Rating: 
Summary: Take that, Andrea Dworkin...
Review: ...and all other "feminists" who think a work of art/entertainment featuring violence and women is automatically violently anti-woman. This is the book you want in your corner when someone (sometimes male, too) starts gassing off about how those bad, bad horror films demean women. Um, I would say a schlockfest like "Hanging Up" or "You've Got Mail" demeans women a hell of a lot more than your average slasher film that doesn't star Meg Ryan.Carol Clover makes the convincing point that most of the better-known slasher films are narratives of women empowering themselves over a (usually male) antagonist. In this respect, the much-reviled "I Spit on Your Grave" could be seen as the forerunner of "Thelma & Louise." I have to admit for the record that I'm not a fan of "I Spit on Your Grave," which I feel is ineptly made and contains far more grossness than it absolutely needs to make its point (rape = bad; violence = bad); Clover, however, devotes an entire appreciative chapter to it, which indicates she's seen it numerous times and thought about it at length, which at least is better than the usual knee-jerk hatred of it you tend to see. It's refreshing and fascinating to find a woman defending -- at length -- a film many of us had thought to be indefensibly misogynistic. Not the only academic defense of drive-in cinema, but one of the best-known, and probably the best -- after eight years, it's still in print in an affordable mass-market paperback, which should tell you something. Namely, it should tell you to buy it if you're at all interested in horror movies and what makes them tick. Horror movies don't have to be GUILTY pleasures!
Rating:
Summary: Take that, Andrea Dworkin...
Review: ...and all other "feminists" who think a work of art/entertainment featuring violence and women is automatically violently anti-woman. This is the book you want in your corner when someone (sometimes male, too) starts gassing off about how those bad, bad horror films demean women. Um, I would say a schlockfest like "Hanging Up" or "You've Got Mail" demeans women a hell of a lot more than your average slasher film that doesn't star Meg Ryan. Carol Clover makes the convincing point that most of the better-known slasher films are narratives of women empowering themselves over a (usually male) antagonist. In this respect, the much-reviled "I Spit on Your Grave" could be seen as the forerunner of "Thelma & Louise." I have to admit for the record that I'm not a fan of "I Spit on Your Grave," which I feel is ineptly made and contains far more grossness than it absolutely needs to make its point (rape = bad; violence = bad); Clover, however, devotes an entire appreciative chapter to it, which indicates she's seen it numerous times and thought about it at length, which at least is better than the usual knee-jerk hatred of it you tend to see. It's refreshing and fascinating to find a woman defending -- at length -- a film many of us had thought to be indefensibly misogynistic. Not the only academic defense of drive-in cinema, but one of the best-known, and probably the best -- after eight years, it's still in print in an affordable mass-market paperback, which should tell you something. Namely, it should tell you to buy it if you're at all interested in horror movies and what makes them tick. Horror movies don't have to be GUILTY pleasures!
Rating:
Summary: Insightful, diverse in scope and even entertaining.
Review: Clover has a way of incorporating politics into her aesthetic analyses (something most scholars cannot balance properly, preferring to favour one over the other). The book never considers itself above B-list cultural artefacts like the underrated, unjustly condemned Meir Zarchi work I Spit on Your Grave, and John Carpenter's Halloween.
Rating:
Summary: Insightful, diverse in scope and even entertaining.
Review: Clover has a way of incorporating politics into her aesthetic analyses (something most scholars cannot balance properly, preferring to favour one over the other). The book never considers itself above B-list cultural artefacts like the underrated, unjustly condemned Meir Zarchi work I Spit on Your Grave, and John Carpenter's Halloween.
Rating:
Summary: Film criticism that's not just for film students
Review: Horror films have always been one of my guilty pleasures, but it's not until I read this book that I truly started to understand the inner workings of fright flicks-- and of film in general. When people find out this is a "feminist critique", they immediately think "politically correct man bashing". Nothing is further from the truth. The author seems genuinely more interested in understanding horror and its audience tham in making any kind of political point. She even raises the stakes in the discussion when she, for example, equates the Oscar-winning "The Accused" with "I Spit On Your Grave", noting that they are high and low forms of the exact same story. The lit-crit jargon can be daunting to those unfamiliar with film analysis, but stick with it. The insights in this book will color your appreciation for all movies.
Rating: 
Summary: She just does not get horror movies, that's all.
Review: I bought this book hoping to read a balanced and insightful analysis of gender in horror. What I got was the same trite "analysis" that seems so fashionable today. This book is profoundly feminist, in a very offensive sort of way. I am terribly sorry, but the author really needs more than a few months' worth of watching horror (see her own admission on p.19) and more than rudemintary understanding of pop psychology, to make a compelling case. Briefly, her "analysis" of the female in modern horror slasher movies goes like this. Clover begins with the observation that most of these (American) films concentrate on the abuse, victimization, and triumph of a woman. The author then asks (i) why a woman and (ii) why do mostly male viewers watch these films. Her interpretation is that the "Final Girl" in these movies is really a male! It seems that in Clover's world, most males are homosexual, or at least bisexual, and they seem to have some bizarre beating fantasies. Because showing a male in this position would be uncomfortable for the male viewers (it would expose their forbidden fantasies too close for comfort), an unfemale female is substituted. Clover simply misses several very simple things, which leads her to the mental acrobatics necessary to account for the phenomenon. Why does she dismiss the directors when they say that having a woman suffer is essential to horror? I don't know, but it is obvious that (i) out culture regards men as active, that is, when men are victimized, there's little sympathy for them---we expect them to react, strike back, and die in the attempt---which means that if you want emotions in the audience, you better go after a girl; (ii) our society focuses on female beauty much more than male beauty---from an aesthetical perspective, destroying something beautiful is much more painful; (iii) the reason why The Final Girl is not too feminine is because these horror films are American---one characteristic trait of this culture is the belief that the outcast, the underdog, can succeed through his/her own efforts---that's why the main character is seen as an outcast; (iv) the basic plot of these films is a variation on the ancient myths of the hero---someone who goes through incredible ordeals, and wins against all odds---this sort of story, however, is mostly attractive to males, which is why you don't tend to see many women at these films. This is a brief synopsis of a larger argument where every step is substantiated, but it illustrates why Clover's view is plain wrong. It would have been helpful if she had viewed some European or Japanese horror films: she would have found out that many of the features characteristic of US films are simply missing. It would have been helpful if she did not regard horror as low art (she does, her posturing to the contrary notwithstanding). It would have been better if she avoided the turgid prose common to texts where the author either has little to say or tries to disguise wrong ideas. Finally, Clover completely misses an important consequence of horror being made idependently of Hollywood. It's not just that it can cater shamelessly to the most exploitative taste (which some do), but low-budget cinema is a more accurate reflection of trends in contemporary society. While Hollywood produces slick and ultimately empty movies, B-flicks incorporate things the way the authors see them---the Final Girl in horror is nothing less than an acknowledgment of the achievements of gender equality. There are now female heroines (much more resourceful than the bungling males in these movies) and they triumph over adversity, and against the onslaught of maniacal males. This seems like a good statement of the fact that our society has come to accept women in roles that traditionally were not available to them.
Rating:
Summary: She just does not get horror movies, that's all.
Review: I bought this book hoping to read a balanced and insightful analysis of gender in horror. What I got was the same trite "analysis" that seems so fashionable today. This book is profoundly feminist, in a very offensive sort of way. I am terribly sorry, but the author really needs more than a few months' worth of watching horror (see her own admission on p.19) and more than rudemintary understanding of pop psychology, to make a compelling case. Briefly, her "analysis" of the female in modern horror slasher movies goes like this. Clover begins with the observation that most of these (American) films concentrate on the abuse, victimization, and triumph of a woman. The author then asks (i) why a woman and (ii) why do mostly male viewers watch these films. Her interpretation is that the "Final Girl" in these movies is really a male! It seems that in Clover's world, most males are homosexual, or at least bisexual, and they seem to have some bizarre beating fantasies. Because showing a male in this position would be uncomfortable for the male viewers (it would expose their forbidden fantasies too close for comfort), an unfemale female is substituted. Clover simply misses several very simple things, which leads her to the mental acrobatics necessary to account for the phenomenon. Why does she dismiss the directors when they say that having a woman suffer is essential to horror? I don't know, but it is obvious that (i) out culture regards men as active, that is, when men are victimized, there's little sympathy for them---we expect them to react, strike back, and die in the attempt---which means that if you want emotions in the audience, you better go after a girl; (ii) our society focuses on female beauty much more than male beauty---from an aesthetical perspective, destroying something beautiful is much more painful; (iii) the reason why The Final Girl is not too feminine is because these horror films are American---one characteristic trait of this culture is the belief that the outcast, the underdog, can succeed through his/her own efforts---that's why the main character is seen as an outcast; (iv) the basic plot of these films is a variation on the ancient myths of the hero---someone who goes through incredible ordeals, and wins against all odds---this sort of story, however, is mostly attractive to males, which is why you don't tend to see many women at these films. This is a brief synopsis of a larger argument where every step is substantiated, but it illustrates why Clover's view is plain wrong. It would have been helpful if she had viewed some European or Japanese horror films: she would have found out that many of the features characteristic of US films are simply missing. It would have been helpful if she did not regard horror as low art (she does, her posturing to the contrary notwithstanding). It would have been better if she avoided the turgid prose common to texts where the author either has little to say or tries to disguise wrong ideas. Finally, Clover completely misses an important consequence of horror being made idependently of Hollywood. It's not just that it can cater shamelessly to the most exploitative taste (which some do), but low-budget cinema is a more accurate reflection of trends in contemporary society. While Hollywood produces slick and ultimately empty movies, B-flicks incorporate things the way the authors see them---the Final Girl in horror is nothing less than an acknowledgment of the achievements of gender equality. There are now female heroines (much more resourceful than the bungling males in these movies) and they triumph over adversity, and against the onslaught of maniacal males. This seems like a good statement of the fact that our society has come to accept women in roles that traditionally were not available to them.
Rating: 
Summary: Good to quote from, bad to read
Review: I read this book for my Film & Violence class at UCSC and found the book a chore to read. The good news is that I learned a lot about themes in horror movies such as, "The Final Girl, the penetrating gaze, etc".
Rating:
Summary: Thank You Harris Ross and Chris Straughen
Review: I was lucky to have a film teacher recommend this book to me. It articulated a view that I have long held- that audience members identify with victims, not killers, in horror films. Although alot of the writing depends on existing psych and film theory, I found the book very accessible as she explained relevant past theories succinctly and in a way that even a novice like me could understand. This book is not just for academics and should be required reading for horror fans. "Andrew says check it out."
Rating:
Summary: Thank You Harris Ross and Chris Straughen
Review: I was lucky to have a film teacher recommend this book to me. It articulated a view that I have long held- that audience members identify with victims, not killers, in horror films. Although alot of the writing depends on existing psych and film theory, I found the book very accessible as she explained relevant past theories succinctly and in a way that even a novice like me could understand. This book is not just for academics and should be required reading for horror fans. "Andrew says check it out."
|
