Writer/director Guerrilla Metropolitana set out to make a film that disturbs, and he largely succeeds with The Benefactress: An Exposure of Cinematic Freedom. This is a film that exists purely to push the boundaries of filmmaking. It’s psychologically discomforting and feels very much like a snuff film. That’s the point.
The writer/director’s intentions are stated from the outset, and it’s mentioned that a wife of a powerful American evangelical pastor gave Metropolitana funding to make the movie, with the condition she’d appear in the film via livestream. She does indeed appear, naked except for a gimp mask. The major donor is given the alias Elektra McBride. The point here is to highlight that those quick to ban work like Metropolitana’s secretly enjoy it. In this case, the donor literally gets off on what transpires during the course of the film. It underscores the hypocrisy in rather extreme and bold fashion.
After McBride’s involvement is made clear, the film’s main actress, who goes by the alias Juicy X, appears in front of the camera, confessing she was sexually abused by the writer/director when she worked on his short film. Yet, she believes directors can push actors and, in this case, she wants to transcend the limits of acting. She also notes she’s called Juicy X because of her large breasts. This film is about as anti-PC as you can get.
From there, the film contains no narrative and largely operates in experimentation. For a little more than half the runtime, Juicy X sexually abuses and rapes a victim simply called Mystery Woman. This is extremely difficult to watch, and it goes on and on and on. In fact, it left me feeling queasy. I struggled frequently to keep watching. While I get what the writer/director is trying to do here, and while I hope the small cast, especially the Mystery Woman, knew what they signed up for, this feels too much like a snuff film and very little else. I’m not exactly a prude, either. I understand pushing the limits and boundaries of filmmaking and pointing out the hypocrisy of self-proclaimed evangelicals and the elite, but couldn’t that have been done without focusing on sexual abuse?
I even wondered if the intention was to address concepts of voyeurism and the thin line between porno and erotic art, especially considering some of the experimental camera angles the film uses. But that feels like grasping for straws, and if that is one of the film’s intentions, I’m unsure that’s clear. The film is a rough and punishing ride.
The Benefactress: An Exposure of Cinematic Freedom aims to offend and even comes with trigger warning, rightfully so. I do commend Metropolitana for underscoring how those quick to ban lewd art often enjoy it and sometimes, even fund it. Yet, this film contains sexual abuse that’s stomach-churning. I couldn’t wait until the credits finally rolled.
