two posts in one day? uncanny!
i wrote this in my personal journal a few days ago, but i'm reposting it here.
Lately I’ve been reading a lot. I finished Margaret Atwood’s The Blind Assassin, I re-read The Princess Diaries, I read Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Purple Hibiscus (for my English class), and now I’m reading Men, Women, and Chainsaws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film, by Carol J. Clover, and Horror: The Film Reader, edited by Mark Jancovich. The horror books are fascinating. Clover is my new hero; I wish I was smart enough to write a whole book full of my insightful comments about horror films. It gave me lots of films to add to my “Movies to Watch” list. I really wish more women were involved in horror. I don’t get it. Women watch horror. I read a recent article that said a study of horror audiences revealed that women make up at least half, possibly more than half, of horror audiences these days. (I don’t remember how they figured that out, or how big of a sample they studied.) Women, such as Carol J. Clover, Barbara Creed, Linda Williams, and so on, make smart analyses of horror, so it’s not like women don’t “get” the genre. Women write horror novels. So why are there only a handful of horror films written or directed by women? Feminism actually has a large influence on many horror films since the movement started, so you would think women would be eager to have their own say. One argument may relate to what art critics call “the male gaze”, which is the theory (observation?) that in visual art, men represent those who look, and females represent those to be looked at. But that argument doesn’t hold up, because lots of women make other kinds of visual art. There are women who make films in other genres; not as many films as men do in those genres, but many more than women make in the horror genre. So what is it about the horror genre? The horror genre’s main focuses are sex and death, neither of which is such that only men are able to comment on it. Is there some sort of conspiracy (conscious or unconscious) in the film industry that makes producers afraid to back horror films created by women? Is the societal taboo so strong that women don’t even try? (I don’t really accept that theory.) It’s frustrating. Women make music, women write books, women make paintings, women sculpt, women write comics, and yet in the movie industry, one that is more than 100 years old (relatively young for an art form, but still, too long to be dominated by one group), women are still rarely in the creative seat. WHY?
Horror films directed by women:
Slumber Party Massacre (1982, Amy Jones…This was also written by a feminist, Rita Mae Brown, although the script was altered a lot from her original intention as a spoof on slasher films)
Slumber Party Massacre II (1987, Deborah Brock)
Slumber Party Massacre III (1990, Catherine Cyran)
American Psycho (2000, Mary Harron)
Pet Semetary (1989, Mary Lambert)
Near Dark (1987, Kathryn Bigelow)
This is all I know of. There must be more? In that same article that talked about the study of horror audiences, they advertised a contest geared specifically toward female horror filmmakers, in which they pick ten winners that are financed. This will be interesting to follow. I think it’s about time we started getting a female take on the genre. C’MON LADIES DON’T LET US DOWN!
Speaking of the film industry, a couple days ago I learned that a remake of The Rocky Horror Picture Show is being planned, with Marilyn Manson in the role of Dr. Frank-N-Furter. At first I was outraged by this. I mean, in general I am not against remakes. Sure, sometimes they’re terrible, usually they’re unnecessary, undoubtedly most of them are made simply because they are sure to make money riding on the proven success of an earlier film, but sometimes they turn out well. Take David Cronenberg’s The Fly or John Carpenter’s The Thing. These are two of the most critically hailed horror movies ever made. So remakes aren’t universally evil. And it’s not like films don’t constantly build on and copy aspects of other films as it is; a remake just makes it impossible to deny. But The Rocky Horror Picture Show? Is nothing sacred? Still, I’ve been thinking about it since I found out, and it might be interesting to see what they do to it. That’s not to say that I think it’s going to be good. RHPS is one of the most fun films ever made, and the fact that so much of it doesn’t make sense just adds to its charms. A remake will undoubtedly try to make sense of it, add a bigger budget, add big-name actors, make it more “mainstream”, and just generally suck the B-movie fun out of it. In addition, I highly doubt anyone will come close to comparing to the original character portrayals. I have high respect for Marilyn Manson, and I think he’s an obvious choice for the role, but no one can match Tim Curry. And who is going to take the place of Susan Sarandon? Meatloaf? Richard O’Brien? I can’t fathom why an actor would even want to touch such an iconic role as Riff Raff. The maker of the remake (I don’t remember who it was) mentioned wanting to “bring RHPS to a new generation” (I’m paraphrasing), but, uh, did he not notice how popular it still is? It’s not just the original viewers that dress up and go to midnight screenings. This generation already knows about it, and loves it. If his goal is to bring it into the mainstream, that goal is very misguided, and disrespects the cult legend that it has become. I’m going to try to stay optimistic, but I think the filmmakers should beware, they’re treading on very thin ice.
Lately I’ve been reading a lot. I finished Margaret Atwood’s The Blind Assassin, I re-read The Princess Diaries, I read Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Purple Hibiscus (for my English class), and now I’m reading Men, Women, and Chainsaws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film, by Carol J. Clover, and Horror: The Film Reader, edited by Mark Jancovich. The horror books are fascinating. Clover is my new hero; I wish I was smart enough to write a whole book full of my insightful comments about horror films. It gave me lots of films to add to my “Movies to Watch” list. I really wish more women were involved in horror. I don’t get it. Women watch horror. I read a recent article that said a study of horror audiences revealed that women make up at least half, possibly more than half, of horror audiences these days. (I don’t remember how they figured that out, or how big of a sample they studied.) Women, such as Carol J. Clover, Barbara Creed, Linda Williams, and so on, make smart analyses of horror, so it’s not like women don’t “get” the genre. Women write horror novels. So why are there only a handful of horror films written or directed by women? Feminism actually has a large influence on many horror films since the movement started, so you would think women would be eager to have their own say. One argument may relate to what art critics call “the male gaze”, which is the theory (observation?) that in visual art, men represent those who look, and females represent those to be looked at. But that argument doesn’t hold up, because lots of women make other kinds of visual art. There are women who make films in other genres; not as many films as men do in those genres, but many more than women make in the horror genre. So what is it about the horror genre? The horror genre’s main focuses are sex and death, neither of which is such that only men are able to comment on it. Is there some sort of conspiracy (conscious or unconscious) in the film industry that makes producers afraid to back horror films created by women? Is the societal taboo so strong that women don’t even try? (I don’t really accept that theory.) It’s frustrating. Women make music, women write books, women make paintings, women sculpt, women write comics, and yet in the movie industry, one that is more than 100 years old (relatively young for an art form, but still, too long to be dominated by one group), women are still rarely in the creative seat. WHY?
Horror films directed by women:
Slumber Party Massacre (1982, Amy Jones…This was also written by a feminist, Rita Mae Brown, although the script was altered a lot from her original intention as a spoof on slasher films)
Slumber Party Massacre II (1987, Deborah Brock)
Slumber Party Massacre III (1990, Catherine Cyran)
American Psycho (2000, Mary Harron)
Pet Semetary (1989, Mary Lambert)
Near Dark (1987, Kathryn Bigelow)
This is all I know of. There must be more? In that same article that talked about the study of horror audiences, they advertised a contest geared specifically toward female horror filmmakers, in which they pick ten winners that are financed. This will be interesting to follow. I think it’s about time we started getting a female take on the genre. C’MON LADIES DON’T LET US DOWN!
Speaking of the film industry, a couple days ago I learned that a remake of The Rocky Horror Picture Show is being planned, with Marilyn Manson in the role of Dr. Frank-N-Furter. At first I was outraged by this. I mean, in general I am not against remakes. Sure, sometimes they’re terrible, usually they’re unnecessary, undoubtedly most of them are made simply because they are sure to make money riding on the proven success of an earlier film, but sometimes they turn out well. Take David Cronenberg’s The Fly or John Carpenter’s The Thing. These are two of the most critically hailed horror movies ever made. So remakes aren’t universally evil. And it’s not like films don’t constantly build on and copy aspects of other films as it is; a remake just makes it impossible to deny. But The Rocky Horror Picture Show? Is nothing sacred? Still, I’ve been thinking about it since I found out, and it might be interesting to see what they do to it. That’s not to say that I think it’s going to be good. RHPS is one of the most fun films ever made, and the fact that so much of it doesn’t make sense just adds to its charms. A remake will undoubtedly try to make sense of it, add a bigger budget, add big-name actors, make it more “mainstream”, and just generally suck the B-movie fun out of it. In addition, I highly doubt anyone will come close to comparing to the original character portrayals. I have high respect for Marilyn Manson, and I think he’s an obvious choice for the role, but no one can match Tim Curry. And who is going to take the place of Susan Sarandon? Meatloaf? Richard O’Brien? I can’t fathom why an actor would even want to touch such an iconic role as Riff Raff. The maker of the remake (I don’t remember who it was) mentioned wanting to “bring RHPS to a new generation” (I’m paraphrasing), but, uh, did he not notice how popular it still is? It’s not just the original viewers that dress up and go to midnight screenings. This generation already knows about it, and loves it. If his goal is to bring it into the mainstream, that goal is very misguided, and disrespects the cult legend that it has become. I’m going to try to stay optimistic, but I think the filmmakers should beware, they’re treading on very thin ice.