An important and urgently timely subject to discuss and analyse. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this book is too repetitive with many big claims. Another thing that makes me unconvinced is that many ideas/claims explored in this book are not further elaborated or rigorously explored. For example, there is no detailed approach/discussion about what maternal horror means. Is maternal horror a discourse? Or a narrative device? Is it a formula? Or is maternal horror a genre? And if it is a genre, what are its recurring patterns? What are its conventions? I think it is crucial to elaborate further on this, considering the term originates from Sarah Arnold with the proposition of looking at maternal figures/mothers in cinema through binary, regardless of the complexity of the character and how the character is entangled with their world. I'm also not entirely convinced by Sarah Arnold's psychoanalytic approach—or any psychoanalytic approach in cinema—which sometimes seems to project psychoanalysis as a method rather than looking at cinema as an art form and the intersubjectivity of its creators.
I would also like to see further elaboration on the data collected regarding maternal horror. For example, the presentation of subgenres in Indonesian horror. Many interesting aspects can be explored from here. For instance, what variables can be categorised as maternal horror? Considering Sarah Arnold's maternal horror is very much tied to Hollywood films, therefore there might be interesting aspects to be explored in understanding maternal horror in Indonesia—especially in horror films from the period of 1970-1990. One quite distracting and seemingly substantial thing is that except for one paragraph, the analysis of films made by female filmmakers is never explored in detail. Assuming that female filmmakers follow patriarchal logic does not mean that these films are not worthy of discussion. Perhaps the filmmaker is for hire, and made films intentionally for the market. This then exposes how the mechanism behind the industry and why we don't see exciting and thought-provoking "maternal horror." From this dynamic, I am convinced many interesting references can be made. By neglecting the works of female filmmakers, the arguments put forward in this book become somewhat incomplete. And please, with all due respect, stop quoting Richard Dawkins when discussing religiosity and secularism.
Slightly deviating from the discussion of maternal horror, I am also curious to know which Indonesian films are categorised as gore and disturbing from the period of 1970-1990 as presented in this book. This is my personal interest, but also potentially could ignite an interesting discussion, especially in the subgenre of torture and concerning violence during the New Order regime. Aaron Kerner says that torture in horror cinema, especially in America, became more dominant post-9/11 and Abu Ghraib. Looking from the data presented in this book, it would be amazing to know more about the history of torture film in Indonesia. In the context of historiography, apart from the French New Extremity in the late 1990s and early 2000s, splatter films from Germany in the late 1980s and early 1990s, SOV & direct-to-video extreme gore from Japan like the Guinea Pig series, and the tradition of Herschell Gordon Lewis, perhaps Indonesia has a history of gore and disturbing films that have been overlooked. It would also be interesting if this data could be elaborated upon.
Anyway, once again, this is an important book, and I agree with the arguments in this book, especially regarding the two films discussed in detail. However, I also disagree with many of the big claims written in this book.