Friday, February 13, 2015


(NOTE: This edition of UNEXPECTEDLY FEMINIST HORROR FILMS is a modified version of an earlier article on Day of the Woman: "Pamela Voorhees: The Most Obvious Plot Twist of All Time.")

Before everyone's favorite hockey mask wearing mutant son began terrorizing Camp Crystal Lake, his Mommy Dearest was the original slayer of sinful counselors.  The cable knit sweater wearing killer was a mother scorned, hoping to avenge the unnecessary death of her precious son Jason.  Pamela Voorhees was dealt a rather difficult hand.  Enduring a pregnancy at the age of sixteen while residing in a trailer with a verbally and physically abusive man, her son would later be born hydrocephalic, forcing her to home-school him while she herself was still a child.  When you really put it into perspective, she had a child at sixteen without the assistance of MTV or her parents. 
 Sixteen year old girls are some of the most self-absorbed individuals on the planet, and she was responsible for raising a deformed and learning disabled child.  Jason was her entire world.  Growing up without the support or interaction with anyone other than his mother would cause a lot of psychological issues for both Jason and Pamela, and it was after his death that she began to hear the voices telling her to kill those responsible for his untimely demise.  We know this now after twelve movies, a series of novels, a line of comic books, and countless other forms of media.  But what about the original FRIDAY THE 13TH?  Without any of this back story, finding out the killer in the film that started a franchise was actually a woman was shocking for its time and still remains as one of the most "Oh shit" reveals in horror history.  While using a female reveal as a shock treatment is not the most equal of treatments, the fact that the killer remains genderless (aka-equal) until the final moments helps make FRIDAY THE 13TH unexpectedly feminist.

Flashback to good ol' 1958 when the "Camp Blood" killings started to take place, we're given a very slight, but very clear sign that the killer is a woman.  We see our unsuspecting, horny camp counselors sneaking away with the intentions to make the beast with two backs.  Their moments of passion are being spied upon by an unseen force, that makes itself known and then kills the two lovers.  When the two kids notice the figure, they immediately resort to claiming their innocence rather than showing their fear.  Right away, we know that these two personally know their assailant.  The fact that they weren't afraid of physical danger gives the impression that the two are backing away from either an adult or higher-ranked female.  Humans respond differently to adults in power depending on their sex.  We worry that our mothers will yell at us and that our fathers will take a belt to our asses for being disobedient.  Or, if we want to go by the famous Margaret Atwood quote, ""Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."  Definitely so for 1958 before the "don't beat the children" PC way of mind came to fruition. Historically speaking, in 1958 men of authority were allowed to physically punish those beneath them, while women were in a position of trying to be doting and compassionate.  It isn't until the knife is shown that either of the counselors show any sort of life-determining fear.  However, the films of this time hadn't really ever shown a female killer, so the audience assumes the person behind the killings is a man.

The first casualty of the Camp Crystal Lake re-opening belonged to kitchen helper, Annie.  She doesn't even make it to the camp when she meets her maker.  Although the 1970s/1980s were a time where hitchhiking wasn't viewed nearly as dangerous as it is now, Annie isn't an idiot.  When she is first given a ride closer to the camp, she's in the car with a man.  The things they talk about are a bit more gruesome and sarcastic (the camp's history, mild banter about intelligence) but she gets in the car with this stranger after given the sense of security from the other diners that he's an okay guy.  Once he drops her off, she's later catches a ride from an unseen individual driving a jeep.  Once she gets in the car, her demeanor completely changes.  She becomes more smiley (if that's even possible) and begins talking about children and her dreams.  The person in the car clearly looks like someone that would agree with her discussion of "I don't like when people call them kids" or she wouldn't bring up the conversation.  Not to mention, her body posture completely changes into a far more relaxed position in the vehicle compared to the closed off position she previously held while in the truck with the man.  It isn't until the unseen driver begins speeding that she looks anything but calm.  After jumping out of the vehicle and being chased through the woods, she even pleads with her captor and keeps a very calm and solemn voice.  It sounds very similar to the way children cower in fear towards their mothers, rather than aggressively panic from their fathers.  Yet, audiences are still convinced the killer is probably a big, scary, man.  Anything men can do, women can do?

There are mentions of "fires" at the beginning of the film, and psychologically speaking, women who commit arson are almost always motivated by revenge.  Moving through the film, we see other characteristics that showcase Mama Voorhees to clearly be a female killer. All of the male "slasher" killers were all big fans of the "slash and dash" method of killing, but instead of just slash and dashing up her victims, Mama Voorhees was very calculated.  All of her kills were carefully constructed and executed perfectly.  There were no victims stabbed once and running to hide in closets with clothes hangers.  There was no opportunity to escape her carnage.  Once she had you in her sights, she was taking care of business.  It's the idea of planning and plotting that we normally see with final girls like Nancy Thompson using for survival, but instead used in to take out the victims of Pamela Voorhees. We don't often see this behavior from male killers, but we definitely see it from Pamela Voorhees.  The only time she ever "slips up" is when she gets too distracted talking about her baby boy and why she couldn't let the camp re-open.  If she wasn't so entranced with the love of her son, Alice never would have escaped.  Perhaps my favorite tactic used, is when she even went as far as impersonating the voice of a child in order to lure out one of her female  victims, knowing that she wouldn't be able to ignore a crying child.
Someone never listened to TRAPT...
Considering this was one of the first times we were introduced to a "final girl" character, the audience, male and female, is viewing the film through the lens of Alice, a woman.  Meaning, all of the characters are forced to identify with her struggle, regardless of their own gender.   "But, but, all of the women who die in FRIDAY THE 13TH are punished simply for not being good girls!"  True, but all of the men who die in FRIDAY THE 13TH are all murdered for the exact same reason.  This isn't a film where only promiscuous females are murdered, promiscuous males are murdered just as quickly.  Like most slasher films, FRIDAY THE 13TH is a morality tale, but the archetypal stock characters seen in latter slasher films hadn't been established quite yet.  The male counselors and the female counselors are all on an even playing field, and I'd predict that had a male character been the "moral" one instead of Alice, he would have made it out alive just the same.  It may have taken until Part 4 for a male to be the sole survivor, but FRIDAY THE 13TH was heavily inspired by John Carpenter's HALLOWEEN, and it was almost a standard to have a female victor over a male villain.

Tuesday, February 3, 2015


John Carpenter arguably created his masterpiece with THE THING. Although it remains within the science fiction subgenre, THE THING also falls within the same realm as a monster movie or a body-horror film. Considering the main antagonist of THE THING, is non-human and the rest of the characters are male, many people forget that THE THING is also a great example of feminism.  By definition, feminism the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.  Emphasis on EQUALITY.  The patriarchy (or a male-dominated society) doesn't just hurt women, it hurts men.  John Carpenter's THE THING is an excellent film to analyze masculinity in a patriarchal society.

The story of John Carpenter's THE THING follows a group of Americans studying in the Arctic tundra that come across a group of Norwegian soldiers chasing after a dog.  After the Norwegian helicopter traveling to destroy the dog explodes, the Americans take the dog as their own without any explanation as to why the Norwegian’s were chasing the dog in the first place.  Shortly after, the Americans investigate the Norwegian’s base camp only to discover the mutated remains of what appears to be two individuals.  Simultaneously, the dog they have brought to their camp mutates, attacks the other dogs, and attacks the crew coming to destroy it.  The Americans find themselves in the midst of an invasion from an alien capable of imitating other life forms and attacking anything that attempts to stop it.

The men in THE THING can safely be assumed to be very masculine characters.  As many of them are soldiers or working for the military, their livelihoods alone give the impression that all of these men would identify as masculine.  However, not all of the men in John Carpenter’s THE THING are completely devoid of feminine qualities.  In the original screenplay, Bill Lancaster’s character descriptions note that many of the male characters aren’t completely alpha-males.  An alpha-male is defined as the individual in the community with the highest rank.  In order for there to be a hierarchy, there must be a system of classification. For instance, the character Blair is described as “sensitive”, Palmer is said to have “slight sixties acid damage” and Norris is suffering from “an incipient heart condition”.  With Lancaster choosing to showcase these men as imperfect and vulnerable, it allowed for a ranking system.  To contrast from the vulnerable men, the character Childs was described as “Six-Four. Two-fifty. Black. A mechanic. Can be jolly. But don’t mess.”  These words clearly showcase Childs as the epitome of an alpha-male character, leading the audience to immediately associate him as a leader, and a force to be reckoned with.

RJ MacReady, the undisputed leader of the film is originally seen isolated from the rest of the group in a shack.  This action shows that MacReady is the lone wolf separating him from the rest of the pack, establishing his dominance through distance.  Speaking ethnologically, alphas may achieve their status by means of superior physical prowess and/or by way of social efforts and building alliances within the group.  This sort of classification would lead Childs towards being the alpha-male, but as MacReady doesn’t follow through the traditional norms, it allows him the potential for achieving alpha-male status.  At this point of the film, the exposition alone has already set a hierarchy that would normally remain unchallenged if it were not for the intrusion of the “thing”.  The male community remains unfazed after interacting with the Norwegians, as the American male community was associating with a Norwegian male community.  This further emphasizes the sociological definition that masculinity is not barred by cultural differences.  The men are comfortably living in their hierarchical stasis with no real need to try and change their positions.  Once the “thing” is presented into their environment, the hierarchical positions begin to change drastically.  As previously stated, many times alpha-males will attempt to gain status by violent means.  The question remains, why would the “thing” act as such an impacting variable?  If masculinity is a direct response to femininity, and the struggle for alpha-male status is a power struggle for men when their positions are questioned, it would only be assumed that the “thing” is of a female species.  The male gender is a control in this environment, and only violent responses in an attempt to gain alpha-male status occurs once the presence of a female is known.  At the very beginning of the film, the first sign of aggression shown in the film is from MacReady, after he loses a game of digital chess, voiced by a woman.

The alien “thing” is a shape-shifting creature capable of absorbing the body and creating a perfect imitation of whatever it has absorbed.  This is clearly an attempt to showcase the idea that women are a constant threat to the male status quo.  Women can "absorb" an aspect of a male, and produce a similar life force.  Simply put, it's a giant metaphor for childbirth.  Without this invasion from the female alien, the men at the camp would be living in nothing more than a monotonous lifestyle in the frozen tundra.  It takes a woman to threaten the very livelihood of these men and cause a rift into their common activities.  As the men struggle to determine who remains human and who is nothing more than an alien imitation, violence is used almost as a currency.  For example, when MacReady is accused of being the “thing”, he secludes himself (yet again) in a room filled with explosive devices and a brightly lit flame.  He threatens to blow up the entire base camp if anyone tries to kill him or hurt him.  MacReady is not only defending his status as a human, but also maintaining his role as alpha-male by use of ultimate force.  The threat of extreme action through violence is enough to force the rest of the men to accept defeat, and back down.  In a patriarchal society, brawn is almost always valued higher than brains, which keeps MacReady at the top of the totem pole, and the rest scrambling to align themselves under his leadership.
Once MacReady has gained control of the men and established himself as the alpha-male, it is only a matter of time before the rest of the men begin to battle for higher power positions.  In the infamous “blood test” scene, MacReady has tied all of the men to a couch and has taken samples of their blood, to which he will apply heat in an attempt to force a reaction from the “thing”.  The character Clark resists and tries to use violence to take down MacReady, only to be shot and killed in defense by MacReady.   With his authority established over the other male characters, MacReady then asserts his male authority over the female “thing.”  Before testing the blood he says, “When a man bleeds, it’s just tissue; but blood from one of you things won’t obey.”  This statement can be argued as MacReady drawing a parallel to the menstrual cycle of a woman, in that women are able to bleed consistently for days at a time while menstruating without dying.  To put it simply, the blood doesn’t obey the “laws” of nature.  This female alien is showing its variability with its blood, forcing the hostile response of the male counterparts.  While the remaining men sit on the couch, they begin to use different tactics to assert their masculinity in the hopes that MacReady will release them.  Childs uses a guilt tactic by calling MacReady a murderer, in a sense, emasculating him by pointing out his inability to use reasoning behind his actions.  Alas, his efforts are useless as MacReady fails to remove any of the men unless their blood is proven to be "right."  Again, his ability to withstand ridicule keeps him in the powerful male position.
Towards the end of the film, the final battle between MacReady and the alien occurs.  Once the alien transformation of Blair rises from the ground, as if being “birthed” by Mother Nature, MacReady fights back with a phallic object, a stick of dynamite, to destroy the beast.  His overtly masculine role is confirmed by this action, showcasing that his successful means to destroy a female creature, was by inserting something in her that resembled the male genitalia. Throughout the film, the assertion of male dominance between the characters is done through violent measures.  In a constant battle for alpha-male status only to be taken by MacReady, John Carpenter’s THE THING delivers a startling look at the way men behave when within the confines of other men, and the struggle for power between men in a patriarchal society during times of crises in response to a threat of a feminine nature.  Examining the expected gender roles of men and the disastrous results it causes makes THE THING an unexpectedly feminist movie.  Had both the men and the female "thing" been presented as equals, we wouldn't have had a conflict...or a movie.

Monday, February 2, 2015


EVERLY is arguably not a horror film, but because it contains some elements of real-life horror, a ton of kills, a lot of blood, and comes from one of the horror genre's biggest fans, I felt it necessary to include as part of this year's Women In Horror Recognition month blog series.

Promoted as "DIE HARD in a room," director Joe Lynch's thrilling shoot-em-up flick EVERLY would seem on paper to be just another run-of-the-mill misogynist action/horror film.  The story follows the titular Everly, a prostitute who works for a brutal criminal overlord named Taiko.  When it is discovered that Everly is being traitorous (by trying to bring down his organization) he promises that by the end of the night (sometime around Christmas) she will be murdered.  He sends his men to torture, rape, and kill her, but Everly does everything in her power to fight back, and try and make it out alive.  Prostitution, violence, rape, and torture are some of the quickest "go-to" storytelling tactics in a woman-hating film, but EVERLY is unexpectedly an incredibly feminist film.

First of all, EVERLY is pro-women of color (WOC).  Originally, the titular role was supposed to be played by Kate Hudson, but replacing her with Salma Hayek completely changes the racial dynamic amongst the hispanic Everly and the Japanese men that she works for.  Throughout the course of the film, Everly speaks in her native tongue and the men that encounter her celebrate her ethnicity without ever fetishizing her.  We are introduced to a gaggle of other prostitutes; spunky white girls, a "Milf-esque" white woman, a strong independent black woman, and our stereotypical "unique" woman in a colored wig.  All of these women are examples of the archetypal roles given to sex workers, and despite many of them falling under the Western ideal of beauty, Everly is consistently praised for being the most desirable.  However, her desirability is never addressed as being due to her "exoticism," therefore, meaning her Mexican heritage isn't being fetishized.  While this may not have been intentional in the script, the casting decision of Hayek added this layer to the film.  Much like George A. Romeo's casting of Duane Jones in NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, picking the best actor for the role offered representation for a minority without making the character token.  This. Is. Important.  It's one thing to write a role specifically for a person of color, but it's something entirely different to have a role that could have been played by anyone, and deliberately casting a person of color.  A study from Martha M. Lauzen in 2013 covering the Top 100 films of the year showed that only 5% of the female roles were played by Latinas.  Joe Lynch casting Salma Hayek as a titular role is not only incredibly smart when selling a film to foreign audiences, but it's also a powerful statement in an industry that barely supplies work for non-Caucasian women.  Not to mention, Everly is played by Salma Hayek...a 48 year old woman.  This. Is. ALSO. Important.  Unlike what Russell Crowe has to say about roles for women over 40, there are plenty of older actresses that are able to play complicated and interesting roles that aren't the ingenue.  EVERLY is not an ingenue, but she is a dynamic and powerful role (with sex appeal) played by a woman that is pushing fifty.
EVERLY is also pro-sisterhood.  For whatever reason, Hollywood has a tendency to believe that once a woman pops a human out of her body, that is officially the only thing she can ever do.  Everly is a complicated woman with an even more complicated past.  However, Everly is still a mother and the women around her respect this.  When we're introduced to the other prostitutes, we see that the sense of camradarie that these women share that is vastly different from the bonds between the male characters.  The women talk to each other like people and support each other to the best of their abilities.  Even when Taiko is doing everything he can to turn these women against each other, they all express remorse for their actions...and showcase a moral code that exists merely because they're "sisters."  Not to mention, the defense and respect these women have for a sense of motherhood.  The men are ruthless and mean in terms of Everly's motherhood, using her daughter as a bargaining chip, while the women draw the line and understand, innocent daughters do not deserve to suffer because of the mistakes of their parents.  On a purely familial level, we also get the opportunity to meet Everly's mother and Everly's daughter.  The bonds of womanhood are tested among 3 generations.  These women switch roles often between protector and protected.  While Everly is our protagonist, she's still someone's child, and we all need our mothers.  There truly isn't another bond like motherhood, and Everly's mother proves this.  The unconditional love is something that cannot be matched or beaten by even the toughest thugs.  It's only fitting that Everly's daughter meets her mother in a bloodbath and is essentially reborn.  Yes, it's a vagina metaphor. Deal with it.

Perhaps what is most surprisingly, is the angle of pro-sex workers in EVERLY.  Before I go any further, I want to specify that "Pro" in this discussion means "not against."  Think of it like being pro-choice.  Pro-choice means "if you have an abortion, you're not a scumbag that deserves to rot in Hell" NOT "we should kill babies for fun."  In the same way, being pro-sex workers doesn't necessarily mean, "everyone should start selling their bodies" but merely, "if you are a sex worker, that doesn't make you a bad person."  On a basic level, the prostitutes are the toughest, because they're all in for themselves vs. the gang mentality of the men.  Before it's discovered that these women are not prostitutes, but victims of human trafficking, they are still never regarded as "sluts," or "whores."  Even those that refer to these women as "whores" are immediately reprimanded and made to look like the bad guys.  Never once are these women "slut-shamed" for their line of work and never are they made to look like they deserve any of the carnage brought to them.  If anything, this film is anti-trafficking and pro-woman because although these women are victims of a heinous situation, the audience is seeing everything through the lens of a woman who herself, is also a victim.  We identify with these women and we empathize with them, anyone that says otherwise is immediately seen as a monster and we crave punishment for what they've done.

There is a big difference between a misogynist film and a film that has misogynist characters.  EVERLY is the latter.  Violence against women does NOT equal misogyny, it's a matter of presentation.  Much like the rape-revenge films of the exploitation era (but without being exploitative), EVERLY sends a message that women are not fragile and delicate flowers that need saving, but rather that the people who believe this to be true, are the ones that will be punished.  It's a pro-female action film with feminist undertones that doesn't pander to its audience, and it points the finger of blame to the responsible villains without ever making our female lead look like she deserves what she's getting.  EVERLY is unexpectedly feminist, and totally kick-ass.

EVERLY is available on VOD services and will be available in theatres soon.  
Joe Lynch and Adam Green's podcast THE MOVIE CRYPT has the exclusive list of dates and theatre locations.

Wednesday, January 7, 2015


still from THE BABADOOK
 Dear Alice Robb,

I'm more than positive that you have no idea who I am and until a few hours ago, I didn't know you either.  From what I've gathered from your contributions to The New Republic, you seem to be a woman after my own heart.  We have a lot in common, Alice.  We both like social justice posts, we enjoy psychoanalyzing the media's influence on society, and we like writing about gender equality.  However, you've recently written an article in response to THE BABADOOK titled "What It Says About You If You Enjoy Horror Movies."  My facebook timeline has exploded today with people posting in anger, frustration, and heartbreak about your article.  But, it was my dear friend (and fellow horror enthusiast) John Squires who wrote a heartfelt response to you that compelled me to hop on top of my soap box and do the same.  I'm sure I won't be the last one to do so, and it is with the utmost sincerity that you avoid googling yourself for a few days unless you desire being actively educated in a world you truly know nothing about.

I could very well turn this entire piece about how I am living proof that your article is untrue.  Not only am I a female, but I'm an active philanthropist, a rape survivor social advocate, I work with children for a living, probably one of the most painfully cautious people I know (my idea of "thrill seeking" is not checking the star rating on a Netflix film before clicking play), and I watch approximately 90% of horror films by myself--without the assistance of a male companion.  It would be quick to use my life experiences to disprove everything that you've written, and I could very easily pull hundreds of biographies from horror fans that also don't fit the mold of this picture you've painted. However, I'd much rather talk in a language you speak.  Statistics and numbers.

You first stated that horror fans lack empathy.  In 2013, a tragedy occurred when there was a bombing at the ever-populous Boston Marathon.  I'm sure I don't need to go into the gritty details of how gruesome, gory, bloody, and horrific the day was.  Hell, you've actually written a piece about the "irony" that Boston is the hub of explosion detection.  During your research about the Boston bombing, did you ever once come across an event called BOSTON STRONG hosted by a guy named Adam Green?  Probably not, but I'll educate you.  Adam Green is a prominent horror filmmaker working today and the mind behind the ultra-gory HATCHET franchise, the psychologically terrifying FROZEN (no, not that FROZEN) and the horror comedy show HOLLISTON.  Green is also a Boston native, so the bombings truly hit him close to home.  This horror fanatic should have lacked empathy, as you stated, and with all of this gore and carnage being plastered by the media, you'd think he'd have found this "thrill seeking" as you also claim horror fans to be.  Here's where you're wrong.  Adam Green took it upon himself to try to better the situation the only way he knew how.  Adam Green held a 3-day event of film screenings, celebrity meet & greets, and an auction with items supplied by Dark Sky Films, Blumhouse Productions, 1492 Films, and Anchor Bay Films (all prominent horror film distributors) as well as personal donations from Wes Craven (NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, SCREAM), John Carpenter (HALLOWEEN, THE THING), Eli Roth (HOSTEL, CABIN FEVER), Tyler Mane (ROB ZOMBIE'S HALLOWEEN), Dee Snider (of Twisted Sister fame), Oderus Urungus of GWAR (Rest In Peace), Rob Zombie (HALLOWEEN, HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES) & John 5, Zach Galligan (GREMLINS, WAXWORK), artist Alex Pardee, Chris Columbus (HOME ALONE, GREMLINS), Sid Haig (THE DEVIL'S REJECTS, SPIDERBABY) and Mick Garris (HOCUS POCUS, THE STAND).  All of the proceeds went to the One Fund to help those affected by the Boston Bombing.  The BOSTON STRONG event managed to raise $15,000 for the One Fund.  Mind you, this was 100% an event geared towards horror fans and filmmakers.  Talk about lack of empathy.

The second thing you noted about horror fans is that we're more likely to be aggressive or thrill seeking.  First of all, you cited studies that in some cases are almost thirty years old.  Do you remember how the world was 30 years ago?  The 1985 study you used to prove we're "thrill seekers" was published closer to when homosexuality was still considered a mental illness than it is to today.  Here's information from a study conducted in 2012.  Research done by Dr. Mathias Clasen suggests watching horror movies is great for our DNA.  We as humans use memories to help us deal with scary situations, but our day to day environments usually don't put us in a scary situation.  However, watching a horror movie is an emotional stimulator, and it triggers our DNA to respond accordingly.

"As the brain senses danger it produces additional energy directed at the activeness of neurotransmitters – glutamate, dopamine and serotonin. As a result, the body remains in a state of combat readiness for some time. Another interesting factor is that a potential threat signal passes through the brain, specifically through the hypothalamus. Since the hypothalamus deals with the glandular system, it initiates the release of  adrenaline which causes the release of opiates which in turn creates an anesthetic type effect. This causes the phobic reaction to shut down and trains the brain to have a similar reaction in real life situations. In a sense, watching a horror movie is almost like a training ground for the body and psyche." --Collective Evolution

You can call it "thrill seeking" all you want, but horror fans are merely just training themselves to be better prepared mentally to deal with the things that happen in our lives that could be, well, scary.

You also claim that most horror fans are men simply because more women reported being afraid.  Just because you're scared of something doesn't mean you're not a fan of it.  I'm a horror fan and I have been for my entire life, but I still jump in the theaters and pretend to be looking at the screen as my heart pounds when I'm really looking directly above the screen to avoid any scary moments.  That doesn't make me any less of a fan.  I watch horror movies because I enjoy that feeling.  I love the adrenaline rush, it's fun. Sorry, there I go getting personal again.  You did cite an article from 2014 showing that women are catching up to men in film attendance, but even're wrong. Here's an article from 2006, showing that women have been attending horror films more than men in the target demographic.  That would mean we've been doing so for almost a decade.  If that isn't enough for you, I'd like to introduce you to Women In Horror Month.  Did we know we have our own month?  Boasting over 12k fans on Facebook and celebrating its 6th year anniversary next month, Women In Horror Month not only celebrates all of the incredible contributions women have made to the genre, but it also hosts a world-wide blood drive.  Horror fans all across the world donating blood to save lives? What was that about lack of empathy again?

Your final statement is that horror fans are most likely men, accompanied by a frightened woman.  Here is where I am going to get personal, and quite frankly, a little stern.  If the statistics I posted above showing that women outnumber men for horror movie ticket sales doesn't disprove your outdated source enough as is, I'd like you to sit back and realize what a backward sense you have on this genre.  The movie that triggered your entire post was a film called THE BABADOOK which, as my friend Johnny already stated for you, was directed by a woman.  This year, in addition to THE BABADOOK, there were films like HONEYMOON and A GIRL WALKS HOME ALONE AT NIGHT all over horror sites' top 10 lists (usually in the top spots) that were also directed by women.  I don't know about you, but I highly doubt these "frightened women" needed a man by their side to create some of the most genuinely horrifying films of recent memory.  By using your old and dated statistics, you're allowing yourself to be part of the problem that perpetuates the idea that females are weaker and frailer than their male counterparts.  As someone who writes about gender studies in pop cultures as you do, I'm disappointed that you didn't look a little harder to see that you had the chance to champion the gender that still isn't treated in society the same way as our male counterparts.

Ultimately, I'm sure your article was nothing more than click-bait and this angry response means you've done your job.  However, you need to understand that as a mouthpiece for the public, your words have weight.  For the misinformed, people that read your article are going to continue to believe that horror fans are the angry and evil creatures that Fox News wants to believe we are the next time a mentally ill kid kills someone that just so happened to like horror movies.  Don't continue to be part of the problem, educate yourself and be the change we so deserve to see from the media.

Sincerely yours,
BJ Colangelo

Thursday, December 18, 2014


As 2014 winds down and we all reflect on the horror films of the last year, I find myself thinking a lot about spectacular performances in addition to films.  My Top 15 of 2014 is posted over at Icons of Fright, but I wanted to use Day of the Woman to focus on something a little different.  In my opinion, this was an incredibly strong year for female characters in horror.  With audiences rejecting stereotypical and archetypal characters and instead favoring characters with a bit more depth to them, actresses in a majority of the horror films of 2014 were allowed to do more than just get naked and die.  Submitted for your approval, these are my fourteen favorite female horror performances of 2014. 

14) Melanie Papalia in THE DEN
THE DEN is about a woman studying the habits of people who use a "Chat Roulette" like website called "The Den" who witnesses a brutal murder online and is quickly thrown  in a nightmare in which she and her loved ones are targeted for the same grisly fate as the first victim.  Papalia is in every single second on this film, even if she is not the general focus. We as the audience are voyeurs, witnessing Papalia's reactions/motivations/feelings/encounters through a computer screen.  There are moments that feel as if she's looking right at us, and Papalia is in every frame of every second of the film.  Papalia gave an honest and engaging performance that helped prevent this film from being just another throwaway indie film.

13) Allison Egan in HER NAME WAS TORMENT
Allison Egan has become somewhat of an indie darling, appearing in many of the films of director Dustin Mills. An unnamed woman who has a distorted voice and a blurred face in the shown footage was arrested for committing twenty-seven murders, but deemed unfit to stand trial. Oddly, twenty-four of her victims remain unidentified.  It's almost as if, as the psychiatrist interviewing her describes it, "this woman was a ghost killing ghosts."  The psychiatrist interview footage is cut with footage of this woman, usually in some form of undress and wearing a mask, torturing her victims.  Egan is pretty much fully nude in a majority of this film, but it never once feels forced or pornographic.  Her face is never shown, and her real voice is never heard, but Egan still manages to give a strong and captivating performance.

12) Naya Rivera in AT THE DEVIL'S DOOR
I don't know about you, but I love it when a supporting character steals the film.  I've always been a big fan of Naya Rivera's work (SANTANA LOPEZ 4 LYFE), but she really proved her talent as "Vera" in AT THE DEVIL'S DOOR.  She doesn't appear right away, but she completely blew me away.  Her character endures a rollercoaster of emotions, and Rivera performed them all with honesty.

11) Kristi Ray in PIECES OF TALENT
Many disillusioned actresses find themselves in"the opportunity of a lifetime" when they cross paths with an independent filmmaker, but Kristi Ray as "Charlotte" in the indie darling PIECES OF TALENT knocks this character type out of the park.  She delivers a naive innocence that still exists in a post-9/11 world. Her character dreams of something better, and Ray delivers it with an air that feels genuine.  Perhaps most refreshing is that Ray is a true romantic interest, but she doesn't have the over saturated "American Apparel" look that dominates starlets of the box office.

10) Kristina Klebe in PROXY
PROXY is a film that boasts multiple strong performances from female leads, but Kristina Klebe as Anika Barön really nailed what she was given.  Klebe's character was arguably the most stereotypical, but she breathed new life into the "bitter lesbian bully" archetype.  The camera loves Klebe, and I was drawn to her in every moment she was on screen.  Her anger felt pure and her delivery was downright scary at times.  She completely wore her despicability on her sleeve, and her willingness to throw herself into a character so...unlikable and cruel was admirable.  Klebe nailed it.  The other female leads (Alexia Rasmussen and Alexa Havins) were also fantastic to watch, but Klebe (for me) stole the show.

09) Paz de la Huerta in NURSE
I don't know what planet Paz de la Huerta is from, but I want to visit there and come back refreshed and with a new view of the world.  NURSE could easily be excused as a shitty film, but I found it to be hilariously genius.  It walked the line between "campy brilliance" and "bottom-feeder trash," but never fell over to one side.  Whether or not Paz' delivery was intentional is irrelevant, because she was incredible.  The delayed inflection of her voice, the awkward body language, and the huge hair all skyrocketed her into one of the most wonderful female villains in a long while.  I loved it and I loved her.

08) Natalie Jean in THE CEMETERY
Natalie Jean is known in the indie world for her work in Adam Ahlbrandt's films, but she's also an accomplished stunt woman.  She managed to combine both her skills as an actress and her impressive abilities to move her body in Ahlbrandt's flick, THE CEMETERY.  Natalie Jean opens the film as a fully functioning member of society, and despite almost all of the characters being wholly unlikeable, she's the only one that I liked.  Jean is the first to feel the effects of whatever is plaguing this mysterious cemetery, and that's when she really begins to shine.  You actively start to root for her as a villain. The prowess she commands on screen is commendable given she speaks less than 1/4 of her screen time.  Covered in practical effects, she made them work for her and she allowed herself to completely transform into a monster.  In all honesty, I wasn't too hot on this film as a whole, but Natalie Jean's performance made this underground film enjoyable. 

Scarlett Johansson has been smarter and smarter about choosing her roles recently, but her performance in UNDER THE SKIN is perhaps her strongest yet.  She plays an alien stalking men in Scotland, and uses her beautiful human appearance to lure in her prey.  The "siren" story is one that has been done numerous times before, but Johansson's portrayal feels authentically out of this world.  There's definitely a difference between someone acting a character and becoming a character, and Scarlett Johansson definitely became alien in this one.
06) Amy Seimetz in THE SACRAMENT
Amy Seimetz has been one of my favorite performers for quite some time now, and her dedication in THE SACRAMENT is no exception.  She plays "Caroline," our brainwashed point of reference for those living in the commune known as "Eden's Parrish."  Considering the real-life horror roots of THE SACRAMENT, we as the audience quickly realize what is about to take place, and can predict her fate long before it ever happens.  She's such a charming and interesting woman, despite our understanding that she's the catalyst for everything bad that is inevitably coming to our protagonists.  Her final moments are downright devastating to watch and as much as you want to hate her, she's so likeable that you immediately just feel sorry for her.  Seimetz truly is a tour de force.
05) Essie Davis in THE BABADOOK
The success of Jennifer Kent's masterful debut comes in large part from the dynamite performance delivered by Essie Davis as "Amelia."  There is nothing quite as strong as a mother's love for her child, and Davis completely embodied the maternal energy required to make this film as horrifying as possible.  Davis had to be over-worked, tired, obligated, and still showcase a genuine love (and fear) for her child in order for the film to work, and it does.  Mothers aren't always June Cleaver, and Davis presents Amelia the way that most women are...complex.  The relationship Amelia has with her child is one that is impossible for an outsider to truly understand, and her constant conflict between what is expected of her to feel towards her child and what she actually does feel for her child, is painted all over Davis.  Davis has some major acting chops, but her role as Amelia was flawless.

04) Rima Te Wiata HOUSEBOUND
Morgana O'Reilly's "Kylie" may have been the lead, but it was Rima Te Wiata's performance as her mother "Miriam" that really stood out in the New Zealand hit HOUSEBOUND.  Miriam was funny, endearing, chatty, and incredibly sincere.  No matter how awful things get, Miriam always tries to look on the bright side.  It's her incessant positivity contrasting with the cynicism of her millennial daughter that kept this storyline feeling fresh and fun.  I lived for whatever unintentionally funny quip was going to come spewing out of her mouth following some bitter side-comment from her daughter. She's so endearing that she almost blends into the background and that's why she's so good. The character could have easily been played over the top, but that would have dominoed the entire film. As absurd as things get in this film, it all feels completely normal for someone like Miriam.

03) Anna Walton in SOULMATE
Anna Walton is absolutely superb as "Audrey" in Axelle Carolyn's SOULMATE. Tom Wisdom played opposite and while he was giving it his all, Walton completely outshined every other performer in the entire film.  That isn’t to say the secondary characters weren’t any good, but Walton was such a pleasure, it made everyone else look mediocre in comparison.  The opening sequence is particularly grim, but Walton handles the extreme subject matter with ease.  Her turmoil feels genuine and she expresses her pain with a rawness that never once feels forced.  As the mood of the film shifts, Walton's progression feels believable and I was with her every step of the way.

Larson is no stranger to playing creepy old women characters, but she broke new ground with her performance as the titular Deborah Logan.  Wearing minimal makeup and without being covered in computer effects, Larson possibly the most convincing possession victim in horror history.  Her dedication to this character is responsible for almost the entire film's creepiness, and the progression of her Alzheimer's stricken character is something of cinematic beauty.  This very collected woman quickly turns into a monstrous creature and every moment is horrifically haunting.  There's a moment towards the end of the film which is easily the scariest thing I've seen all year, and Larson absolutely dominated the scene.

01) Alex Essoe STARRY EYES
My favorite horror film of 2014 was Kevin Kolsch and Dennis Widmyer's STARRY EYES and it was due in large part to the stunning performance from Alex Essoe.  Every moment of the film is haunting and harrowing, gorgeous and grotesque, fun and frightening, insightful and irresistible.  Alex Essoe is required to carry the entire film on her shoulders as Sarah, and her ability to shift from vulnerable to vindictive was downright mesmerizing to witness. Sarah is forced to deal with physical demons but the most horrific creatures are the ones that Sarah has residing within herself, that she must face on her own.  The character of Sarah physically and mentally embodies the horrifying and painful lengths that actors are willing to go to secure a place in the limelight, and by doing so, the dedication from actor Alex Essoe guarantees herself a spot as an iconic female horror character. 

Tuesday, December 2, 2014


Admittedly, this is a bit of a soap box post, but it's something that has been on my mind for a while.  Victor Salva is probably the most well known for the JEEPERS CREEPERS films, but he's also a convicted sex offender who videotaped himself molesting the 12-year-old lead of his film CLOWNHOUSE.  Salva was convicted on one count of lewd and lascivious conduct, one count of oral sex with a person under 14, and three counts of procuring child pornography.  Salva was sentenced to only three years, of which he served 15 months.  After he served his time, he has since made four (onto five) movies.  I'm sorry, what?  A convicted child sex offender is still making movies and acquiring distribution while hundreds of extremely talented and non-vile non-pieces of human garbage are struggling through crowd sourcing or going into debt to create their art?  How the hell is this the world we live in?

Right now, Bill Cosby's rape allegations are coming back out of the woodwork and it has completely tarnished his career.  He's lost sponsorships and TV Land has pulled reruns of THE COSBY SHOW from airing.  You know what? Good.  However, people like Victor Salva are STILL making films and the press are STILL covering his films.  A lot of people like to claim that they can "separate the art from the artist," but that pegs the question...should we?

The best example of this sort of "forgiveness" is Roman Polanski.  Polanski is hailed as one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, and with good reason.  ROSEMARY'S BABY is one of the greatest horror films ever made, and Polanski has proven himself to be a dynamite director.  Here's the thing though, he committed a heinous crime.  He fled to France hours before his sentencing in 1978 and has been essentially "hiding" out in France ever since. I use the word "hiding" loosely, because he's not some hermit, he's just not coming back to America.  I can call ROSEMARY'S BABY a brilliant and iconic film worth seeing, because it's something Polanski created BEFORE he molested a thirteen year old and was convicted. I don't feel good about it, but I won't hold his previous talents against him.  Everything he's done after the fact? It does not exist in my world, and it shouldn't.  I don't care how brilliant of an artist you are, you do not get a free pass on sex crimes because you're a talented artist.

JEEPERS CREEPERS feels a little bit autobiographical, with Salva playing the monster.  Unlike the typical slashers or monster, 'The Creeper" preys on its victims much like a stereotypical pedophile.  The first JEEPERS CREEPERS film shows a brother and a sister being stalked by the creature, in particular, the brother is the one the monster desires.  In JEEPERS CREEPERS 2, as the monster admires his victims (predominately shirtless male boys) from afar, his eyes roll back (much like a male orgasm) when he finally sees the victim he desires.   He then licks the glass of the school bus, and he caresses his victims before he strikes.  I'm sorry, but JEEPERS CREEPERS is a giant metaphor for raping men, and Salva was paid money to essentially "safely" re-enact his guiltiest desires.  That's sick. Seriously, seriously, sick.   And this isn't the only time.  Even his non-horror films like POWDER are littered with weird traces of pedophilia.  One of the JEEPERS CREEPERS 2 producers, Bobby Rock, has even gone on record saying, the original JEEPERS CREEPERS "did very well at the box-office — that's all that matters to us."  "Us" being Rock and his co-producer...Francis Ford Coppola.

The fucked up thing? Salva didn't make JEEPERS CREEPERS until AFTER he had already been convicted and served time.  That means producers willingly handed over a TEN MILLION dollar budget to this guy to make a movie.  He made this film AFTER the media-explosion during his film POWDER when it became known that Disney had financed a film made by a child molester.  People like to claim "he served his time, let him move on" but I disagree, 100%.  People like Victor Salva should not be allowed to continue to make art for the world.  Unfortunately money talks, and since JEEPERS CREEPERS and its sequel did well financially, there's apparently a third installment in the works.  Gross.  Sex crimes against children are unforgivable, and Salva does not deserve to be forgiven so easily.  Victor Salva already made his movie, and it contained pornographic acts on a 12 year old.  That should have been enough, but apparently Hollywood doesn't care.

Monday, November 24, 2014


Cinema Wasteland is my favorite convention in the world, if only for the Sunday Afternoon film screenings.  The closing films of the convention are always some forgotten about drive-in flicks, and I'm always shocked at how much I love them.  From the cult classic HOLLYWOOD KNIGHTS to the underseen biker flick THE NORTH RIDGEVILLE CEMETERY MASSACRE, Sunday screenings tend to expose audiences to films they wouldn't have seen otherwise.  This October I was treated to a "slasher cult classic" titled NIGHT SCHOOL.  Considering my age, there are plenty of films of yesteryear that I've never heard of, but something about NIGHT SCHOOL completely drew me in.  "directed by Ken Hughes and starring Rachel Ward in her feature film debut, the film is centered on a detective trying to discover the perpetrator behind a series of decapitation murders happening to a group of girls all attending the same evening class.  I've seen my fair share of slasher films, but the fact a film about a decapitation murder spree affecting college co-eds is right up my alley.

If there's a film dying for a remake, it's NIGHT SCHOOL.  It's a solid slasher flick with some downright terrifying and brilliantly executed sequences, but doesn't contain a legendary icon to rustle the feathers of fanboys.  What is perhaps most fascinating about NIGHT SCHOOL, is that it may be a "slasher film" but it feels much more like an Italian giallo film.  Argento's TENEBRAE borrowed heavily from American slasher films, but there were so many elements from NIGHT SCHOOL sticking out in my mind making me convinced that Argento couldn't have possibly NOT been influenced by this film.  The killer is clad in all black and wears sleek, black gloves.  The weapon of choice is a pristine, sharp blade, and the film is riddled with twists and red herrings.  From the get-go, we know that the killer decapitates all of their victims and places their heads in water.  Part of the fun of this film is watching the detectives investigate the following morning and try to guess where the head is going to end up.  There's a sequence in a diner the morning after a waitress is murdered that is so exquisitely crafted, it very well became my absolute favorite dead body reveal of all time.  That's not an exaggeration, the scene is just THAT good.

The diner body reveal isn't the only stand-out, as there is an aquarium kill that is filled with such rage and brutality juxtaposed against the beauty of crystal clear waters that is something out of a fantasy. NIGHT SCHOOL definitely plays with your imagination, pulling from the terror our imaginations can conjure up rather than slapping us in the face with over-the-top gore.  Slasher films are notorious for killing off high school/college aged girls, but NIGHT SCHOOL plays with convention and makes the audience genuinely feel sympathetic towards these students.  All of these girls are being manipulated by those in power, namely, their professors.  It's an ahead of its time look at the lengths students will go for good grades and remaining in the good graces of their teachers.  It's sick, but it really helps make us care about the stacking body count.  Sure, a lot of the film feels like a HALLOWEEN carbon-copy, but it's the moments that are unique that kept my attention.  NIGHT SCHOOL's strength definitely lies in the cinematography, with exquisite lighting and camera angles that feel much more high-budget than what we're accustomed to seeing in low-budget slasher films.

On a more superficial level, I don't understand why NIGHT SCHOOL isn't talked about more frequently for two very important reasons.  First of all, the killer at the end of NIGHT SCHOOL is revealed to be a woman, and considering people are always looking for more films with a female killer, you'd think that such a strange slasher film would be discussed more often.  Not to mention, NIGHT SCHOOL was also written by a woman named Ruth Avergon.  A female written film with a female killer is surely something for the record books (especially for 1981), and I don't understand how this film was completely forgotten.  The film is far from perfect, but there are cinematic moments that were so awesome, it's odd that it took me this long to discover it.  If you ever come across NIGHT SCHOOL, give it a watch.  If you like it half as much as I did, you'll be happy.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014


Actual photo of currency required to pay my bills.
It's been three months since I've updated Day of the Woman. I've never gone that long without updating this site since it's creation back in February of 2009.  Since starting to write for Icons of Fright, I've sort of reserved Day of the Woman for my more "academic" or analytical articles.  However, the brain frying recovery drugs and overwhelming stress of the financial woes caused by my battle with pancreatic cancer has taken its toll on me.  Yesterday I broke down and did something I never thought I would ever do; I signed myself up for a donation page through Paypal.  I have gone approximately six months without any financial assistance but I've reached a breaking point where it was either ask for help, or become the female Frank Abagnale, Jr.  We've all heard the expression "money is the root of all evil," and what artistic medium understands evil better than the horror film?
Or in my case, throws you into debilitation debt!
There are many, many reasons why people need money and after being put through the financial ringer myself, I'd be lying if I didn't admit I've contemplated doing the absolute unthinkable in order to make ends meet.  Thanks to the current abysmal state of the American economy, our American horror films are beginning to center around financial woes.  One of the major themes in financial horror films is desperation.  It was arguably the story of CHEAP THRILLS that perfectly captured the internal struggle of, "For X amount of money, would you do it?"  The authenticity of Pat Healy's character Craig is what makes this film so magical...and horrific.  A college graduate with a degree (and a passion) in a field that doesn't pay the bills forces him to work a dead-end manual labor job in order to support his new family.  If this doesn't sound like 95% of the world born after 1980, I don't know how else to paint that picture.  Craig is pinned against his old pal Vince in a cruel game of "Do this for X amount of dollars," and with every stake raise, the audience will play right along.  Why? Because for a majority of us, we've all been there.  I've contemplated sacrificing my own fertility by selling my eggs for $10,000 and that's no different than Craig losing a finger for fifteen grand.  This sort of a film is relatable to a wide audience, which is presumably why we continue to see similar storylines like the flick 13 SINS.  But this isn't a new concept.  If we look back to the TWILIGHT ZONE episode "Button, Button," we're still dealing with strapped for cash individuals pushed to the brink.  
Back in my day you could answer a newspaper ad without risk of murder.
These desperate measures may only call for a mild desperate action, like the collegiate Samantha not leaving a screwed up baby-sitting situation in THE HOUSE OF THE DEVIL because she needed the money to pay her rent.  In more extreme cases, people allow themselves to question their morals and personal limitations at the possibility of financial assistance.  AJ Bowen's character Ben in RITES OF SPRING resorts to ransoming a child after he's unjustly fired from his job. Mary Mason had resorted to stripping in order to pay for medical school but instead puts her medical license at risk by becoming an extreme body modification surgeon in AMERICAN MARY.  Brittany Snow's character Isis can no longer afford to take care of her sick brother, and reluctantly attempts to make money by playing a twisted game of WOULD YOU RATHER?  
Sometimes the terrible acts aren't out of desperation, but rather pure and selfish greed.  There's a reason greed is one of the seven deadly sins, and it's because it makes us do some pretty unforgivable things.  While there are plenty of examples of selfish people doing selfish actions in the name of selfish greed, one of my favorite recent examples is YOU'RE NEXT.  Hailed for it's spin on the slasher genre, the underlying message of the film is "Joe Swanberg, AJ Bowen, and Nicholas Tucci are total dicks." I'm kidding.  In reality, YOU'RE NEXT is a story about some entitled brats that were too impatient for their wealthy parents to die off so they could have their inheritances, so they took matters into their own hands. These brothers make for perfect villains, because I don't know who I could hate in real life anymore than affluent kids.  On the flip side, there are also plenty of films about step-parents trying to kill off their children in order to obtain their inheritances.  A personal favorite is BURNING BRIGHT, a film about a father that traps his step children in a house with a wild tiger to escape the blame of their deaths. 
For a millionaire, he sure could afford to hire a maid. Damn, son.
Money also has the power to turn people into certifiable psychopaths.  Look at people like Frederick Loren or Steven Price in THE HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL films.  Hi, we're millionaires with SOOOO much excess money, we're going to play games with these peasants!  You all need money, so whomever can stay the night in this haunted house wins!  What kind of bullsh- is that? Normal philanthropists donate money to charity, but no. People who are super rich totally have the power to pull dick moves like this and we as the audience completely buy into it.  Look at films like BLOOD DOLLS or THE AGGRESSION SCALE, money makes people nuts!  People kill to protect their money or, because they're super rich, they can afford to have super weird hobbies.  Money may make the world go round, but it also makes people super weird.
This is the closest I'll ever get to examining Larry Fessenden's brain.
For some, committing terrible acts for money is just part of the job description.  Employees in films like in I SELL THE DEAD or REPO! THE GENETIC OPERA make inhumane actions look commonplace, because there really isn't a way to make an "honest" living anymore, is there?  We've all become so desensitized to being forced to work in shit jobs for shit pay, that even when we see it happen on an exaggerated cinematic level, we never once stop and question the moral repercussions of questionable lines of work.  Hit men, gangsters, grave robbers, organ repo men, vampire slayers, and assassins are all just a few examples of horror jobs that pay green for red.

On a serious note, this film is well deserving of a watch.

One of the more unique looks into a financial horror film is THE INHERITANCE, a film less about selfishness and more about what is owed to someone. The story follows five cousins set out on a family reunion during the dead of winter. The purpose of the retreat is to secure their inheritance, a fortune that dates back many generations...because they're all descendants of slaves.  What is so interesting about financial horror films is the seemingly infinite possibilities for storytelling.  Everyone regardless of race, religion, socioeconomic standing, gender identity, sexual orientation, or physical ability will have to encounter money at some point in their lives.  It's one of the few constant truths in this world, and it will scare us all for the rest of eternity.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014


-Elliot Rodger

On May 23rd, 2014 (my 24th birthday) I was reminded of why I started writing Day of the Woman in the first place.  After five years, Day of the Woman has matured to something a bit more refined than what I started when I was eighteen, but my message is still the same.  It's scary as hell to be a woman in today's society both on screen and off.  Six people were killed and thirteen were injured before the killer took his own life, and it was all because a man felt that women weren't doing what he wanted.  This was a blatant act of misogyny and it didn't harm only women, it killed four men who were caught in the cross-hairs.  A man was determined to kill women and attacked anyone that could have possibly stopped him.  Sounds a lot like someone else we know...
I need to kill Laurie Strode...and anyone that gets in my way.

Slasher films have come under fire for decades for its portrayals of female archetypes.  Obviously there are exceptions, but the overwhelming majority of these films show male characters attacking female victims, and if a female IS the villain, it's used as a "twist-ending" or isn't revealed until the end of the film.  Why?

Films are a reflection on the society they originate from, so in order to dissect the gender inequality of slasher films it's important to look at the way our society views violent men and women.  This is a PSA that shows what happens when a man abuses a woman in public vs. when a woman abuses a man in public.  If you didn't watch it, the results are exactly what you'd think.  When the man puts his hands on a woman, a gaggle of Good Samaritans immediately run to her aid.  When the roles are reversed, witnesses laugh at the man being beaten by his girlfriend, and no one intervenes.  Why?  It all goes back to the idea that women are the weaker sex.  When women are villains it’s used as a shock tactic because society thinks it's so ridiculous for a woman to be violent that it comes off as humor.  Witnessing the violence in action is laughable, but having the reveal after the violence has ended is horrifying not because it's a woman...but because your preconceived notions were wrong.  On the other hand, men are seen as monsters because they’re asserrting their dominance as the stronger sex and they’re punished for losing control. This isn't a "men's rights issue," this is a human issue.  If we truly saw women as equals to men, we would intervene when men are being abused and take it just as seriously as we do when women are abused.  Equality would help men’s issues just as much as it would help women’s issues.  So where does that leave horror?

What happens when a family lives without any female figureheads?

All of the major slasher killers, arguably the staples of American horror films, were all bred from complicated relationships with men that were violent to women.  Horror puts how screwed up society is under a microscope to show us how all these things (patriarchy, materialism, etc) birth the things of nightmares. Freddy Krueger was "the bastard son of 100 maniacs" when he was conceived from his mother, a nun, who was gang-raped.  Michael Myers (if we follow the Rob Zombie origin story and not the ridiculous cult nonsense of HALLOWEEN 6) was raised in a house with an abusive step-father and was brought to believe his mother was a bad person because of her profession.  Jason Voorhees was raised by a single-mother who was essentially punished for having a career and not living solely as a mother when those she elected to watch her son let him die.  Leatherface was raised in an environment where the patriarchy reigned supreme and his own femininity was the cause for much ridicule from his family.  Many people like to dismiss these slashers as just pure evil, but they're not.  If we focus on the initial introductions of these characters, (and not the one-liners or ridiculous mythos perpetuated in the sequels) it becomes horrifying to realize that any one of us could become a monster.  Forget about the movie magic of Freddy being able to kill us in our dreams, he's still an angry man hell bent on revenge.  They're all products of their environment, their mental state, and the societal experiences they were exposed to during the important stages of development.  These men were all brought out of a world coated with men showcasing violence towards women, and they continued a pattern.  But these horror icons came long before Elliot Rodgers...what does that say about society today?
Billy Loves Stu. Totally.
Elliot Rodger was a millennial, and a child born into the age of technology.  Elliot Rodger was misunderstood and extremely angry young man that found solace in those that agreed with him.  Even after killing six people and his 140 page "manifesto" hit the web, there are still men that completely sympathize with him.  20-30 years ago, Elliot Rodger would have been lucky to find someone that would agree with him but now he has an entire community of fellow angry white men at his finger tips that don't tell him "you're wrong," and instead, encourage "you're right, women suck."  SCREAM was a self-aware slasher film, and featured two killers instead of one.  These weren't mad-men, they were men who were mad.  Where Billy and Stu had similar interests and films, Elliot Rodger had the internet.  Finding someone that shares your love of destruction is a dangerous combination, and we all know nothing brings people together more than a mutual hatred.  People keep blaming Men's Rights Activists or the Pick-Up Artist community for Rodger's actions...but that's like saying Billy and Stu became killers because of horror movies.  Hell, Billy said it himself, "Now Sid, don't you blame the movies. Movies don't create psychos. Movies make psychos more creative!"  Billy was very, very angry about a woman "destroying" his parents' marriage.  Instead of feeling angry towards his own father for stepping out on his mother, he targeted "the other woman" and placed all the blame on her.  Elliot Rodger was mad that women wouldn't have sex with him and instead of trying to improve himself, he placed all the blame on other women.  Are we sensing a pattern here?  Blaming a woman and discovering a like-minded person was a recipe for disaster, and one we unfortunately became witness to happening offscreen and on the streets of Isla Vista, California. 

But wait, women always survive in these horror movies!  Yeah, but...
Sweaters in summer? Get out of here.
Women survive in horror movies if they act in a very particular way.  Elliot Rodger was angry at "stuck-up, blonde sluts."  Who usually dies early in a slasher film?  The Lynda Van Der Klok types in HALLOWEEN, and the Tina Gray types of A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET are always the first to go.  If you're blonde and sexually fluid, you're going to die.  What keeps you safe?  Being a virgin. The responsibility of survival is placed solely on the woman and her sexuality, which is exactly what we do to rape victims and what a lot of defenders of Elliot Rodger are trying to claim.  While #YesAllWomen gains momentum, there are still people saying that it's a woman's fault for not giving Rodger what he the same way that we say "if you wouldn't have had sex, you would have survived" to women in slasher films.

One-liners aside, Freddy is a total creep.
Are slasher films responsible for mass murders and misogyny? Absolutely not.  Horror movies are not the problem, but they're a hell of a way to reflect the ideals of society on a more dramatic level.  Successful movies have attributes that audiences can relate to, and if we're accepting reality in films where men will kill everyone in their path to punish one woman...what does that say about our society? Even more terrifying, after a few installments in a slasher franchise, we're almost viewing these villains as an anti-hero and somewhat defending their actions.  Jason Voorhees is just listening to his mommy, Freddy is seeking revenge for his own death, Michael Myers had a rough childhood, Leatherface's family taught him violence at a very young age, and the Ghostface killers all really, really hate Sidney Prescott.  Instead of saying "kill these monsters," were asking for 10 sequels and the bloodshed of innocent victims. If films glorify killers and we want more of these films, does that mean we'll get more of these killers? No, not until we first address the culture and society that these films reflect.
Related Posts with Thumbnails