Black Christmas (2006), Capitalism and Family
Lauren Hanon: Christmas is more about warding off evil spirits than Halloween. What Christmas [poop] in this room resembles anything Christian, huh? It's all neo-pagan magic. Christmas tree, a magical rite ensuring the return of the crops. The mistletoe is nothing but a conception charm. Fifth century Christians jacked a Roman Winter Festival - twelve days in December when the nights were long and the Earth was ruled by the demons of chaos. And [flipping] Santa Claus? This fat voyeur that watches you all year long to make sure you live up to his standards of decency before breaking into your house. And that is different from what Billy did, how?
One last point about unicorns. There is a flipping weird scene where one of the more awkward sorority sisters, who also doubles as a red herring, hands Kelli a gift. Nervously, Kelli unwraps the gift and finds a glass unicorn head that of course gets used as a stabbing device later in the film. The rationale that the weird girl provides for the choice of gift is, “I know you like the bible and stuff.” This line is a trip. Simultaneously, the bible justification echoes in two directions at once. First, it asserts Kelli as the purified and ripe to be the virginal and morally pure final girls, and it pokes a hole in the relevance of the bible role in the capitalist tradition of Christmas. Zizek argues:
According to a well-known anthropological anecdote, the "primitives" to whom one attributed certain "superstitious beliefs," (that they descend from a fish or from a bird, for example), when directly asked about these beliefs, answered "Of course not - we're not that stupid! But I was told that some of our ancestors effectively did believe that..." - in short, they transferred their belief onto another. Are we not doing the same with our children: we go through the ritual of Santa Claus, since our children (are supposed to) believe in it and we do not want to disappoint them; they pretend to believe not to disappoint us, our belief in their naivety (and to get the presents, of course), etc. And, furthermore, is this need to find another subject who "really believes," also not that which propels us in our need to stigmatize the Other as a (religious or ethnic) fundamentalist"? In an uncanny way, some beliefs always seem to function "at a distance": it is always ANOTHER who believes, and this other who directly believes need not exist for the belief to be operative - it is enough precisely to presuppose its existence, i.e., to believe in that there is someone who really believes. (Source: Slavoj Zizek)