Scream with Me: Horror Films and the Rise of American Feminism

by Eleanor Johnson

A compelling, intelligent, and timely exploration of the horror genre from one of Columbia University’s most popular professors, shedding light on how classic horror films demonstrate larger cultural attitudes about women’s rights, bodily autonomy, and more.

In May of 2022, Columbia University’s Dr. Eleanor Johnson watched along with her students as the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade. At the same time, her class was studying the 1968 horror film Rosemary’s Baby and Johnson had a sudden epiphany: horror cinema engages directly with the combustive politics of women’s rights and offers a light through the darkness and an outlet to scream.

With a voice as persuasive as it is insightful, Johnson reveals how classics like Rosemary’s Baby, The Exorcist, and The Shining expose and critique issues of reproductive control, domestic violence, and patriarchal oppression. Scream With Me weaves these iconic films into the fabric of American feminism, revealing that true horror often lies not in the supernatural, but in the familiar confines of the home, exposing the deep-seated fears and realities of women’s lives.

While on the one hand a joyful celebration of seminal and beloved horror films, Scream With Me is also an unflinching and timely recognition of the power of this genre to shape and reflect cultural dialogues about gender and power.

Genres: Nonfiction, Horror, Feminism, History, Audiobook, Film, Essays

352 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 30, 2025

About the author

Professor Johnson specializes in late medieval literature and culture. Her first book, Practicing Literary Theory in the Late Middle Ages: Ethics and the Mixed Form in Chaucer, Gower, Usk, and Hoccleve, was published in 2013 (Chicago). Her second book, Dramatizing Contemplation: Participatory Theology in Middle English Prose, Verse, and Drama, was published in 2018 (Chicago). Her Third book, Waste and the Wasters, about ecosystemic thought in medieval England, came out in 2023 (Chicago). Her newest book, Scream with Me, on horror films in the 1970s, is forthcoming with Atria Books in 2025. She is also the Poetry Section editor at Public Books

Reviews

[Lancakes · Rating 3 out of 5]

Black women did not exist in the 6 films referenced, and, according to Eleanor Johnson Black women did not exist in the second wave of feminism. The film analysis and cultural critique was an enjoyable combo but it was DISTRACTING that not only did Johnson not mention Black women in the context of the American feminist history she was writing about, she didn't even address that they were not being addressed. A devil's advocate could say that Johnson was writing about all women and issues that affect all women, but that's a pretty willfully naive reading of American feminist history.

[Stitching Ghost · Rating 5 out of 5]

In an era of "it's not that deep" Johnson invites us to think about the fact that maybe it IS that deep and to consider the distance between intended message and meaning within larger cultural and historical context.

Scream With Me is very readable and enjoyable even if, much like me, you don't watch movies. The author does an excellent job of setting the stage so that even if you have not watched the movies or only have a vague recollection of them you never feel lost. The tone is conversational without coming across as amateurish, so it never gets dry or boring while also achieving its goal looking at beloved movies from the angle of what they say about women's conditions. I could have taken another 200 pages of this.

I was especially taken with Johnson's take on The Exorcist for its departure from the takes I've read about that movie before. Maybe I'm ageing myself by saying this, but it is what it is.

4.5 rounded up.

Many thanks to Atria Books and NetGalley for providing me a digital review copy of this book.

[Gyalten Lekden · Rating 4 out of 5]

This feels like a wonderfully important book for anyone interested in critical engagement with popular art and entertainment. It reads more like a combination lecture/dissertation than anthropology or research, but I think that is a strength. It invites the reader into a comfortable relationship, almost conversational, and instead of being didactic or philosophical it offers a lesson on critical media engagement through example. It discusses the social and political climate into which these films were birthed and then offers a dep reading of each film in relationship to that background.

One of the most valuable parts of this book, for me, is not necessarily the conclusions the author reaches regarding any individual film. It almost doesn’t matter if the reader agrees with her analysis, because she is offering a means of developing a personal relationship with art and using it to help make sense of the world; wresting that art from the hands (and, potentially, intentions) of its creators to recognize it as a site worthy of personal relationship and personal transformation. Whether you agree with her critical assessment of these particular films or not there is a liberatory quality to the way she advocates participating with art, and the constantly evolving relationship between society, politics, experience, and creation. Personally, some of the connections she draws feel a little thin to me, especially with regard to The Exorcist. And yet, she is able to convince me that this is a way of reading that film that makes sense to her, that fulfills her sense of media literacy and appreciation, and that is far more valuable than whether I think the film is offering the same message she is hearing. Through the examples she gives in this book, the six primary films she explores and a few contemporary cousins to those films that she discusses briefly, she offers a roadmap for consuming culture in such a way that is highly personalized and empowering.

That said, there did feel like some blind spots, and these may be part and parcel with the lecture vs. deep research/theory vibes. The films chosen are blindingly white, and her line of exploration feels to be missing some intersectionality that would make the engagement more powerful. In addition, she does mention that sometimes good art is made by horrible people, individuals whose behavior may be literally in direct opposition with the messages she is reading into and from the films… but other than mentioning it she doesn’t really dig into the messiness of that. Art can transcend its creators, easily, and it can be subliminally informed by social and cultural zeitgeists without being aware of that influence, but surely any critical film theory will not ignore artistic intention but wrestle with them, allowing the apparent worlds behind, within, and in front of the art be in conversation with each other, even if the world in front of the art gets ultimate priority. Additionally, it feels like there are much more interesting, more challenging, more subversive horror films that could have been explored from that same time period (though I appreciate that these were either box office successes or have been retroactively decreed masterpieces, and there is a utility in exploring popular art instead of niche or subversive art). It just reads as if her experience is more deeply rooted in film theory than in horror films, and I would have liked a deeper and more intimate discussion of the horror genre in its many incarnations. The fact that these are horror films almost feels secondary to her analysis, and while I can logically accept that is not the case that feeling that comes to me while reading.

There is a difference between viewing/experiencing art through a feminist lens and that art being feminist art. She calls all these feminist films, and that feels not merely simplistic but rather incorrect. they are films that, when explored through a certain type of subjectivity, can be found to contain feminist ideas, and can resonate with viewers feminist sensibilities. This book works best when it is zooming in to an individual experience of art, showing us how personal experiences shape artistic consumption in meaningful ways. It feels a little shakier when making grand statements, and at times it feels like the “horror” of it all is incidental. Still, those criticisms don’t take away from what is a great roadmap for what it means to begin to develop a personal relationship with the art you consume, and the book is worth reading for that alone, even more so if you have a penchant for horror and opinions about the films she is exploring.

(Rounded from 3.5)

[Abbey · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is 90% basic plot summary and 100% white.

[Pandora · Rating 1 out of 5]

IN SHORT: AI SLOP



DNF for now because this is incredibly bad. It's not the light-hearted, pop cultural take of something like Anna Bogutskaya's 'Feeding The Monster': it doesn't have the beautiful reflective writing of memoir based film essays like 'It Came From The Closet' (ed Joe Vallese) or Kier-La Janisse's superlative 'House of Psychotic Women', and it lacks the academic strength of Erin Harrington's 'Gynaehorror' or Barbara Creed's follow up, 'Return of the Monstrous Feminine'.
In the appendix, Johnson calls The Exorcist 3 "the weirdest horror movie [she] has ever seen", which indicates a very shallow knowledge of the American 70s horror canon alone (especially considering that Exorcist I1 is way more nonsensical!)
The idea that "audiences" watching these movies all felt pity/ compassion for the protagonists is so strange. It would certainly be a better world if they did, but remembering the uproarious laughter in the cinema as the female lead was battered and dragged by an invisible force in 'Paranormal Activity' (2007) (which she speaks about briefly) - I'm not as generous in my thinking.
A film might say a lot about feminist concerns - that doesn't make it a feminist film.

[Erin · Rating 5 out of 5]

ARC for review. To be published September 30, 2025.

4.5 stars

A professor at Columbia looks at the women’s movement through six horror movies that were released between 1968 and 1980: “Rosemary’s Baby” (1968), “The Exorcist” (1973), “The Stepford Wives” (1975), “The Omen” (1976), “Alien” (1978) and “The Shining (1980).

This was incredibly interesting in a “why didn’t I write this?” kind of way (although I certainly wouldn’t have thought about including “The Omen” and enjoyed reading the rationale for doing so.) Johnson summarizes and takes a long look at each movie and what it means to the movement. She also discusses what happens when bad men make good horror movies (obviously looking at you, Polanski, but you aren’t the only one.)

Next, Johnson examines some more recent movies that those interested in feminism should see (I’ve seen two of them, “Paranormal Activity” and “Creep” and I’m putting “Creep 2” on my short list.) I was a little surprised to see “Creep” here, no spoilers here, but iykyk, but, again, I was interested in the author’s explanation. Then Johnson covers some films released post-Dobbs that I must see. Since she summarizes the movies I skipped the sections where she discusses these, but they are “Immaculate” (2024), “The First Omen” (2024) and “Apartment 7A” (2024).

Finally, she spends a chapter on the incredible, Oscar-winning, Sarah Polly-helmed film “Women Talking” which she calls “the first domestic horror of the 2020s. It might not usually be classified as horror, but considering it’s based on a true story, it might be the most terrifying story the book covers; if you don’t know it it’s based on the story of a Mennonite community where the women (some as young as six…SIX) were drugged with veterinary drugs and sexually assaulted, repeatedly, by a group of the men of the community. In the movie the men involved have been arrested and the women are left alone while the remaining men go to bail out those in jail. The women must work together to decide what they should do and there are three options: they can leave, stay and fight or do nothing. The movie covers their meetings. It is staggering.

The whole book is great, especially for horror fans, but the six books at the forefront are so very popular that this book is going to be fairly accessible for everyone. Highly recommended.

[Nev · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 - I love horror. I love reading about horror. I love thinking about the ways that horror can reflect and comment on aspects of society. So basically this book was made for me. Scream With Me takes six iconic horror movies from the 60s-80s and analyzes the feminist themes within the stories and connects them to real life events and progress that was being made in the women’s movement.

Rosemary’s Baby, The Exorcist, The Stepford Wives, The Omen, Alien, and The Shining all provide ways to discuss reproductive rights, abusive relationships, the Equal Rights Amendment, and patriarchy in general. Some of the analyses are pretty on the surface, but then other ones are things that I haven’t thought of before. I really appreciated how much historical information was brought in to relate to what was going on at the times that these films were released. It was also cool to see the author’s discussion of some films that have come out more recently and how they connect to the legacy of domestic horror.

This was so close to being 5 stars for me, but I felt like it was a tiny bit lacking in acknowledging how these movies and movements were focusing on a narrow subset of women. I feel like discussions of inclusivity or intersectionality could’ve really elevated the book.

But overall I had such a great time reading this. I’d highly recommend it to people who are interested in horror film criticism and/or the history of American feminism. It’s a very compelling read that connects the history of domestic horror to our present day.

Thank you to the publisher for providing an advance copy via NetGalley. All opinions are my own.

[Ristretto · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was really excited about this book, horror movies and feminism should have been right up my alley. And it does make some interesting points, especially in connecting the release of certain films to the cultural and legal battles of their time. I think sometimes for people who weren’t around at that time it’s difficult to imagine what it was like then and taking for granted what we had until very recently.

My main issue with this book, though, is the author’s very deliberate choice to focus solely on white cis women. That framing makes sense when discussing films from the 1960s to the 1980s. But there is a section on films in the modern era, and you would think women of color and queer women don’t exist, in horror, of all genres. It’s kind of wild.

Thank you to NetGalley and the publisher for providing me with an advance review copy. This review was written voluntarily.

[dessie*₊⊹ · Rating 5 out of 5]

I got a lot out of this! I’d even reread it. Johnson being a professor makes a lot of sense because this read, to me, like a really good lecture or podcast episode.
I would’ve liked it to be even longer or go even deeper. Mainly by delving into some more intersectional talking points, but I understand the content itself we’re covering is not diverse and limiting. I need a sequel or some recommendations centering different films/time periods. 4.75 stars.

[Clarebshepherd · Rating 1 out of 5]

Most of this book is comprised of treating text as if it is subtext, acting as if the writer's plot summaries are the same as analysis with some pretty weak takes like "Stepford Wives is about men trying to control women!" Hot take, never would have guessed that about a movie where men turn their wives into subservient robots. "The Shining is about an abusive relationship!" You mean to tell me you watched a movie about an abusive relationship and your interpretation is that it's about an abusive relationship? That literature PhD is really paying off. The rest of the book is really grasping at straws as the writer over interprets anything she can find as evidence of her analysis. At one point, she drives a point home by mentioning that a character hits another character with a lead pipe, which is a phallic symbol. Or, maybe, it's a pipe and most weapons are shaped a little bit like penises. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. If you have seen the movies she talks about and were a feminist going in, your analysis is probably not going to be any different from hers on most of these, and she's not going to give you any additional insight. I gave it two stars, though, because I did like the Rosemary's Baby essay.

[Carla Remy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Popular 1970s horror movies were really about women’s bodies and reproductive rights. I love Ira Levin. His novels of Rosemary’s Baby and The Stepford Wives are brilliant and the movies too. This book includes the film Alien, where men die in childbirth.

[Emma · Rating 2 out of 5]

Maybe I expected too much from this (a professor at Columbia???), but the more I read the more I really found myself flabbergasted.

Scream with Me is so extremely rudimentary in its analysis (!?) - in fact it’s mostly summary!!! I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop and for the actual discussion to start - it never did! For anyone who is even slightly interested in the horror genre, there is nothing new to be learned here.

The pieces of historical context weaved throughout this book are surface level, and while a few dates or bill names might be unfamiliar, anyone with a passing interest in the history of feminism won’t find anything interesting here either!

I’m not coming for the concept of domestic horror - I think there is true merit in this idea. Unfortunately this book simply repeats the words over and over in an attempt to convince you it’s discussing it. There’s only so many times I can read a description of a scene, accompanied by a ‘this represents abuse’ or a ‘just like domestic violence.’ The Shining chapter was especially egregious - it’s difficult to wax lyrical about domestic violence allegory when it’s quite literally gone beyond allegory and it blatantly just text. Maybe I’m being mean, but I just expected more from a professor teaching English at Columbia!

Not only does this accomplish nothing, it gets a few things wrong. I don’t want to necessarily speak with authority on her interpretations of the films - I actually disagreed with quite a few of them, but like that’s up to you as the viewer. I also get to think you’re wrong and your opinions are dumb, but that’s the magic of film, art etc. But her summary of The First Omen, (a film I know extremely well!!) gets quite a few plot points wrong. Something I just think is a little embarrassing for a published work. I find it fascinating that it brings up The Stepford Wives reboot briefly at the end, but doesn’t comment on the insane nature of its politics. I think its stance on feminism is distinctly second-wave/millennial vibes. I’m not saying it’s necessarily treating women as a monolith but its subsection on ‘women warriors’ and their role in the military appeared seemingly without any sense irony or self introspection.

One of these days I would love to read a non fiction book about horror that goes beyond ‘a woman is in danger - this is an allegory for how being a woman is scary.’ Honestly, the state of horror analysis is in great peril - Barbara Creed save us! Carol Clover save us!

[Marissa · Rating 2 out of 5]

2 is a very generous star rating but I did see the effort here so a 1 star feels unfair.

First and foremost this was way too academic, I understand that this is nonfiction but it felt like I was reading someone’s dissertation.
One of my biggest irritations here though was that the author had nothing new to say. I felt like I was being mansplained to honestly. If you’ve ever even heard the plots of these movies and the main scenes and have literally even the tiniest knowledge of the 60-70s feminism, you already know everything that’s been said here. I think there was so much more digging and analysis that could’ve been done and it just kept repeating the same thing, this woman was violated, abortion was illegal, she has a baby, women deserve rights, like there’s so much more to these movies than that?

Also I felt that a lot of this was very reductive to the movies and especially the female main characters - in particular the part about the Shining. There’s so much more to Shelly Duvall’s character, and the plot of the shining is so much more than just a “domestic horror”. In addition I think that it’s super lame that she didn’t integrate anything about the books that several of these movies are based on? They make a HUGE difference in how the movies are watched. I think the lack of commentary until the brief bit at the end, about the directors of these movies in relation to the greater message of the book and the context of the time is really lame too.

Now onto the biggest problem. Do people of color and queer people just not exist in this lady’s eyes?????? None of the movies mentioned have poc/lgbtq+ people and EVEN WORSE, there’s 1 female director mentioned in the modern day portion of this???? Like of all of the movies that could’ve been chosen you picked movies directed by crusty white men many of whom are accused/convicted of violence against women??? And on top of that the 1 female director mentioned is also a white woman?? This author should truly be embarrassed, this was a golden opportunity to explore films made by women about violence against women and feminism, and even in the modern day section which is a lot easier, she couldn’t even do that?! At the very least if you’re not adding in movies by women (which is embarrassing on its own) we’re just going to have no POC directors. Yuck. And okay let’s say she’s really having too difficult of a time, we can’t even get movies with POC as the leads???? And don’t even get me started on the lack of queer people. I mean Jesus the lack of intersectionality is just so unbelievably disappointing. And okay a little more grace for the author (that I don’t think is deserved) there was a GOLDEN opportunity if she already had a plan for what movies she wanted to use and was stuck with them, to talk about intersectionality and the lack thereof in the movies mentioned and reference more applicable movies without even having to do any research or analysis (not that there was much analysis to begin with, nor that I think they weren’t worth analyzing, but if we’re making excuses)

I’m just so disappointed as this was one of my most anticipated reads for the fall, and I can’t even begin to explain what a waste of time this was.

[Rae · Rating 2 out of 5]

I think the author cares about feminism and has an interest in horror films but for me this didn't necessarily translate well to the book. The book mostly consists of summaries of the film plots, some context regarding women's/ feminist topics/ fights of the 70s in the US and then an argument as to why it is a domestic horror. The arguments felt like they were built backwards from the conclusion of the films being domestic horror films and related to feminist issues.

The way the arguments were structured didn't feel convincing to me, even when I agreed with the premise and/or the conclusion of the argument/idea. This was quite frustrating. These are some examples of what I mean:

- That *Catholics watching Rosemary's Baby would be moved to agree with abortion, because the alternative is giving birth to Satan's baby*. I don't know about that. It might also be good to contextualise the place religion had in people's lives/ governments in the 70s.(especially considering the USAs wild swing towards Christian extremism).
- *How people respond to The Exorcist would depend on their view on women's liberation*. I don't know that it can definitively be stated like that without some data backing it up.

It feels a bit weird to not discuss the supernatural elements of the films? Especially considering people used to be more religious (one reason why The Exorcist scared so many people). I also agree with the point made in other comments regarding the book only focusing on white women.

One of the main issues I had with the book is that there doesn't seem to be a clear distinction made between feminist films and films that cover feminist issues (or not even necessarily feminist issues just topics related to women). What does feminism mean? How does the author define feminism? Are these films feminist or are they films covering feminist issues? Is there a difference? There is no clear definition of feminism used, which means it sort of remains vague and one ends up suggesting Polanski made a feminist film.

Do we really think Stanley Kubrick and Roman Polanski made feminist films? What kind of feminism is that exactly?

I thought the last portion of the book regarding the newer films was interesting and I also enjoyed the epilogue. Again, I generally agree with the conclusion of the book, however the arguments themselves didn't work for me and felt quite surface level.

I also can't believe the USA didn't codify Roe vs. Wade when they had the opportunity to. It genuinely horrifies me that the USA had access to abortions and then lost it again. How could that happen? Who let that happen?

[Rebecca · Rating 4 out of 5]

While I wish this had included more discussion of how BIPOC women are treated in horror films, this does an excellent job of reminding us why we should all be screaming.

[میعاد · Rating 4 out of 5]

اگر سینمای وحشت رو دنبال می‌کنید، این کتاب نگاه جالبی داره به چند فیلم مشهور ژانر وحشت و تاثیرش بر فمنیسم.

[Sarah Wissinger · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thought this was a fantastic and fascinating read - while I have not seen every horror film referenced in the book, those I have seen I've watched over and over again. Johnson's book made me see parts of them through a totally different lens, and I'm eager to give them another viewing with new eyes. Through each film discussed, we learn about the themes of domestic violence, reproductive control, how these films were perceived at the time, and how they helped to shape the feminism of today. Additionally, we look at some more recent films and see how things have changed post-Dobbs - it's an interesting compare and contrast from 50+ years prior. I highly recommend this to anyone, horror fan or not. Thank you Atria Books and NetGalley for the opportunity to read an advanced copy!

[Caitlyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

i just stood up and clapped with my hands and my cheeks because this was absolutely brilliant and insightful!!!!!!! johnson changed the way i viewed the horror movies mentioned in this book- and maybe the way i approach horror movies forever!! if youre a huge horror fan like me, i highly recommend this book!

[Bert · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hell yeah. Horror is often written off as a misogynist genre, and sometimes it is, but it’s also feminist AF. It’s the one genre that consistently gives us the best female characters and the most interesting roles for women. These women aren’t victims, they’re warriors. I love that. There’s a reason so many gay men worship horror queens. Hehe.

I was a little worried this might lean too hard into dry, textbook-style analysis, but thankfully it doesn’t. It’s a perfect balance between smart, thoughtful insight and genuine fan love for the movies it’s celebrating.

I desperately need another book from Eleanor Johnson on this subject, especially if it looked at horror beyond the ’80s. Great work.

[JJ · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hands down one of the best books I have read so far this year. With the dumpster fire that is the current state of the world, this book is a timely, important and fascinating read.

[Cole Slaw · Rating 1 out of 5]

Does this author even like horror movies?? Did someone force her to write this book???

[Aven · Rating 3 out of 5]

Okay. So.
My biggest issue with this book was the way in which Johnson choice to portray women as a monolith. Bear with me for a second. With every topic she discussed, domestic abuse, sexual assault, reproductive health and rights, etc, she talks about women and the effect on women in a one size fits all way. As if all women, of all walks of life, are equally and identically affected by these struggles. I could work with that, in theory. But . Every single media example she pulls from, every single movie, is white. Which makes me think.. does Johnson view white women as the preset?? And you're telling me you couldn't find a single BIPOC feminist horror movie from 1970 till 2020+ ?? I'm calling bull. Literally off the top of my head, you could talk about US or REC 2 or Prey (you could probably make an argument for Candyman or something). You're telling me we can discuss Mennonites from Bolivia but not a single woman of color? It just feels very short sighted, like I'm only getting a quarter of the in-depth discussion we could be having here. And this is coming from someone who LOVES horror movies and the horror genre, I know that this genre has so much to offer that many people overlook because of movies like Terrifier or Friday the 13th.
So while I loved the analysis from a horror movie lover stand point, I can't shake the feeling that this could've benefited so much more had It taken the time to dissect non white media. Hell, honestly, I would've taken even a mention of black women's roles in American feminism.. or even any mention of women of color!! any! because there is ZERO.
I just feel like you can't talk about topics like domestic abuse and sexual violence without acknowledging the nuances that occur among women, because women are so so so so diverse. An Indigenous woman is never going to have the same experience as a White woman, same for Black, Hispanic/Latina, Asian, Arab/Middle eastern, etc. And if we can take the time to talk about the nuances with Roman Polanski directing Rosemary's Baby, than I think it shouldn't be a stretch to talk about how Domestic Violence looks different for Black women or the increased sexual violence against Indigenous women (MMIWR).
I just wanted so much more.

[Tala🦈 (mrs.skywalker.reads) · Rating 1 out of 5]

there are a few interesting points here, but overall it’s a huge disappointment

this book feels like it was stitched together from separate pieces — the structure is loose, the same ideas keep repeating to the point of absurdity, and it never really builds into anything. a lot of it reads like extended plot summary with labels slapped on (“this is violence”, “this is domestic violence”) instead of actual analysis

more importantly, a lot of the arguments feel like a stretch, and that’s what everything else rests on — but it’s all delivered in this very „this is how it is, period” tone that leaves no room for discussion. and when it does try to push further, it swings the other way and becomes so over the top it’s almost hard to take seriously (pipeline used as a weapon is sexual because it looks like a penis)

it really is surface-level in a very specific, frustrating way, it wants to sound definitive without actually saying anything new. there’s this constant sense that it’s presenting obvious points as if they’re groundbreaking

and then there’s how white-centered it all is. for a book about feminist horror, the lack of any real range in perspectives is glaring — no Black creators, no Asian artists, no Indigenous voices, barely any queerness. white feminism at its finest (the worst)

And really: A FILM DEPICTING WOMEN’S SUFFERING IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY A FEMINIST FILM
it just isn’t. i didn’t expect to be arguing this with a Columbia literature professor, but here we are. there’s no hope for American education

honestly, I went into this really hopeful, and it just ended up feeling flat, shallow, hollow, weirdly exhausting and frustrating.

[Aurora · Rating 5 out of 5]

Van elke pagina genoten! Echt een super interessant boek als je een interesse hebt in horror films en feministische thema’s. Ik vond het knap hoe de auteur bepaalde film scenes zo wist te omschrijven dat ik het helemaal voor me zag, ook als ik de desbetreffende film nog nooit had gezien!

Mijn lievelingshoofdstuk was denk ik die over de Stepford Wives. Geniaal om tradwives hiermee te vergelijken.

“We are still living in a culture that is profoundly ambivalent about the fundamental question of whether to grant women equal rights under the law. We are still living in Stepford. 2025 is looking a whole lot like 1975.”

“Making jam from scratch may seem a far cry from sanctioning marital rape—and, on its own, it is. But when the making of jam gets conflated and confused with a sexual subordination ideology about what a woman owes a man in the domestic sphere, well, at that point, the distinctions start to get a little blurry.”

[iga · Rating 1 out of 5]

okay so why did i just listen to 9h worth of movie plot descriptions... 😭
i suspect this would be better off as lectures, it was inspired by one and i think it either should've stayed in that format or have been way more edited when it was becoming a book.

[lids :) · Rating 4 out of 5]

really well done, but hard to ignore the glaring lack of discussion regarding women of color and queer+ people in second wave feminism and their impact on horror media.

[Jessie Drew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent. Listened to the audiobook and was happy with the quality of the production and narrator. You need to have watched the movies it references. Def recommend.
[my Her Story pick for Goodreads Winter Challenge 2026]

[Becca · Rating 3 out of 5]

As someone who literally never watches horror, this was a great way to get me interested in the classic six films Johnson outlines. However, the bulk of this book is summarizing plots of the movies so it might be repetitive if you've seen them. The historical aspect was helpful but most of the parallels I had already heard of before. I did greatly appreciate the chapter highlighting not great directors who made these feminist domestic horror films.

[Dr. Sionainn · Rating 2 out of 5]

This study really disappointed me and I didn't see it coming. Johnson is correct in her thesis that the women's rights movement correlated with the rise of the American domestic horror film, which focuses on the home as a site of terror, manipulation, and entrapment. However, Johnson takes the academic coward's route, and focuses predominantly on the films themselves, rather than tackle the real-life the abusive and patriarchal directors who made these 'progressive' films, which throw these aforementioned movies' so-called progressive agendas into question. She very briefly mentions that Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13-year old girl in 1977. He shot Rosemary's Baby in 1968, already revealing through Rosemary's drugged rape scene that he was having these kinds of fantasies (à la Woody Allen) that would manifest in the real world less than a decade later. Johnson also neglects to mention that Polanski has been accused of drugging and raping other little girls besides Samantha Geimer (13), such as Marianne Barnard (10) and Renate Langer (15), Charlotte Lewis (16), and a woman known only as "Robin M" (16). Maybe Rosemary's rape scene, which the viewer experienced with disgusted horror, was a fetishized representation of Polanski's own crimes. Maybe a scene commonly interpreted as sympathetic with the heroine actually served as the director's cinematic fantasy where he creatively masturbates to the idea of his own power over the drugged virginal girl. This is a director who, when giving an interview about Geimer's rape, said: "If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But ... fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!"In 1983, Polanski told journalist Clive James: "I like the girls of that age. And [...] girls of that age, for some reason like me." Geimer was only 13. A viewer should not only see Rosemary's Baby as a progressive film but a film that has a complicated legacy and should serve as a reminder that the art can survive the artist, but never be fully exorcised from him.

In a tacked on chapter even titled "Bad Men Making Good Films: An Interlude," I believed she was going to confront how Polanski, William Friedkin, and Stanley Kubrick harassed and abused their main actresses, themselves acting as the demon in the womens' collective 'houses.' However, she briefly states in the beginning of the chapter that the directors were abusive, serving into the dynamic their films confront, then pivots to discuss more films with theoretical abusive 'director' figure. The fact that she never really contends with these artists and the real-life horror they inflict on the women who were supposed to act as these sympathetic quasi-feminist figures remains the elephant in the room of this study. I personally couldn't get over it and found myself getting frustrated with the author's blasé attitude towards this dynamic.

Also, in her discussion of Aliens, she neglects to mention that Ripley had a daughter who died before she returned to Earth in the first movie. As a result, when she finds Newt, it acts as a way for her to right the wrong with her own child. I believe a scene where her daughter is revealed is only shown in the 3 hour director's cut, and I'm not sure which version of the film Johnson was using.

Honestly, it had some good insights, but I'm tired of academics getting revved up to talk about theory and ignore praxis because it's too messy and too slippery...

[Gwen Gagne · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5. Listened to audiobook. I enjoyed the analysis and learning about the historical context during which these movies came out. There was so much summarizing of every plot detail of the movies, it felt like a lot.