Review
by Scott Lefebvre
Let me begin this
review by stating that I had a lot of trouble reviewing this book.
I've got nine little notebook pages of notes that I'm going to try to compress
down into something readable. Ready? Go!
First, allow me to
address the style and format of the book.
The author is presumably British, and the book presents a British perspective, which aside from some differences in spelling and usage of common words (i.e.: gas vs. petrol) means little, except the author often mentions the films in light of the "Video Nasties" an infamous list compiled as a result of the B. B. F. C. [British Board of Film Classification] which unilaterally banned the importation for distribution or public screening of a short list of horror films deemed too inappropriately shocking for public consumption.
Aside from being British, which I do not hold against him, the author seems to have a certain noticeable awkwardness in putting together sentences and paragraphs. The paragraphs are not logically sound. They do not flow smoothly from concept to concept in a progressive manner. And there are also noticeable grammatical problems that could have been corrected with a run through a word-processing program. "However, it did also seemed that even Freddy Krueger was losing his charm." Is that even a sentence? Spelling and grammar people, please.
The first 60 pages (one third of the 192 page book!) are occupied by the author's undergraduate collegiate quality essays. Leaving the other two-thirds of the book for the film reviews which are the strength of the book. [I use the term "strength" lightly, considering the "reviews" are highly opinionated, and often disparaging, which is confusing to me, considering that the author claims to be a fan of "low-budget / low quality", slasher/exploitation films.] In the essays, the author has a curious manner of introducing a concept and then presenting examples that are contrary to the very concept he introduces, instead of presenting examples that support his concept.
In his essays, the author provides a simplified, opinionated, history of the evolution of the slasher film genre. The author’s essays are more notable for their exclusion of popular theories, rather than their inclusion of a variety of theories.
The author touches on building a case for the "final girl" theme through the history of slasher films, as well as the interchangeability of settings and methods of murder. Although these are interesting ideas, the author fails to follow up with any convincing support for his ideas, and often weakens his proposed ideas by presenting more examples that contradict his concept, and failing to present many, or sometimes any that support his conclusions.
The author does mention the convention of the sexually frustrated killer using the knife instead of the penis, but only briefly. The "rise of the repressed" theory is presented, but changed into the "revenge" motivation where the killer is taking revenge for a past deed. Also mentioned by the author as the "sins of the father" theory for the killer's motivation. And regarding the identity of the killer, the author posits that "In the wake of The Exorcist it seems that only women are susceptible to possession by evil spirits.", but includes a review of "A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge" wherein Freddy attempts to take over Jessie's body. One wonders if the author reviewed his essays with any serious effort, or was satisfied with having written them for publication.
Then there is the notable absence of critical theories advanced in horror film criticism such as the feminist "male gaze" and "virgin/whore paradox" theories; the concept of "wound culture" discussing cinematic evisceration as a way for our culture to deal with its ideas on death and the boundary of the flesh as a barrier between the interior and the exterior.
Nor does the author discuss the concept that the power which makes the horror hero/villain exceptional also makes him an outsider, a mainstay of the Universal Monster films, and easily transferrable to slasher films. How many women in the audience would want to be rescued, how many want to be captured? How does one explain the attractiveness and popularity of such exceptionally evil and ruthless murderers? What is the fascination of the side-by-side mixing of sex and murder / arousal and violence? These are all interesting questions that the author is noticeable deficient in addressing.
It becomes apparent that the author thinks that John Carpenter's "Halloween" is the best of the genre, but then why isn't that on the cover instead of a poster for a Lucio Fulci film, when the author makes it a point to mention that he will not be covering the Italian giallo films? A peculiarity of the author’s selection for inclusion also reflected in the almost complete absence of Asian films. The criteria used to determine the inclusion of some films, and exclusion of others is not clear. None of the "Psycho" series is mentioned, and the many films based on Jack the Ripper are also notably absent. Some absences are to be expected. Half of the pleasure of the self-proclaimed horror film enthusiast as reviewer is to point errors and omissions. But it was nice to see mention of the often overlooked films Black Christmas, Final Terror, and Just Before Dawn.
To his credit does broaden the theme from just covering the usual ground of "the Fridays, the Freddys, and the Halloweens" but falls short of being what the author seemed to aspire to; a critical introduction followed by a solidly representative sample of the type of films discussed in the introductory critical essay section. Speaking of the standard franchises, the author's multi-page summaries of "the Fridays, the Freddys, and the Halloweens" are brief, succinct, and readily useful if you need to a quick reference for brief synopses of those films.
In conclusion, the introductory essays may be useful if you have never read anything about the critical theory discussing slasher films, but anyone that has studied the interpretation of the overt and underlying meaning of slasher films will find the arguments superficial and not well-defended.
This book is more useful as a sourcebook for slasher film viewing suggestions, rather than an actual guidebook to the genre. Useful as an introductory text, but likely to seem slim fare for self-proclaimed horror connoisseurs.
The author is presumably British, and the book presents a British perspective, which aside from some differences in spelling and usage of common words (i.e.: gas vs. petrol) means little, except the author often mentions the films in light of the "Video Nasties" an infamous list compiled as a result of the B. B. F. C. [British Board of Film Classification] which unilaterally banned the importation for distribution or public screening of a short list of horror films deemed too inappropriately shocking for public consumption.
Aside from being British, which I do not hold against him, the author seems to have a certain noticeable awkwardness in putting together sentences and paragraphs. The paragraphs are not logically sound. They do not flow smoothly from concept to concept in a progressive manner. And there are also noticeable grammatical problems that could have been corrected with a run through a word-processing program. "However, it did also seemed that even Freddy Krueger was losing his charm." Is that even a sentence? Spelling and grammar people, please.
The first 60 pages (one third of the 192 page book!) are occupied by the author's undergraduate collegiate quality essays. Leaving the other two-thirds of the book for the film reviews which are the strength of the book. [I use the term "strength" lightly, considering the "reviews" are highly opinionated, and often disparaging, which is confusing to me, considering that the author claims to be a fan of "low-budget / low quality", slasher/exploitation films.] In the essays, the author has a curious manner of introducing a concept and then presenting examples that are contrary to the very concept he introduces, instead of presenting examples that support his concept.
In his essays, the author provides a simplified, opinionated, history of the evolution of the slasher film genre. The author’s essays are more notable for their exclusion of popular theories, rather than their inclusion of a variety of theories.
The author touches on building a case for the "final girl" theme through the history of slasher films, as well as the interchangeability of settings and methods of murder. Although these are interesting ideas, the author fails to follow up with any convincing support for his ideas, and often weakens his proposed ideas by presenting more examples that contradict his concept, and failing to present many, or sometimes any that support his conclusions.
The author does mention the convention of the sexually frustrated killer using the knife instead of the penis, but only briefly. The "rise of the repressed" theory is presented, but changed into the "revenge" motivation where the killer is taking revenge for a past deed. Also mentioned by the author as the "sins of the father" theory for the killer's motivation. And regarding the identity of the killer, the author posits that "In the wake of The Exorcist it seems that only women are susceptible to possession by evil spirits.", but includes a review of "A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge" wherein Freddy attempts to take over Jessie's body. One wonders if the author reviewed his essays with any serious effort, or was satisfied with having written them for publication.
Then there is the notable absence of critical theories advanced in horror film criticism such as the feminist "male gaze" and "virgin/whore paradox" theories; the concept of "wound culture" discussing cinematic evisceration as a way for our culture to deal with its ideas on death and the boundary of the flesh as a barrier between the interior and the exterior.
Nor does the author discuss the concept that the power which makes the horror hero/villain exceptional also makes him an outsider, a mainstay of the Universal Monster films, and easily transferrable to slasher films. How many women in the audience would want to be rescued, how many want to be captured? How does one explain the attractiveness and popularity of such exceptionally evil and ruthless murderers? What is the fascination of the side-by-side mixing of sex and murder / arousal and violence? These are all interesting questions that the author is noticeable deficient in addressing.
It becomes apparent that the author thinks that John Carpenter's "Halloween" is the best of the genre, but then why isn't that on the cover instead of a poster for a Lucio Fulci film, when the author makes it a point to mention that he will not be covering the Italian giallo films? A peculiarity of the author’s selection for inclusion also reflected in the almost complete absence of Asian films. The criteria used to determine the inclusion of some films, and exclusion of others is not clear. None of the "Psycho" series is mentioned, and the many films based on Jack the Ripper are also notably absent. Some absences are to be expected. Half of the pleasure of the self-proclaimed horror film enthusiast as reviewer is to point errors and omissions. But it was nice to see mention of the often overlooked films Black Christmas, Final Terror, and Just Before Dawn.
To his credit does broaden the theme from just covering the usual ground of "the Fridays, the Freddys, and the Halloweens" but falls short of being what the author seemed to aspire to; a critical introduction followed by a solidly representative sample of the type of films discussed in the introductory critical essay section. Speaking of the standard franchises, the author's multi-page summaries of "the Fridays, the Freddys, and the Halloweens" are brief, succinct, and readily useful if you need to a quick reference for brief synopses of those films.
In conclusion, the introductory essays may be useful if you have never read anything about the critical theory discussing slasher films, but anyone that has studied the interpretation of the overt and underlying meaning of slasher films will find the arguments superficial and not well-defended.
This book is more useful as a sourcebook for slasher film viewing suggestions, rather than an actual guidebook to the genre. Useful as an introductory text, but likely to seem slim fare for self-proclaimed horror connoisseurs.
Related
Links:
Headpress: www.headpress.com
Headpress: www.headpress.com
No comments:
Post a Comment