair is more than a bit skin-crawling. Maybe there are a few there like me who just want to talk about “E-Bow the Letter” and Foxfire (1996).

[Never Cursed]

And for what it's worth, I still value Schoenbrun as a filmmaker and want them to get the opportunity to do more. As much as I did not like the movie, they should be given the opportunity to take even bigger swings with more money!

If nothing else, this told you that there’s reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last.

I'm blanking on this, what is this from?

[domino harvey]

It’s a Counting Crows lyric

[Never Cursed]

Ah, gotcha. For those not playing along at home: the song is in this movie

[The Narrator Returns]

It’s a big part of probably the key scene, which makes Jack Haven two-for-two with Schoenbrun for really throwing you for a loop at a time when you could either lock in or shut off from it.

[therewillbeblus]

And what a wonderful scene that is! I’m speechless right now and it’s late, but Mr Sausage’s first post explaining the themes is a terrific read and sums up some of my thoughts better than I could. It will take several more viewings to unpack the depths of my feelings about this complex piece of art, though I think it's operating on a wavelength that's far more esoteric than the film’s wide popularity suggests. I appreciated when they rejected that it was purely “meta” within the film because while it is playing with that, it’s also sincere in its feelings about art’s impact on us in a way that transcends intellect - which fits thematically, but even beyond that in its rich textures. It’s a film that I honestly found frustrating from an analytical standpoint, but that's kind of wonderful, literally so. It evoked similar emotions in me as I Saw the TV Glow that I think indicate broader themes than many people give these films credit for, including some of their most vocal supporters who seem to also crave more concrete and narrow readings