Known for her bold and provocative short films, Norwegian trailblazer Emilie Blichfeldt is turning heads with her defiant take on a familiar tale, The Ugly Stepsister. Inspired by the Grimms Brothers original classic, Cinderella, director Blichfeldt’s impressive debut flips the script on its head by telling the story from a different perspective. Starring the transformative Lea Myren as Elvira, the soon-to-be step sibling, the wallflower finds herself closer to her ultimate fantasy than she ever thought possible when her mother’s marriage to a man of nobility results in an invitation to the royal court’s ball shortly thereafter. Determined to earn the Prince’s affection at any cost, the film follows Elvira as she navigates the murky waters of societal expectations, and the ways in which women bend and twist their bodies to gain a sense of acceptance amongst their peers.
Citing David Cronenberg as a major influence on her filmmaking style, director Blichfeldt has coined her own term for her work, which she refers to as “beauty horror:” an idea that female identifying individuals often turn to bodily mutations as a solution for their perceived flaws and shortcomings. Doubling as commentary, the biological abnormalities in her filmmaking serve as startling conversation pieces. Centered around individuals trapped within an environment that places a strong emphasis on physical appearance, the debate lies in how they choose to navigate certain specific forks in the road. In short, the filmmaker hopes to put an end to the idea that “beauty is pain.”
BUST was fortunate enough to sit down and speak with the first time filmmaker about her brilliant new movie, which lands in theaters this weekend. In the interview, Blichfeldt discusses the original inspiration behind her unique take on a beloved fairytale, why she believes female filmmakers deserve to add to the conversation surrounding body horror, choosing to opt for more difficult, in-camera practical effects as opposed to adding VFX in post, and her decision to embrace her sexuality through her own heightened perception of feminism.
BUST: First of all, congratulations on an incredible film, and probably my favorite iteration of Cinderella. How much did you debate what kind of movie you wanted to make for your debut feature?
Emilie Blichfeldt: That was actually not so hard, because I got this idea in film school, the last year. And when I got it, I knew – the second I woke up after this, I got it in my creative lab – so I was working on my exam thesis, and I took a nap, and then I imagined my character that I was working on, who did not fit within the beauty standards and stuff, like two meters tall and quite chubby, but beautifully so, but she doesn’t know it, that she was Cinderella, and fit the shoe, and then realized on the way to the castle, that the prince and her, they see that, ‘Oh, there’s blood in the shoe.’ I guess this character, she was really in love with this guy and I guess like the dream was about her. Hoping so much that she would be the one chosen by him, but then she realizes that to fit within this beauty ideal, she had to cut off her toes to fit that shoe. And when I woke up, I was in shock, because for the first time, I had been in the stepsister’s shoes, pun intended, and had sympathy for a character I’d never before had sympathy for. And I immediately recognized myself in her. I have shoe size eleven myself, and have lived under the burden of feeling ugly. So, I knew that this was potentially a film that a lot of people would go to see because they know the story, and also that by twisting what people know about the story I could really talk to something that is very important to me as a filmmaker.
Is that sympathy what led you to flip the script and tell the story from the stepsisters’ perspective, or in your own words, what was it that made you want to take on that different vantage point?
When I got the idea, it was all about being the stepsister. That’s what I understood, you know, that I’m a stepsister. There is only one Cinderella. The rest of us struggling to fit the shoe are stepsisters. And it’s this totally universal character that has been overlooked, ridiculed and she’s really the most relatable character. Somehow, there’s also some internalized self-hatred in me, seeing the other versions of Cinderella, and laughing at the girl with the big feet and the big nose, and I thought that was just such a strong kind of truth that I’d never seen before. Also, her chopping off her toes was such a crazy action, but that I could really relate to, being willing to do almost anything to fit in with the beauty ideal. I just thought that was brilliant and important, and potentially a great cinematic experience. So I just dived in and went for it really hard. It’s been my life for the last eight years. I never look back.
Obviously, your movie is inspired by the Grimms Brothers classic fairytale, but also by many other iterations of Cinderella from many different parts of the world. What aspects of the various iterations of this fairytale, that you can remember, stood out to you as important and worthy of inclusion in your interpretation?
So of course there’s the Brothers Grimms version, and then of course there’s the Disney version, and then we have a Czech version that we see every Christmas in Norway and in Germany, it’s called Three Wishes for Cinderella. It’s a seventies version, which is beautiful, and so camp, and so, there’s a lot of that in there. I also decided not to revisit the stories too much, because I didn’t want to be like a good schoolgirl that did everything correctly. I thought it would be more interesting to just take away the things I would remember, and even allow myself to remember it wrong, because then you choose only the iconic bits, and all the logical stuff, all that just disappears. You don’t get so caught up by doing it the right way.
What is it about body horror that stands out to you? For a long time, body horror movies have been a category dominated by male directors.
I love so many movies made by male directors. I think the films are amazing in that way, that you can take on other people’s experiences, across gender, and race, and all of that, and really sympathize. That said, of course, I would love to see more female filmmakers, because it’s also something special when you can have your own experience, or very close to your own experience, in the cinema. So, David Cronenberg has been a big, big thing for me for a long time. He’s really the one who showed me what gore and splatter can be used as a way of storytelling in an elegant, funny, know, meaningful way. Ever since I fell in love with him, I’ve wanted to make a body horror myself, but I always go with a story or idea first, so not just, ‘I want to make a body horror, what can I make?’ So, I was just so excited, because I understood the second that I got the idea that it was a body horror. And then I had to just dive even deeper into that.
Much like Cronenberg, your bodily transformations carry deep meaning with them. How did you aim to use body horror to serve as commentary for your characters’ perceived flaws and dilemmas?
I knew it was a potential for real body horror because the image of cutting off your toes to try to fit an impossibly small shoe is just such a crude, but great image of what it is to try to fit within beauty ideals. It’s an impossibly small shoe. It does only fit one woman.
I have this rule that I could only put it in there if it really carried meaning, or really told the story. For example, the tapeworm. I did research on different beauty methods within the age of humans. The tapeworm, I really wanted to have something with a tapeworm, because it has to do with weight loss, or eating, or starving, and all of that, which I think is for many women and men, a big thing about trying to fit within a beauty standard. But I couldn’t just let her swallow the egg and then just get skinny, because that would not carry. That was just something that happened. It didn’t carry meaning for me that much, other than people could maybe relate. And then I thought, ‘Okay, it’s too bad that we never see the worm.’ And then I was like, ‘Oh, but what comes in must eventually come out, right?’ And then I kind of had my ending, which I thought was great.
I also immediately saw the potential for it to carry a meaning that is very important to me, which is like the first part of the movie: Elvira is subject to people, or others’ gaze, and others’ objectification of her, and she’s a victim. Then, she gets this egg from Sophie von Kronenberg, and that’s the first time she chooses, or does an action of her own will – and you know let’s not talk about free will, that’s too hard – but that’s the action she does for herself. For me, that’s when she chooses to internalize the objectification and starts self-objectifying. And then this self-objectification eats her up, both literally and metaphorically, from the inside. I think the audience also really feels this, that she has almost made a deal with the devil, and she has this monster inside of her that you can’t wait to get out.
Yeah, absolutely. It’s intense. Can you talk a little about your special makeup and effects? They look spectacular. What made you opt for in-camera practical effects?
Oh, thank you so much. As a movie lover myself, that’s the technique I respond the most to, and then I had to try to intellectualize that, to make sure that I got the money for what I wanted to do, so they also understood it. First of all, the actor has something to act to in the room, right? And you can know if it’s right or wrong, because it’s all there, together, and it’s not something that comes later and is put on top of it. Also, I think with VFX, it’s too perfect, and often it has this gloss or this flatness to it, and it often lacks faults or grits or weird stuff, right? Like when you puppeteer a worm, it will have weird movements, and somehow, that’s more true, because the world is crooked and weird and gritty and all of that.
I also really like practical effects because you can kind of see that they’re effects. You can see that they are practical. That demands the audience sign a contract with the film, that I know this is not for real, but I will opt into it. There’s suspension of disbelief there, which I think is great, because if it seems too real, you can’t deal with it somehow. It makes you unsure of yourself, of the movie, everything. Also, leaning into the aesthetic part of it, choosing a different color of the blood. It’s not the realistic blood that most movies do. We made one that was a bit more like a dark pink color. I just didn’t want it to be like, ‘Oh, there’s blood and then you faint’. I wanted to create something that people could maybe see that it’s fake, but it’s done beautifully. That allows you to look at it and really enjoy it.
What was the most challenging scene to film, and how did you conquer that obstacle?
Oh, we had so many challenging scenes, because we shot the film in twenty-eight days. That means like the whole ball, every ball scene, is shot in two days. Not the flower dance thing, that was also the whole thing of its own. For every body horror scene, we used a whole day, and that leaves like ten days for the rest of the movie. So, we were really scrambling for time.
Although the practical effects and body horror scenes were a lot of fun to shoot, it was intense, because we needed the performance from the actors, of course, and then also, all the technicality of the body horror. Chopping the toes, we used the whole day. We were so behind. She hadn’t even gotten her toes off for lunch. Because Lea had so much practical makeup on, she had longer days than the others, so we either had to start without her or finish without her. So for the last part of that scene where she faints, and then her mother and her sister are cutting off her toes, all of that is shot without her on set. There’s just like a stand-in with fake feet, because we had to let her go.
I’m very curious about your use of sexuality in your film. You don’t shy away from nudity, even male nudity, which I personally feel evens the playing field a bit, because it puts a male actor in the same vulnerable position that so many actresses have been in, which if anything, just feels kinda fair? I mean, in your own words, how does your representation of sexuality speak to your perception of feminism?
I love erotic movies, and I think it’s because I was a late bloomer myself. I was trying to figure out what is sex, and what are people doing. My friends were doing it, and I had no idea how to start doing it, or what they were doing. So instead of porn, I watched erotic cinema, which I think is a much better way of doing it. I’m still fascinated by it, especially as a young woman trying to find my sexuality. I think even in the most intimate space between just you and your boyfriend, still the idea of being an objectified woman, or not just the idea, but the fact that your sex is viewed upon as this object, can also influence that space a lot.
As a female filmmaker, of course, I’ve seen a lot of male gaze, and I have no disrespect for the male gaze. I love seeing male gaze, or let’s say, objectifying in cinema, I’m not against that. It’s just a long time that it’s only the male gaze that’s been represented. And I think as a woman, a female filmmaker, I really want to try to open that space and give another gaze on objectification, and not just reproduce the male gaze, because there’s so many erotic movies for women, where the woman is still so much an object of desire. Like in Fifty Shades of Grey, the fantasy you’re sold is to be the hot woman that a hot guy wants, right?
But I wanted to really, with Elvira, be just the voyeur. That the woman seeing the sex, having the gaze, is actually not exposed at all. And she also has the same cravings as me. Like, she has no idea what sex is, and that Cinderella sexual act is an act that shocked both me and Elvira, and I guess, the audience as well. I wanted to make a very shocking sex scene, because it’s shocking, but also to make it a bit like Sex Ed. So it’s like, here’s a vulva, here’s a penis, and then this is how it works. That was a long answer, but I love that you asked me this, because I think it’s such a, especially now, in this time, where more and more people talk against objectifying in cinema, I think that’s such a pity, because it’s totally normal to objectify. It’s a part of what we do as erotic beings. And if we don’t make erotic cinema, porn is the only place where you can see human bodies in action.
Absolutely. Just to wrap up real quick, what would you say that you’ve learned about yourself as an artist while working on this film?
Oh, wow. That’s a big one. I feel the biggest gift this movie has given me is that I can trust myself as my first audience, whatever I make. So if I want to make a shocking sex scene, and I think it’s shocking, it’s gotta be shocking for the audience,or if I want to make something that’s funny, I can trust my humor, and it will be funny for those who get my humor. I think for next time, I’m just gonna lean even heavier into that because as a first time filmmaker, you can have this feeling that, ‘Hm, are they gonna get that?’ But I think where the movie really slams is where I’ve been the most faithful to my own ideas, or lusts, we would say in the region, like where you crave, what I myself prayed to see somehow.
Top Image Credit Marcel Zyskind
