This book was a bit over my head at times (e.g. “In Frye’s terms, the shift from the ironic mode, where images are presented directly through simple juxtaposition, to the mimetic”). There were times that I struggled to understand their psychoanalyzing essays and sometimes they became too engrossed in the subject, a tangent would start and take over. However, for the most part, I understood a great deal and thought the book was fantastic. Being a fan of horror, especially horror from the 1970’s-80’s, I liked seeing the intricacies involved in the genre. It was edited in the late 1980’s, so it misses the whole “torture-porn” that is one of the most recent subcategories of horror films.
What I also liked, as a collection, is that the authors would bounce off each other, often quoting one another and agreeing, disagreeing, or expanding the original point. I thought that made the book feel more tied together, but loose enough that so many different points of view could be expressed freely.
I enjoyed Dillard’s essay about “Night of the Living Dead”, although it was a little muddy when it started going into talking about the main protagonist’s hands and how they were symbolized in the movie.
In Wexman’s essay of “Rosemary’s Baby”, I liked the part on page 37 about Rosemary being trapped and physical cues that alluded to that feeling like sitting on a striped couch with the Venetian blinds and their shadows that looked like bars.
In Fischer and Landy’s essay about “The Eyes of Laura Mars” was interesting with its topic focused mainly on the relationship between sexism and horror. The mention of “Un Chien Andalou” was very well placed and interwoven very well into the essay. However, it soon dragged when it talked about the violence-against-women psychoanalytical exploration and the fear of castration: “while desiring bodily and spiritual reunion with the mother, the male child suspects that this will mean castration”. I found the various examples of women blinding men with their sexuality fascinating (Oedipus, Tiresias, and Peeping Tom with Lady Godiva). Lost me on: “The introductory and concluding song, in particular, performed by a woman, emphasizing imprisonment, psychic pain, and oneiric experiences.”
I like Robin Wood’s essay and thought it was entertaining and insightful, but ended very abruptly.
Vera Dika’s essay, “The Stalker Film” was my favorite essay and was fantastic! I told a lot of notes and quotations, which I’ll put after this review.
Kawin’s “The Funhouse and The Howling” was terrific. I didn’t like the breakdown of “The Howling” as much as “The Funhouse”, but it’s very insightful and intuitive.
Graham’s essay was pretty boring. It had some interesting points, but way too stuffy.
Waller’s “Made-for-TV Horror Films” was good, but a struggle sometimes because it seemed (at least in the beginning) that the author was trying to get a bead on the topic they really wanted to express and the execution became messy. But it picked up in the middle and end.
Derry skims a little into Psycho in his essay “Notes on the Recent Horror Film” and how random violence seems “so common and expected” in society. I thought this little section was interesting and reminds me of modern times: “In an era in which Ronald Reagan and the Moral Majority have emerged as prominent, in which school prayer is being advocated in the legislature, in which abortion seems potentially soon to be outlawed” that “it is difficult to contend that ‘evil’ (if unfairly confused with or disguised as liberal humanism).”
Sobchack’s “Family Economy and Generic Exchange” could have been a drinking game with the count of how many times she wrote “bourgeois”. It was grueling to get through the beginning. The middle picked up a little.