Picture: YouTube
Show Hide image

Are we failing to protect the child stars of YouTube?

Laws and regulations protect traditional child performers from exploitation. But on YouTube, young stars have no such guarantees.

A nine-year-old girl who is estimated to be worth £3.2m sits in a high chair, sucking on a dummy. She imitates a baby for her 7.1 million YouTube subscribers, playing with toys and wailing on the ground. Later, her mother puts her in a pram and gives her an oversized milk bottle, before taking her to a toy store. There, the mother and daughter act out a skit in which they argue.

“Your poop was disgusting, you’ve been eating far too much chocolate… and do you know what, I’m going to show you,” says her mother. She pulls out a nappy that appears to be full of faeces – though the video title assures the viewer it is chocolate – and shoves it in the nine-year-old’s face. The video has over 86 million views.

In another video, a different child YouTuber is seen with chocolate smeared on her pyjama bottoms, imitating using the toilet. Presumably-fake faeces are smeared around the lid of the toy toilet and the child picks up and throws some of the poo. Another, similar video sees a mother again placing a nappy full of fake-faeces in front of a child’s face as the child feigns disgust.

The thumbnail for this video prominently features the fake poo, and the tags for the video (words its creator labelled it with to help people searching for videos online) include: “bad baby”, “gross”, “poo”, “disgusting”, “crybaby”, “messy toilet”, and – very lastly –“family fun video”.


Professor John Oates is the founder of the British Psychological Society’s Media Ethics Advisory Group. He and his team of psychologists work with traditional broadcasters to advise on whether their programming is ethical, which often involves safeguarding children and young people who are involved in productions. His advice is taken seriously by the traditional media.

“At least a couple of productions recently have decided not to go ahead, so we’re happy about that,” Oates says, although he explains that the body is only advisory so can’t outright veto productions. “We also offer quite strong advice on how things can be modified… for example making sure children aren’t on set for sensitive scenes and are filmed separately and reconstructed in later.”

Ways in which Oates and his team safeguard children include ensuring the child is consenting to what they’re doing, providing access to a psychologist to asses harm or provide aftercare, and making sure the child isn’t exposed to illegal or socially unacceptable behaviour. The Media Ethics Advisory Group is often sent scripts to check before a production has begun, meaning they can help prevent anything unethical getting off the ground.

“No, no way, no,” says Oates when I ask if his team would have signed off on the video described above, in which the child YouTuber acts like a baby and is shown fake faeces. “First of all, it was infantilising the child… the girl in the highchair pretending to be a baby, a little bit of that is OK, that’s part of a child growing up, but to infantilise a child in that way [shown in the video] I think is excessive, excessive.”

Oates questions how the many other child stars of similar videos – which are called “bad baby” videos and are exceptionally popular on YouTube – will react to this footage as they age. Alongside these stars, YouTube has an array of child celebrities who feature in toy-related videos and unboxing videos (where a star opens up a product on camera), as well as daily vlogs (where a family film their lives for YouTube). Many family vloggers have millions of subscribers and share the most intimate details of their children’s lives, in many cases including their actual births. Some mothers film themselves breastfeeding their children – some as old as four – for the site. 

“There’s the question of what the child will think of these materials, which are there for all time basically, when they’re older and when they have a better capacity to judge ... what they were induced to engage in,” says Oates. He believes there is the “potential” for long-term psychological harm, as well as a possibility these children will be bullied as teenagers.

At present, Oates is developing the Media Ethics Advisory Group’s most comprehensive guidelines to date. When I ask if he’s considered writing guidelines for user-generated content such as these YouTube videos, he say’s “not as yet”.


In the United Kingdom, when a child is going to take part in a traditional performance (be that TV, film, theatre, paid sport, or paid modelling) they are required to get a licence from their local authority. A licensing officer will ensure the child is safeguarded before permission is granted for them to perform.

“The regulations do cover those types of activities [YouTube videos starring children]. The problem is how we on local authorities would police those activities,” says Gareth Lewis, the chairman of the National Network for Children in Employment and Entertainment (NNCEE).

Although the latest child performance licensing legislation published in 2015 states it “does not extend to user generated content”, Lewis explains that Section 37 of The Children and Young Persons Act 1963 (which the 2015 legislation supplements) could be used to regulate people under 16 taking part in certain performances on YouTube.

“We do occasionally issue performance licences for young people [on YouTube] and I’ve carried out inspections of young people who are taking part in vlogging,” says Lewis, who also works as a child licensing officer for Cheshire West and Chester Council. He explains YouTube licenses are only issued occasionally because applications are only made occasionally. “As you can appreciate, if somebody is in their home address, behind closed doors, talking about what they’ve done at school today or being part of a family where mum and dad are constantly recording the whole of the family for YouTube… it’s very, very hard for us to police that.”

Legally, parents who film their children for YouTube should contact their local authority for a licence, but Lewis says not many YouTube parents do so. The NNCEE has reached out to Viral Talent, the UK’s biggest talent agency for child YouTube stars, but to date they have not received a response. Viral Talent, who represent some stars who film “bad baby” videos, did not respond to a request for comment before this article’s publication. 

Britain's biggest vlogging family, the Saccone-Jolys, say they stay in contact with their local authority. They are represented by an agency called Gleam, and film daily vlogs with their children, as well as the occasional music video (they do not create “bad baby” videos). “The safety and well-being of our children is of absolute priority at all times,” says Jonathan Saccone-Joly, who runs the channel. “As their parents we are always constantly conscious of making sure that they are happy and healthy. In addition, we make sure that we are aware and adhere to all guidelines set out in relation to children working in entertainment. We remain in close contact with our local authority and the NSPCC and we will continue to support campaigns and causes that fight for the health and wellbeing of children.”

Lewis explains that not all child YouTubers would fall within the remit of regulations, and the issue is complicated by the vast variety of creators and content. Those who are acting out a script or skit, or being directed by a parent, are more likely to fall under the regulations than family vloggers who “film in their own home doing their own every day-to-day activities” like the Saccone-Jolys. A commercial backer is often taken as a sign that a production is more official. Like older YouTubers, many children on the site are sponsored by brands to speak about products, or create scripted advertisements – something Lewis says should require a licence.

Before issuing a licence, a licensing officer will make sure the performance is legally compliant, and that the child is safeguarded from harm and feels positively about the performance. When it comes to “bad baby” videos like those described above, there could be remit to refuse a license. “If I wasn’t happy with the content then I personally would refuse to issue a performance license and if needs be I would seek further guidance from maybe child psychologists or other people to get their advice on the potential for any psychological harm for children later on in life,” Lewis explains.

Yet Lewis emphasises that one of the great difficulties in regulating this area is that judgement falls on each local authority, meaning whether a licence is needed or not is “down to their interpretation of the regulations”. He says the NNCEE is “aware it’s a growing problem” and it is currently being dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

When asked if there are any plans to create specific regulations or guidelines about YouTube child performers, he says “not at the moment”.


In Channel 4’s reality television programme The Secret Life of Five Year Olds, young children are filmed going about their daily lives. The production company involved described the process of getting the children’s consent as “extraordinarily in-depth and thorough”, and a child psychologist was involved during recruitment. Nonetheless, last year academics from the department of law at the University of Winchester published a report about the show, concluding that additional legal and ethical safeguards are needed to protect the privacy and interests of children in traditional broadcasts.

“At least they’ve got some kind of regulations, whereas the children of YouTube don’t,” says Rachael Hendry, a third year law student at the University of Winchester who was involved in the research and recently co-authored a report on the state of children’s privacy online. Hendry’s dissertation, “A critical discussion on the involvement of children in family ‘vlogging’ YouTube channels, and the extent to which this infringes their privacy”, will explore whether children in YouTube families need greater safeguarding.

“You need a third party, some sort of children’s ombudsman that can represent [the children],” she says. As well as privacy protection, Hendry believes the children of YouTube may need greater financial protection, so that they are guaranteed a cut of the money they help their parents earn via YouTube adverts. “Without the children they couldn’t class themselves as family vloggers – they couldn’t make the money that they do.”

Hendry emphasises that many existing laws fail to protect YouTube children in the same way as traditional celebrities. Last year, the Supreme Court banned the British media from reporting on a high-profile celebrity’s sexual encounters for fear of how the news would impact their children. Earlier this year, by contrast, an American family vlogger was caught sexting a woman that wasn’t his wife. Screenshots of the exchange were shared on social media and the story made local and British national news.

It will take time for legislation to be changed to truly consider the children of YouTube, but a regulatory body could arguably be created tomorrow. Ofcom, the body responsible for regulating the UK’s TV, radio, on-demand, and broadcast services, presently do not have regulatory powers over YouTube. Ofcom’s power comes from legislation, which would have to be changed in order for YouTube to come under its jurisdiction.

When asked whether it had considered regulating in this area, the Department for Digital Culture, Media and Sport – who earlier this year launched an Internet Safety Strategy to keep children and young people safe online – said the issue did not fall within their remit. 


Earlier this week, the writer James Bridle wrote a Medium post complaining about how weird content on YouTube could affect child viewers. The article discussed content on the site that is disguised as children’s content but is often highly disturbing in nature, and Bridle theorised this could damage children watching at home. Yet the children who potentially face the most psychological damage are the stars of such videos.

It seems impossible – often undesirable – to regulate the internet. Yet if the British government can plan to put age verification on all online porn, couldn’t they protect the comparatively few UK-based YouTube child stars? A regulatory body could work on a complaints basis, meaning it wouldn’t be necessary to screen the millions of videos uploaded to YouTube from the UK, but merely have a recourse to investigate any that were troubling. The lack of regulation in this area has already failed children in America, with YouTuber DaddyOFive losing custody of two of his children after he was filmed abusing them in “prank” videos.

In many ways, this isn’t a new problem. Winnie The Pooh author AA Milne was famously resented by his son, Christopher Robin, for basing his children’s stories and poems on him. Other children would relentlessly mock and taunt Christopher in the playground. He starred in picture books which have sold over 70 million copies in 91 years. The child YouTuber who acts in the scatological skits referenced at the start of the article has accumulated 4,857,422,248 views in two years. 

YouTube is aware of the issues surrounding its child stars and constantly evolves its policies. Last night, it announced to The Verge that it has updated its policies to crack down on inappropriate content targeting children. Although this is great progress, once again policies seem to protect the child viewer over the child star. Although children under 13 are not allowed to create a YouTube channel, parents are allowed to film their children freely. The site does have a privacy complaints process, so theoretically when a child gets older they could ask for videos that were uploaded by their parents to be removed. 

For the time being, the responsibility lies with parents themselves to decide whether or how they should film their children. The consequences of this lack of regulation will most likely become apparent in a decade, when YouTube’s child celebrities have grown up. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.

Clockwise from top left: Moonlight, Phantom Thread, Call Me By Your Name, The Shape of Water
Show Hide image

The hand that feeds: how food scenes became the home of intimacy, sex and power in film

While food in general has been a big part of film over the past two years, it’s feeding scenes that stand out: from Phantom Thread’s BDSM omelette to Moonlight’s diner meal.

When was the last time somebody fed you? Not the last time your friend invited you round for dinner, or your partner cooked something delicious and romantic that you ate together. Not the last time you went to a nice restaurant and your date scooped a forkful of their meal into your mouth. When was the last time someone lived to serve your appetite, and your appetite alone?

Being fed is something that happens to people in an infantilised state. It suggests vulnerability. In this way, it is deeply, sometimes overly, intimate. When one person is eating and another isn’t – particularly in a sit-down, food-focused setting – traditional social dynamics become imbalanced, like being stark naked next to someone fully clothed, or a singer performing for an audience of one. As such, being fed can sit on a knife-edge of power dynamics: sometimes maternally nourishing, sometimes romantically intimate, sometimes exposing and uncomfortable. As a visual expression of the complexities of relationships, and with our need for food so often functioning as a metaphor for emotional needs and sexual desire, feeding scenes are particularly cinematic.

In fact, they are some of cinema’s most memorable: from Snow White accepting the evil witch’s apple in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs to the much-parodied food-as-foreplay sequence in 9 Weeks. I think of the sandwiches eaten early on in Psycho. When Marion arrives at the Bates Hotel, Norman Bates asks her, “Will you have supper here?” relaxing her by insisting “I was just about to, myself…” But once the sandwiches are prepared, Bates doesn’t eat. “It’s all for you. I’m not hungry. Please go ahead,” he insists. Marion, forced to eat alone, nibbles uncomfortably, and Bates watches closely. “You eat like a bird”, he says, comparing her to the stuffed birds dotted all around the room. It’s our first hint – along with his off-screen mother’s disembodied ranting about Mary “appeasing her ugly appetite with my food – and my son!” – that something is deeply wrong, as the proper dynamics of a meal are disturbed, and food openly discussed as a sexual metaphor.

While food in general has been a big part of film and film discussions over the past couple of years – from teenage girls snacking on un-consecrated wafers in Lady Bird to Get Out’s fruit loops and milk eaten (crucially, psychopathically) separately – it’s feeding scenes that stand out: from Phantom Thread’s BDSM omelette to Moonlight’s diner meal.

Perhaps no recent film privileges the role of food in relationships as highly as Moonlight (2016), which follows the coming-of-age of a gay black boy in Miami, Florida. “When it comes to food and film, its Barry Jenkins’ 2016 film Moonlight that paints food, and feeding, the most vibrantly,” Ruby Tandoh writes in her book Eat Up, in a section on the ways in which food functions as a language of caring. “The food is rich and exquisite and larger than life, but it’s not really the contents of the plate that counts. What matters, in each of these scenes, is that the meal sits there on the table between Chiron and the people who love him – a symbol of the most nurturing kind of love.” Moonlight explores the growing up of Chiron, in three acts (child, teenager and adult), and each of these acts contains at least one key scene in which Chiron is fed.

In an early scene, young Chiron (Alex Hibbert) is sat in a plasticy diner in front of Juan, a stranger who has taken it upon himself to look after neglected Chiron. Juan sits casually, a milkshake in hand, but with no food for himself, while Chiron eats his fries with a fork, quickly and silently.

“You not gonna tell me what your name is?” Juan says. When Chiron makes no attempt to reply, Juan pulls the tray out of his reach. Chrion looks down and shuffles back into his seat, still sulkily silent. Juan laughs. “Oh, man, you know I wouldn’t do you like that. Anyway, I apologize, alright? I’m just trying to get you to say something.”

After a short car ride, we are at home with Juan and his girlfriend Teresa. Juan and Teresa have no plates before them, but are both watching Chiron silently make his way through a plate of chicken. “You don’t talk much but you damn sure can eat,” Juan laughs. “That’s alright, baby. You ain’t got to talk till you get good and ready,” says Teresa. Finally, he speaks. “My name’s Chiron.” Even at this early stage in the film, the relationship between emotional and physical nourishment is clear, as food seen as a gateway to trust and familiarity.

When Chiron is older, he still relies on Teresa for this nourishment. In the film’s second act, Theresa tries to joke with a teenage Chiron (Ashton Sanders) as he eats (again, she herself does not), but Chiron, anxious and sullen, doesn’t bite, instead looking down at his plate. Theresa gently, lovingly insists he sit up and speak. “Stop putting your head down in my house. You know my rule, it’s all love and all pride in this house. You feel me? I can’t hear you. Do you feel me?”

These dynamics reappear in Chiron’s romantic relationship as a grown man. Now muscular and masculine but still shy and reserved, Chiron (Trevante Rhodes) meets up with Kevin (André Holland), the object of his childhood affections, in the diner he runs. This diner scene, for many the iconic image of the film, is stretched out until it twitches with sexual tension, full of long silences and extended eye contact, running at an almost painfully long fifteen minutes. “You ain’t changed one damn bit,” Kevin observes. “You still can’t say more than three words at a time, huh?” Without missing a beat, Chiron speaks. “You said you was gonna cook for me. I know how to say that.”

We watch Kevin prepare the chef’s special with skill and care. Kevin brings it over to Chiron in a window booth, insists they share a bottle of wine, and attentively watches him eat his meal. When Chiron drops a bit on the table, and eats it with his fingers, popping it in his mouth, Kevin laughs. “I saw that, I saw that!” When Chiron is reluctant to share more personal details of his life, Kevin refuses to let it slide. “I’ve been back there in that kitchen, man, and cooked for your ass and everything. Hey, these grandma’s rules, man. You know the deal: your ass eat, your ass speak.”

Kevin’s joking about “grandma’s rules” points towards the larger significance of Moonlight’s meals: food is the tool that allows Kevin, Theresa, and Juan to enter Chiron’s life intimately, in both parental and romantic roles. For someone like Chiron – lonely, neglected, whose appetites and needs don’t take centre stage in his own childhood home – meals like this become the times where he is most vulnerable, and most open to love.

Parallels have been drawn between Moonlight and Sean Baker’s exploration of impoverished childhood The Florida Project (2017), even by Barry Jenkins himself. Moonee, The Florida Project’s central character, is, like Chiron, the child of a single mother in desperate circumstances (they live in a $38 a night motel called The Magic Castle, near Florida’s Disney World). But Moonee’s mother Halley is more caring, and present, and is at her most nurturing when feeding her child.

In one scene, we watch from Halley’s perspective as Moonee eats her weight in food at an all-you-can-eat hotel breakfast buffet Halley has sneaked them into. Moonee wolfs down bacon and fruit and pastries, and drinks a huge glass of orange juice in a single gulp. She is thrilled: “I wish I had a bigger stomach – like I was pregnant! I could fit food in there... We’ve gotta come here again. This is the life man! Better than a cruise!” The whole scene is a performance: Halley pretends to be a normal hotel guest on holiday with her child, Moonee in turn plays up her enjoyment for her mother. But it’s a performance that allows Halley and Moonee to have a loving, normal mother-daughter relationship, even if it’s short-lived. Halley simply watches her overexcited daughter quietly, smiling beatifically. As her daughter is at her most effusive and childlike, delighting in life’s simple pleasures, Halley is at her most maternal.

Kelly Reichardt’s Certain Women (2016) can also be compared to Moonlight: here is a colder imagining of queer love in a diner. Lonely, isolated Montanan ranch hand Jamie (Lily Gladstone) falls for a young lawyer, Beth (Kristen Stewart) when she accidentally walks into her law class. After class, Jamie offers to take Beth to a diner. Over three scenes in that diner, Reichardt explores Jamie’s unreciprocated interest in Beth: in each, Beth eats while Jamie watches eagerly, ordering no food for herself.

In the first, Beth eats a sad-looking burger and complains about the long journey ahead of her. In the second, she eats a bowl of soup, while Jamie, again, only watches. Beth asks Jamie, businesslike, “Do you happen to know anyone in town who could teach my class?” Jamie chuckles sheepishly and says, “I don’t know anyone at all.” It’s overly intimate – Jamie wants Beth to ask about her loneliness. Her soft smile is the one of someone being examined by a new lover. Beth looks at her soup and asks Jamie vaguely about her job working with horses. Jamie responds with childhood anecdotes about her and her brothers sneaking out at night to ride wild horses, smiling that same embarrassed smile.

The third and final time the two arrive at the diner, it’s on horseback. Emboldened by the mere mention of her horses in their last conversation, when Beth agrees to share a ride to the diner, Jamie surprises her by bringing out her horse. The two ride the horse in silence. In the diner, biting into a grilled cheese, Beth offers Jamie some of her fries. Jamie, as ever, declines to eat, but stares unbreakingly at Beth, asking her a question that picks up on the last throwaway comment Beth made the last time they were at the diner: clearly, she’s been running that conversation over in her mind, thinking of something to ask her. It’s painful to watch such undivided, unreciprocated attentions, and Jamie’s misreading of the scene leads to an awkward declaration of feeling later in the film.

7,000 miles away, Francis Lee’s God’s Own Country (2017) too explores queer desire in an isolated, rural setting. Johnny (Josh O’Connor) is a closeted Yorkshire farm worker with a drinking problem, used to denying himself life’s pleasures. The arrival of stunningly handsome Romanian farmhand Gheorghe (Alec Secareanu) catches Johnny off-guard.

The first time they eat together, Johnny tears into a pot of instant noodles without putting a flavour packet in; Gheorghe empties his packet into his noodles quietly and slowly. They are silent and avoid eye contact. The second time, it’s early, the morning after their first sexual encounter. Gheorghe watches silently as Johnny forks noodles into his mouth. “What?” he asks, uncomfortable. “I’m starving, me.” The third time, after watching Gheorghe begin to pour his flavour packet into his noodles, Johnny holds his own cup towards him. Gheorghe shares his packet. Again, Gheorghe watches Johnny eat. Eventually Johnny is too uncomfortable under his gaze, and finishes his noodles inside, alone. But later, as their relationship develops, we see Gheorghe cook for Johnny, even tasting it and salting his food for him, and they begin to actually enjoy food together.

Shared pleasure in food as a form of romance pops up again In Luca Guadagnino’s Call Me By Your Name (2017), set in rural Italy in 1983. Oliver (Armie Hammer) and Elio (Timothée Chalamet) fall in love around the breakfast table, amongst fragrant peach trees. During their first breakfast together, Oliver begins by helping himself to an egg. He taps it with his teaspoon so violently he smashes the whole egg into a runny mess of yolk and bits of shell. The maid takes it away, he takes a second, and breaks into it with a little more restraint. Elio is eating a peach, chewing on it as his parents and Oliver chat about the fruit trees. Oliver begins hurriedly eating his egg, making appreciative noises, dripping liquid yolk all over the table, and is soon offered another. “No, no, no I know myself too well – if I have a second I’m just gonna have a third, and then a fourth, and you’re just gonna have to roll me out of here. Delicious.” Elio pauses from his chewing to watch, intently.

The next time we see Oliver eat an egg, it’s in close-up, with ridiculous squelching noises. Though Guadagnino has insisted there is nothing sexual about this moment, only Epicurean, (even insisting in his defence “We didn’t do a close-up of that”, but I beg to differ – see above), the dialogue during the scene at least links Oliver’s egg eating to sex. “We almost had sex last night,” Elio says to his father, while Oliver eats. Then adds, “Marcia and me.” Of course, it is peaches that are the film’s most sexualised food. And, as Dan Q Dao writes in Munchies, the original novel contains an even more explicit version of the scene, as Oliver eats a peach Elio has had sex with, while Elio watches.

Call Me By Your Name is not the only film this year offering audiences a sexy egg. Eggs are more deliberately sexualised in Guillermo del Toro’s The Shape of Water (2017), set in Baltimore in 1962. Every morning, cleaner Elisa (Sally Hawkins) masturbates in the bath in the time it takes her to boil two eggs to take to work. Later, when she first meets the fish-man creature the laboratory she cleans is experimenting on, she feeds him the very same eggs – which he devours with visible pleasure. Is this human feeding animal, mother feeding child, or lover feeding lover? Eggs bond them – “egg” is the first word she teaches him in sign language, and the eggs she brings him every day soon become tokens of love, as Elisa lines them up on the edge of his tank, making eyes at him.

In the film’s most unambiguous exploration of Elisa’s feelings for the amphibian man, the two sit at opposite ends of a long table, while the creature eats an entire plate of boiled eggs. As Elisa watches him eat, she sings along with the song on the radio, and the scene melts into an old Hollywood fantasy, where Elisa swirls around a stage with the creature in her arms. We cut back to the dinner table: the creature is studiously peeling his eggs, oblivious. When Elisa feeds the amphibian man, it both brings them closer together, and serves to emphasise the gulf between them in their experiences of the world.

In all these films, the relationship between food and sex is romantic, pleasant, or at least fairly safe. But in Julia Ducournau’s French film Raw (2016), food and sex are dangerously, violently linked. During an initiation ceremony at her second day of veterinary school, vegetarian Justine (Garance Marillier) is forced to eat raw rabbit’s kidneys.

It brings her out in a bright red rash – and sees her develop an insatiable craving for raw meat, sex, and even human flesh. Slowly but surely, Justine starts eating other people. As the film goes on, her primal, cannibalistic desire becomes indistinguishable from lust.

Food is dangerous, too, in Sophia Coppola’s The Beguiled .When wounded soldier Corporal John McBurney (Colin Farrell) ends up at all-female boarding school in Civil War-era Virginia, his presence is an unwanted, but nevertheless thrilling. Three dinner scenes between teachers Miss Martha (Nicole Kidman) and Miss Edwina (Kirsten Dunst) with their five pupils explore the tensions he brings into the home. In the first, the women mediate on the lessons his arrival could teach them. In the second, they are joined by the Corporal himself, each of the girls taking their moment to try and impress him. They take the odd bite of their meal, but their attentions are focused on McBurney, who is forced into a performative tummy-rubbing appreciation: “This is the finest meal I can remember”.

The third comes after McBurney has threatened, at gunpoint, to murder the women. They decide to protect themselves and dispose of him by feeding him a poison version of his favourite mushroom dish. “Corporal, we’d like to let you know that we harbor no ill feelings, and made this meal in commemoration of your journey ahead,” Miss Martha insists. As the mushrooms are passed to the Corporal, none of the girls help themselves. As he piles his plate high, the girls stare on and neglect their own plates. Coppola’s stage directions repeatedly emphasise how the women keep their gazes fixed on McBurney: “All eyes are on him”; Jane, Emily and Amy “stare”; “They all watch as McBurney eats up the mushrooms”; “The girls watch him”; “The united women calmly watch”. Of course, unbeknownst to McBurney, the intensity of their undivided attention and their own refusal to eat the mushrooms is a sign that something deeply suspicious is happening.

Ultimately, any intimate act is so because it holds a level of risk, and requires an element of trust. Here, the vague danger that comes with accepting food from another person is taken to its logical conclusion. Within a few seconds of eating, McBurney lies dead on the floor.

Strangely, The Beguiled is not the only film of 2017 featuring a woman feeding a threatening man poison mushrooms to regain control. In Paul Thomas Anderson’s Phantom Thread, the dining table at 1950s London dressmakers the House of Woodcock is as fraught as that of a Civil War boarding school. Phantom Thread explores the complexities of hunger and sexual desire perhaps more explicitly than any other film this year: at the New Yorker, Helen Rosner calls in “one of the great food movies in recent memory”. Difficult, self-mythologizing 1950s fashion designer Reynolds Woodcock has a complex relationship with his work, alternating between discipline and spontaneity, self-denial and self-expression. His relationship with food oscillates, too: sometimes it is one of control and deprivation, other times an ecstatic binge. When he is happy, inspired, or aroused, Woodcock eats with relish.

When he first meets Alma (Vicky Krieps), she is a waitress in a seaside café – from her, Reynolds orders an endless breakfast: “A Welsh rarebit. With a poached egg on top – not too runny. Bacon. Scones. Butter. Cream. Jam – not strawberry. A pot of Lapsang souchong tea. And some sausages.” She delivers it to him, along with a note: “To the hungry boy.” Food remains the sire of their flirtation and their battleground.

As Reynolds’ relationship with Alma develops, her relaxed approach to food enrages him. She butters her toast too loudly, slurps her cereal obscenely. She violates the sanctity of his breakfast by eating enthusiastically. “If breakfast isn’t right,” Reynold’s sister Cyril (Lesley Manville) explains, “it’s very hard for him to recover for the rest of the day.” When Alma brings him tea in the afternoon, he balks. “No, Alma, what are you doing? Don’t put the tray on the table, please. Just take it off. I didn’t ask for tea.” When she replies that the tea is going out, he snaps, “The interruption is staying right here with me.” When Alma rejects the conventions of the household to prepare a surprise dinner for Reynolds, he makes no attempt to conceal his disdain: “As I think you know, Alma, I prefer my asparagus with oil and salt. And knowing this, you’ve prepared the asparagus with butter. Now, I can imagine in certain circumstances being able to pretend that I like it made this way. Right now, I’m just admiring my own gallantry for eating it the way you’ve prepared it.” Perhaps their worst argument ensues.

In these moments, Alma is a nuisance, or worse, a threat to the stability and order or the House of Woodcock, forever interrupting Reynolds with inconvenient reminders of troublesome human desires: food, sex, emotional intimacy. But when Woodcock is invigorated, inspired, and happy to give in to his wants, both Alma and food become much more enticing prospects. ”Do we have porridge?” he says brightly to his cook one morning. “Do we have cream? Thick cream? That’s what I’d like. Oh, Alma, would you like some porridge?”

Ultimately, Reynolds fluctuates between desiring power and control, and desiring its opposite. Understanding this, Alma is able to slowly, carefully, become the dominant party. Of course, it’s food – and feeding – that enables her to do this. The film’s final scenes shows Alma preparing a poisoned mushroom omelette for Reynolds: that will force him back into a vulnerable, infantilised, pathetic state, and put her in the position of controlling caregiver. “I want you flat on your back,” Alma whispers, “helpless, tender, open, with only me to help.” Reynolds smiles. It’s a state he desires sexually, emotionally and physically as the film’s insistent final words make unavoidably clear. “I’m getting hungry,” Reynolds says. We cut to black.

Anna Leszkiewicz is the New Statesman's deputy culture editor.