Short film about an incel

I have written several times before about the so-called ‘incels’ (which stands for involuntarily celibate) who blame everyone else but themselves for the fact that women do not want to have sex with them even though they think that they deserve it. Their frustration has led some of them to go on murderous rampages.

Via Andrea James, I came across this tense short (about 14 minutes) film about an incel.

Oddly enough, Brett Kavanaugh’s statement to Fox News that he was a virgin until well beyond his college years has increased his support among some incels, though some fear that since the world of ‘normies’ (that’s you and me in incel-speak) hates incels, this revelation may harm his nomination.

But other incels say that despite retaining his virginity into his late twenties, he is not one of them. They see him as one of the despised ‘chads’ (their name for good-looking, partying, jocks), the type who cornered the market on ‘stacys” (attractive women) leaving none left for the incels.


  1. sonofrojblake says

    I suspect there’s some confusion here. The anti-hero looks European. The villain is clearly East Asian.

  2. Mano Singham says

    I am not sure about who you are labeling the anti-hero and who the villain.

    The guy who accosts the woman in the library looks white to me while his room mate looks East Asian.

  3. sonofrojblake says

    I am not sure about who you are labeling the anti-hero

    /baffled face/. There are only three characters in the whole thing, and the female one could only be charitably referred to as “the victim”, having no agency of her own whatever. That leaves just two.

    Antihero (n): a protagonist who lacks the attributes that make a heroic figure, as nobility of mind and spirit, a life or attitude marked by action or purpose, and the like. Clearly describes the entitled asshole who is the subject of the film -- the protagonist, the figure with whom the audience is invited to identify. To be absolutely clear since this seems to be an issue: the antihero is the white character called Sam played by Theodore Pellerin.

    Villain: (n)
    (1) a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel.
    (2) a character in a play, novel, or the like, who constitutes an important evil agency in the plot.
    Again, to be absolutely clear, the villain is played by John Y. Li and is of visibly east Asian origin. The character is even called “Chad” to denote his villain status (how many east Asian college students are actually named “Chad”?) and his dialogue as written clearly demonstrates evil agency.

    How did you miss this?

  4. John Morales says


    How did you miss this?

    How? Dunno how, but I know why: because we all think differently, and you’re indeed different as am I.

    (As are we all! 😉 )

    For example: To me, there was a protagonist, and also the other people in his world.
    Annoying people. Part of the protagonist’s story, as told, but about as relevant as the availabilitty of guns. Just things and circumstances that exist, like the object of his affection.

    Or: for me, it was about him and his obsession, not about anything else other than context. Their parts in the narrative were incidentals in his life, like the scenery.

    (Obviously, I’m me just like you are you, so my opnion matters certainly no more than yours)

    Interesting, though, that both you and they speak in terms of other archetypes, as if they were present.

    The character is even called “Chad” to denote his villain status […]

    Um, film about incels — you really don’t think it’s a nod to the nomenclature?

    Were it so, it would be knowing of the producer, no?

  5. John Morales says


    Obviously, the girl was not just annoying like the rest (at best), but indeed perverse. Foolish, too.

    And hey, worthless life, glorious death, so make the most of it, no? Why wouldn’t anyone in that position?

    (I get the video)

  6. sonofrojblake says

    we all think differently

    Well, yes. But films aren’t all structured differently, otherwise they wouldn’t function as works of mass media entertainment. And this film is very conventionally structured -- there’s a protagonist who in this case is conventionally anti-heroic, there’s an antagonist who is clearly by his dialogue established as evil, and there’s a victim whose function is to establish the protagonist’s anti-heroic credentials. All of this is the sort of thing even little kids understand -- it’s not complex or layered or different in any way, which is why I’m baffled at the difficulty people, you included, appear to be having with its interpretation.

    >>The character is even called “Chad” to denote his villain status […]
    >Um, film about incels — you really don’t think it’s a nod to the nomenclature?

    The film is not just about incels. Obviously you missed that. The nomenclature is the only reason the name on its own denotes villain status, but that’s not the only clue. The dialogue clearly establishes evil intent. You’d miss that if you thought of everything except the protagonist as “scenery”, just a sequence of colours and shapes and noises with no significance of their own.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *