Jennifer’s Body is argued as a testimony to the discrepancy between a film’s initial marketing and its direct content. Contemporary criticism observes the promotional factors during its release in 2009 to articulate how there was an alleged misplacement of meaning; focusing on the over-sexualisation of the plot and central character rather than its ‘credibility as a feminist undertone horror film’. Various mediums portray diverse representations of this one film with the employment of craftily used semiotics.
Magazines.
First of all, Fangoria magazine presents an extreme horror image of Jennifer’s Body to capture the interest of its horror enthusiastic audience. The denotation of the first image outlines the character Jennifer displayed with her mouth partially covered in blood that drips down onto her neck, with her sharp fangs and white eyes illuminated as the central focus. This image is purposed with encapsulating the film’s identity which connotates to a mature and gruesome exploration of women in horror, with the character being portrayed as a fearsome vicious predator. The imagery is what constructs an impression of this film as a horror due to the genre being reliant on a threat as a narrative element. The iconography of the blood and teeth signals to the standard codes of horror, conveying the film as a contribution to that genre.
The tagline “Megan Fox will eat you alive” serves as a double entendre, relating to the literal plot concept of her character eating boys alive and the figurative saying of completely immersing a potential lover for one’s own gain. This solidifies the promotion’s horror aspect in addition to the sexually devious nature of the character.
Overall, this image as a method of marketing displays a vision of gore and fear. It stands as the incorporation of horror style elements as tools for marketing to fans of this genre, even though this may not be consistent in other realms of marketing and the film itself.
Posters
However, the marketing posters found in cinemas and DVD covers conjure a completely separate image of Jennifer’s Body as the one previously explored. This marketing area diverted away from any allusion to this being an extreme horror film, instead portraying a grossly excessive sexual image of Jennifer. Denotations of this image offer shallow conclusions of sex with Jennifer displayed in a revealing outfit (that she doesn’t even wear in the film). She is seen showing skin and so connotates to a devious sexual nature as an expression of femininity; a stark contrast to the portrayal of terror and fierceness Fangoria displayed. Jennifer is paired with red in this image, similar to the magazine, however, this presentation is using red to connotate passion and seductiveness as linked to over-sexualisation, rather than representing the horror genre.
This tied with Jennifer’s position of sitting on the desk with her legs displayed alludes to an objectifying image for the male gaze; the target audience of this marketing example rather than overall horror fans. This connotates to Jennifer being the prey; a severing to her presentation in the magazine that built her as a powerful predator. One could propose that Jennifer’s characterisation has been reduced and belittled using this overt sexualisation. To display the central character has nothing more than her conventionally attractive body and sexual nature calls to an omitting of any deeper characteristics.
To conclude, Jennifer’s Body is a film that is laced over with a range of images; all signals to diverse and inconsistent meanings. The marketing’s semiotics lacks consistency and awareness, as the plot rarely aligns with the imagery used in its own promotion. One moment the film is marketed as a horror that focuses on a savage predator, and the next its style is belittled to the objectification of standard feminine beauty.