This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
For example, it is difficult to see how DEATHDREAM’s


indictment of the Vietnam war or AMERICAN PSYCHO’s caustic evisceration of Wall Street culture can be considered countercultural, let alone sub- versive, given that they reflect the opinions of the majority of Americans at the time of release. Al- though Towlson repeatedly offers mistrust of both the medical and scientific community as evidence of a countercultural perspective, others (this reviewer included) would maintain that this attitude in fact represents one of the genre’s most reactionary ide-


als. Films such as THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MAS- SACRE, HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER and Michael Reeves’ THE SORCERERS may be viewed as progressive in their disdain for the vio- lence inherent to a capitalist culture, but the clear discomfort with the lower class evidenced throughout is more characteristic of the reactionary “otherization” of the underclass typical of the traditional horror nar- rative. Towlson’s determination to characterize the filmmakers as having an intentional political agenda is repeatedly undermined by the fact that many of the films discussed are primarily subversive in an artis- tic, rather than political sense. Examples include, but are not limited to, the repeated violation of genre conventions in NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, and the characterization of even justified, cathartic vio-


cultural discourse, Towlson ultimately offers little more than a catalogue of traditionally liberal or progressive themes that periodically make an appearance in what is otherwise a remarkably conservative genre. Befitting an experienced film journalist and critic, Towlson’s book is well-written, evidences a good deal of serious research, and is not without points of interest—such as when, for example, he con- vincingly argues that producer Herman Cohen’s “teenage horror” cycle represents a subversive coun- terpoint to the “mental hygiene” films used to in- doctrinate students into 1950s standards of conformity, or when he asserts that revisionist West- erns such as SOLDIER BLUE (1970) sowed the seeds of “modern horror,” and are the true anteced- ents to films like LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT. Even more provocative is his explanation for one of the most curious censorial choices in genre history,


positing that the accidental drowning of Maria in FRANKENSTEIN (1931) was excised because the exoneration of a creature who so well fit the then- current model of “criminal physiognomy” was deemed far more objectionable than the implied rape and murder resulting from the imposed cut. Despite these strengths, however, his defini- tion of “subversive,” essential to his thesis, quickly proves problematical, as does his determination to frame his argument within sociopolitical terms.


78


lence as inherently demeaning in WITCHFINDER GENERAL and THE HILLS HAVE EYES. While conservative readers are likely to object to Towlson’s assumption that readers share his dis- taste for traditional Republican politics, even those sympathetic to his political sensibilities may become frustrated with his tendency to simply ignore narra- tive elements that do not suit his thesis. For ex- ample, his characterization of FREAKS as an attack on the eugenics movement and its forced steriliza- tion of the deficient or defective rests largely on his questionable assertion that audiences are led to sympathize primarily with the sideshow freaks against the morally deformed “beautiful people” Cleopatra and Hercules. In fact, the narrative clearly directs audience identification and sym- pathy toward the “average folk” represented by Phroso and Venus, and thus can be legitimately read as an attack on exceptionalism in all its forms that reinforces the status quo by casting suspicion on both extremes of physical beauty. At other times, his determination to impose a pro- gressive reading on more ambiguous material leads him to miss what is truly subversive about the films discussed. For example, Towlson cites numerous critics who view Colin Clive’s Henry Frankenstein as a repressed homosexual rejected by his father and driven to unhealthy, nonsexual


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  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95