Editor’s Note: The following are spoilers for Bones and All.
If you find yourself rooting for young leads at heart Luca Guadagninoromantic horror Bones and All despite their heinous deeds, you were not alone. The film succeeded perfectly as a love story about two outcasts who manage to find comfort and acceptance in each other. For now Bones and all wants to be about something more than that. These outcasts aren’t just ordinary teenage runaways; they are cannibals. They exist on the periphery because they have a compulsion to kill and eat other people, and they make no effort to resist this compulsion. This setting gives the film the opportunity to explore some complex and interesting moral questions, but in the end, the little research it does is just superficial.
At the beginning of the movie Maren (Taylor Russell) or (Timothy Chalamet) infiltrate the slaughterhouse where Lee worked during the summer to steal petty cash. While there, Lee leads Maren to see a pen where cows are kept waiting to die, constantly mooing in distress. As they inspect the doomed animals, Maren asks Lee if he ever thought that each of these cows had a mom, dad, friends. Lee agrees, adding, “Language.” The obvious point here is that cattle are not that different from humans and vice versa, and the film seems to present an interesting topic: is it ethical to eat a cow whose inner life is filled with the capacity for emotions and attachment to others, then why is it not ethical to eat human? Or maybe it’s not ethical to eat animals at all? The scene leads us to believe that the film will address these and similar questions, but instead the story quickly moves on to the next adventure in the nascent romance.
Unanswered questions about the morality of cannibalism
It becomes a pattern to introduce interesting moral arguments that could be compelling themes, and then immediately discard them. We see another example in the bathing scene (which the incomparable Michael Stuhlbarg manages to steal in just a few minutes of screen time). Jake, Stuhlbarg’s character, loves to eat, but his cop friend Brad (David Gordon Green) eats people for pleasure, not out of necessity. This revelation disgusts Maren, but why? This reaction is especially puzzling after her comments about cows. The vast majority of people who eat meat (especially in rich countries) do so for pleasure, not because it is necessary for survival. Maren also thinks this is reprehensible? It seems not, at least based on the fact that she has no problem with Lee working at the slaughterhouse.
What’s more, she and the other eaters clearly enjoy eating human flesh and seem to make no effort to stop doing so. What is so problematic in the choice of Brad, from the point of view of Maren? Again, the movie has a chance to go deeper, look at the difference between survival food and pleasure food, and why one can be more problematic than the other, especially when it comes to eating meat. But instead, he drops the dot and moves on.
Missed Opportunities for Moral Introspection
Perhaps the most egregious missed opportunity comes after Maren and Lee discover that the carnival worker they killed had a wife and children. The couple convinced themselves that victims without families are less dangerous - ignoring the fact that just because a person doesn’t have a spouse or children living with them doesn’t mean they don’t have anyone to take care of them. (and even if they don’t, that doesn’t mean their life is priceless). Maren is horrified when they arrive at the man’s house and see a troubled wife with a baby in her arms and a phone pacing in front of a brightly lit window. However, she is also distressed to find that she has no remorse. She is wants feel something, she says, but doesn’t.
At this point in the film, the viewer can expect Maren to be introspective. Why doesn’t she feel remorse for killing people? Does that make her a monster? If she wants to feel remorse, then she hasn’t completely lost her humanity. Should she make a serious effort to resist being forced to eat? But Maren and the film don’t stop to ponder these ideas.
Interestingly, of all the eaters we meet in Bones and allthe one depicted as the most monstrous is the only one who has overcome his food compulsion, albeit at great cost: Maren’s mother, Janelle (Chloe Sevigny). After going to an institution where she could no longer harm others, Janelle ate her own hands before she was finally given enough medication to no longer pose a threat. She made the ultimate sacrifice, and the film could have benefited from a deeper look at her story and her decision to withdraw from society and give up her ability to kill. The contrast between her choice and Maren’s choice to continue eating could pose an interesting dilemma that needs to be explored further: if this is a consequence of resisting your compulsion to eat, can you expect someone else to make that choice? If it’s true that Maren’s compulsion will only increase with age, will she be able to continue living the way she is now? How many lives is one life worth?
Instead, the film presents Janelle as a grotesque but pitiful monster who tries to kill her own daughter with her teeth. And while this can be interpreted as an act of heroism, since she knows her daughter is the killer, this is not the case in the film. This turns the attack into a panic and directs all our sympathy towards Maren.
The very act of consumption brings with it many complex moral issues, especially the act of consuming other beings. With the added complicating factors of history, tradition, social norms, and religious precepts, it’s no wonder so many of us have such a confusing relationship with food. A film about beautiful young cannibals who are forced to hunt like predators but who have the rational ability to think about the ethics of their actions could be a brilliant vehicle (pardon the pun) for fleshing out these themes.
But Bones only scratches the surface of these issues, hinting at them but never fully exploring them. And that raises another question: why would the characters engage in such depraved acts if the movie isn’t going to explore what that means? There are many reasons why Maren and Lee may be outcasts, rejected by their families and society - this image has been used dozens of times in other films. If the film doesn’t explore the ideas that arose from their actions with any real depth, then ultimately cannibalism feels out of place.
Source: Collider
