Open Peer Review Vol.21 N.1

The language of rage

Alison Peirse

Section: Video Essays / Videoensayos

Reviewer A (pre-evaluation):

Please, comment on the most relevant aspects (positive points and areas to improve) of the reviewed article.

This video essay describes the strong emotions felt while watching specific horror films, particularly those that portray women facing challenges and defying societal norms. These films resonate with the creator, as they capture the intense feelings and empowerment experienced by the female characters, even though the depicted violence itself may not be relatable. Through this expression, the creator highlights the emotional journeys of these women and their refusal to conform, aiming to illuminate the impact of these portrayals on the audience.

Would you suggest any changes or make any recommendations to improve the quality of the article?

It must be anonymized: 

1) The written statement includes the name of the author both in the body, and in the footnote (affiliation, email, and ORCID)
2) the videoessay includes the name of the author in the credits (min. 2:43)

 

Reviewer B:

Please, comment on the most relevant aspects (positive points and areas to improve) of the reviewed article.

Though 'The Language of Rage' begins with multiple overlapping voice overs in 6 languages, the work swiftly transcends any need for lingual comprehension (of any spoken language), instead focusing on something more universally understood, something depicted in the behaviours and expressions of the women in the chosen film clips. The language of this video essay is evoked through bodies and expressions, through action and reaction, and, as the author suggests, through refusal and rage.

What I find most arresting in this work is the palpable rhythm of the piece; manifested in the pace of the edit, in the choice of music, and in the carefully chosen film clips. The video essay charts a cycle of female rage, from tamped down accommodation through explosive release to a new state of equilibrium. And in the careful crafting of this piece, we as viewers are invited to feel the rage, a roaring release which is less about the individual films included here and more about the author's desire for us to feel as they do, to embody their understanding of the language of rage. And in the final clip from Julia Ducournau's 'Raw' (2016) I sense there is the hint that the cycle of rage will repeat itself, over and over again.

Would you suggest any changes or make any recommendations to improve the quality of the article?

The author notes that they continue to be asked the question 'Why horror film?' I think there is an opportunity within the written statement to offer the reader/viewer some more insight into the recent work they refer to here that has been done by feminist scholars on horror cinema. A brief reflection on some of this work might help direct the reader/viewer towards a better understanding of the distinct value of this scholarship.  Minor note - the statement also notes the inclusion of a filmography and though this does appear at the end of the video essay, it would be helpful to have it also included with the statement.

 

Reviewer C:

Please, comment on the most relevant aspects (positive points and areas to improve) of the reviewed article.

What *is* the language of rage? This video essay provides a tapestry of sources that develop a deep and rhythmic response. The language of rage deepens as the clips that make up the essay come forth in different languages and forms: this is important, as the essay takes on the idea that rage extends beyond the canonical and even beyond the usual forms of violence. Rage is not just a pitchfork, it is the response -- the *feel* -- to, as Ahmad says, the "no that happens over and over." By layering that question both in the voiceover and the images themselves of different languages, "The Language of Rage" provides a powerful, affirming take on how emotion and action can traffic together to establish agency.

Would you suggest any changes or make any recommendations to improve the quality of the article?

The video portion of the submission is great -- although it is worth mentioning that it would likely need Spanish subtitles as well and, if so, that might affect the placement of the Ahmad quote on the screen. That's something to at least consider.

The written statement as it currently stands, however, is somewhat confusing. The first section mentions the two talks that inspired this current submission, particularly their emphasis on language and sound; the second section notes the desire to incorporate elements of the talks into their own work. But then the third section does not address either to these topics, heading almost entirely into "the feel." I wonder if the original references in the first section are necessary.

I suggest one of two approaches. The more interesting one would be to rework the third section to more fully engage with the inspirations from the first section. This would have the added benefit of deepening the concept of "feel" as something that has more teeth, The other option would be to simply remove the first section, as the piece could stand alone without it -- although the statement might then read a little thinly.

Editorial Recommendations:

Dear Alison, your submission was received enthusiastically by our evaluators. Congratulations! It's a very important contribution to the field of horror genre, and to the topic of women's rage.  No changes necessary for the video essay. It's outstanding. However, we would like you to consider the following recommendations for the written statement:

-You continue to be asked the question 'Why horror film?' There is an opportunity within the written statement to offer the reader/viewer some more insight into the recent work you refer to here that has been done by feminist scholars on horror cinema. A brief reflection on some of this work might help direct the reader/viewer towards a better understanding of the distinct value of this scholarship.
-the statement notes the inclusion of a filmography and though this does appear at the end of the video essay, it would be helpful to have it also included with the statement.
-Reorganize the structure of the written statement to avoid confusion: The first section mentions the two talks that inspired this current submission, particularly their emphasis on language and sound; the second section notes the desire to incorporate elements of the talks into their own work. But then the third section does not address either to these topics, heading almost entirely into "the feel." Are the original references in the first section necessary? Two approaches to solve this issue. The more interesting one would be to rework the third section to more fully engage with the inspirations from the first section. This would have the added benefit of deepening the concept of "feel" as something that has more teeth, The other option would be to simply remove the first section, as the piece could stand alone without it -- although the statement might then read a little thinly.

The text included some modifications before publication