seems especially rich in such elements) and to use these as the basis for their own engage- ments, affective and interpretative, with the films.” As for the oft-used psychoanalytical ap-
proach, Hutchings writes that critics have a ten- dency to use it as a crutch, “manufacturing significance rather than discovering it... One obvious problem with focusing on castration as horror’s key problematic, the issue with which it is supposed constantly to engage, is that in terms of its narratives, horror is a remarkably castration-free zone.” And the feminist point- of-view involves “reading too much psychoana- lytical significance into the details” as well as “the foregrounding apparent within it of gender at the expense of other types of difference.” As to the influence of another school of criticism, Hutchings writes that “it is now quite common for horror critics, regardless of sexual orienta- tion, to view BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN as in some way a gay or queer film... While it is hard to imagine that an audience for BRIDE OF FRAN- KENSTEIN would not pick up on some of these elements... it does not necessarily fol- low that such elements would be central to all audience understandings of the film.” Taken out of context, such quotes may make
it seem as though the author is being harder on other critics than he actually is. In fact he gives all due credit to the critics who have come before him, like Carol J. Clover and Robin Wood; it’s just that he isn’t afraid to articulate the flaws he occasionally sees in their theories. He isn’t opposed to analysis; in fact, he is partial to ana- lyzing movies from a social/historical focus, with a particular emphasis on how the working poor have been portrayed in films. It’s clear Hutchings doesn’t always believe what high profile critics write—but what exactly does he believe? He believes that certain horror critics (like Wood in his famous writings on the horrors of the Sev- enties) have been misguided in their attempts to read progressive social messages into films of the genre, because the films often display ambivalent, shifting attitudes towards their own subject matter (for instance Boris Karloff’s Fran- kenstein monster, who can be both pitiable and frightening). Hutchings apparently feels that many critics of the past have allowed a strain of elitism to infect their writings, causing them to neglect aspects of the horror film experience such as movie theater audiences and the influ- ence of horror fandom. Though he grants that critics in recent years have looked more closely
at confirmed horror fans, he accuses certain critics like Wood of viewing horror audiences from a snobbish or misinformed point of view, viewing them as “bad audiences,” easily swayed by the perfidious influence of a dubious form of entertainment. Hutchings, on the other hand, describes audiences as “enigmatic,” and diffi- cult to make judgments about. He also says that horror fans have been portrayed negatively in the past, citing, somewhat surprisingly, an old SGT. BILKO episode in which a fascination with horror is shown as “an overly close, obsessive, unhealthy relation... that has the potential to lead to imitative behaviour.” Visuals are often acknowledged as an im-
portant part of horror film atmosphere, whether the expressionistic sets of Universal’s Franken- stein movies or the shadow-laden lighting of Val Lewton’s productions. Hutchings gives equal space to sound, noting in particular the use of dissonant sounds to produce an un- nerving effect: “That this process has involved a vulgar commercial form such as horror co- opting musical techniques more associated with the avant-garde is just one of the many paradoxes of the genre.” This trend, he says, began in the Fifties, “a time when the traditional Hollywood studio system was starting to frag- ment, and when horror production itself was becoming more internationalized... a period which saw a reworking of many of the aesthetic practices associated with the horror genre.” Before that, he says, horror film music was more conventional. Hutchings’ final chapter deals with the
slasher genre. It is essentially divided in two parts, one dealing with the original cycle, which can at this point be called the “traditional” slasher film (including HALLOWEEN and FRI- DAY THE 13TH); the other with the”post-mod- ern,” sometimes jokey moneymakers of more recent years, like SCREAM and I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER. Hutchings notes the different approaches between various slasher films, saying they are not as uniform and ge- neric as is often assumed, explaining that, “This is because what I find so fascinating about horror is precisely its changeability and unpredictability.” The author’s stated aim is to explain
horror’s “historical specificity, its changeabil- ity and its open-endedness.” He laments, “if I had more space [I] would have emphasized those differences even more.” He doesn’t specify what kept him from taking up more
75
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84
