brains... Brains... BRAINS!!

Ever wonder why it's so common a theme for the 'mindless' zombies to be seeking brains? They're simply the scarecrow from the wizard of oz, searching for some smarts. The only difference is that instead of having a convenient wizard to give them brains, they, in their faulty logic, think they can gain knowledge by eating other people's brains. It's really quite a sad story.

In all seriousness though, I find that the rise of the zombie in pop culture as our figurehead of the modern monster makes an interesting comment on our society. Have you noticed that Vampires, although still a popular figure, are no longer scary? I'm not just talking about the kind that glitter. Even in other shows (i.e. Vampire Diaries, True Blood, etc), the Vampire is more of a Romantic figure. They've become the Byronic Hero of horror, the misunderstood loner with their own set of morals, and have crept into daytime dramas. Zombies, on the other hand, are doing quite well in the horror film business (even if they touch on the comedic at times). We replaced a lethal intelligent being, with mindless drones of lethal beings. Is it that we don't find intelligence scary anymore? or is it that intelligence was just too much to handle.

I think there's an ingredient in the recipe for monsters that Carroll doesn't mention. Not only does a monster have to be threatening and bizarre, but it also has to be something that we think we can defeat. If there's no chance of human survival, what's the fun in seeing the human race struggle as it gets obliterated. If you really think about it, Vampires could wipe us out without much struggle. They're intelligent, have superhuman strength and other powers, and have very few limitations (oh, they have a curfew during the day, big deal). Zombies on the other hand, have their masses, and their mindlessness, but can be taken out with shotguns, machetes and other household items you can pick up at Home Depot. With Zombies, we've still got a chance.

My inspiration for this comparison actually came from 'I AM LEGEND'. As per usual, the movie was awesome, but the book was still better. In the book, the people that have been infected by the virus turn into Vampires, not Zombies. One scene in the book that I found particularly haunting was when the main character can hear his friend and neighbor calling to him from outside the house. This neighbor is calling to him, so that he can eat him. The ending is quite different too, but I don't want to ruin that for anyone. (you should all go read it!!) Overall though, Hollywood has once again made the cunning foe, into a mindless mass.

When Its All Said and Done...

After a semester ( actually two if you count the facy that I took Phil. of Horror as a summer class once) of looking into all the theories of horror, I can truly gain an appreciation for the form. Horror never has been, nor will it ever be, my genre. Yet, if nothing else, I leave the class with an understanding of the complexity of the study.

More than anything I've learned it is okay to be scared by horror literature/film/etc. In fact, that is the point. I'm not a wuss or a baby because I cringe and cower as I watch horror films. In fact, that must just mean they are relatively good, or atleast effective, horror films.

My Own Horror Story

It was a usual day when we heard the story... but then, it's always the ordinary days that bring the most extraordinary news.
The neighbor was gathering up her mail as she always did, and happen to mention the latest news to my mother.
"Did you hear about that sighting a few days ago?"
"Sighting? Of what?"
"Apparently the Cooper's lost a few of their dogs to some kind of black creature. Old Mr. Cooper swore up and down that it was a panther."
My mother laughed.
"A panther? This far north? That is ridiculous. Where would it have come from?"
The neighbor shrugged.
"Isn't there a wild animal dealer a few miles away? Maybe it got loose from there."
My mother remained skeptical, rolling her eyes.
"What are the odds?"
Both of the women laughed as they flipped through their mail and waved goodbye.
Neither one of them thought that this would be the beginning. Neither one of them would have suspected what was to emerge out of the seemingly innocuous forests and corn.

The first to see it was the neighbor's daughter, Candice. She had gone out to call her dog, and a smear of black dashed across her peripheral vision. The dog came, whimpering, holding his tail between his legs, and Candice thought she heard a low growl. Her mother called my mother a few moments later, the warning clear: keep the kids inside, something is out there. I remember being forced to stay inside...just in case.

It wasn't until a few days later that I truly began to believe that there was something inhabiting the woods that didn't belong there. The neighbor had seen it: Big, black, and ungodly fast. But she didn't know what it was. Something with yellow eyes and a strange growl.
A few days later, old Mr. Cooper lost two of his chickens. Raccoons my mother theorized, or coyotes. Both were notorious for their poultry appetites. But when Mr. Cooper described the way one of his best dogs had dragged it's self home, four long slashes in his belly, we all began to worry. The dog died a few moments after Mr. Cooper found him.

I still remember the day I heard it. It was a gorgeous day: Sunny, warm, and quiet. But as I walked down the driveway, I could have sworn that someone, or something, was watching me. Just as I headed back to the house, I heard it, a scream that chilled the blood within my veins. It sounded almost like the scream of a woman, as though every pain, sorrow, and agony had been concentrated into her last dying scream. My eyes scanned the silent wood, the still corn.... Nothing. I started back towards the house, and bolted the last few 100 feet when I could have sworn that I saw something black dash out of the corner of my eye. When I turned back to look, nothing was there.
After that day, there were no more incidences for a few weeks. But more was to emerge from those quiet woods.

The first time I heard my brother's story, I laughed. But the way his eyes got wide when he told me, the pure fear manifested on his face, convinced me that there was something more than raccoons in our woods.
"They were huge Brianna." He kept saying. "Those red eyes...the slobber..."
He and his buddy, Phil, had been playing "Army" out in the woods when the...creatures... came. As the boys headed back to the house for lunch, they heard a snarl behind them. My brother looked back at his buddy and shouted for him to hurry. Behind him, 6 or 7 hair-covered, slobbering, red-eyed dogs were crouching for the pounce. Phil tripped and the dogs lunged for him. My brother swung his wooden gun at them, and dragged Phil to his feet.
"We got lucky. If we hadn't run, they would have killed us. I just know it." He told me, his face white. Of course, our parents didn't believe them. The only reason I did was because I had always felt as though something was in those woods.
My brother and I went out to see if we could find some kind of prints, and found more proof than we thought we would. Giant paw prints were just barely visible. Someone...or something...had tried to swipe them away with some kind of branch or broom. There were still some patches of what I could have sworn were drool on the ground, but that wasn't what convinced me. The smell was overwhelming. It triggered the image of a maggot-infested rotting carcass in my mind. Never before in my life had I ever experienced such an awful stench. After that, my brother and I never allowed anyone to venture into the woods alone. It was months before any of us went near that forest.
Two weeks later, my dog disappeared into those woods. I haven't seen him since.

No one ever saw those creatures, but every now and then, someone would complain about a dead cat, or chicken, or the sound of growling in the night. Some people blame the coyotes you can hear yipping on a cool summer night, and say that my brother has one hell of an imagination. All I know, is that when I read in the paper about a wild animal dealer being arrested for holding illegal predatory animals in captivity, my heart skipped a beat. Apparently, or so the story goes, the man had a special bond with his "pets", and when the government threatened to take them away, he released them as vengeance on the authorities.

Was it the mournful scream panther I heard that afternoon? Were the wild dogs a figment of my brother's imagination? It's impossible to know for sure. But ever since then, strange things are heard coming from that forest...especially in the middle of the night. And on one goes in alone. Ever.

Horror Short Stories: Who Let the Dogs Out?

When looking over and re-reading the short stories from the beginning of our syllabus, I noticed a connection that I hadn't seen before: there is a heavy emphasis on monsters either based on or members of the animal kingdom. Specifically, I'm dealing with panthers, ants, cat people, and squid in my paper. Why can we be just as frightened by animals as we are by monsters based on human beings? A few thoughts:

1) I think that it's frightening when intelligence exists where it should not. To be chased by a cunning human is one thing, but for some reason its just more "wrong" when the cunning attacker is an animal.

2) Animals provide good targets for the horrific biology techniques presented by Carroll: they can be massified and magnified much more easily and with much greater effect than a human foe. (Trying to apply the "twenty square miles" of ants in Leiningen to humans doesn't work so well.)

3) Pitting man against nature in horror stories provided a method of expression for the conflicts going on at the time of these stories' publishing: imperialism and colonization. European authors saw nature, including both its animals and its unfamiliar cultures (given no more respect than animals), as a primary foe. These horror stories provide a window into the history of this conflict.

Generally, the stories I studied were examples of natural horror and the animals presented as monsters were an extension of nature's power. Zombies, vampires, ghosts, and demons have their place in the genre, but for short horror stories written in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the natural world seemed to be most prominent.

28 Days Later

People give me really funny looks when I tell them that 28 Days Later is one of my favorite movies. So I'm going to spend some time defending this intelligent modern zombie movie. (spoilers, in case you want to watch it. but if you don't, maybe this will make you interested in it :))

The cinematography is not your run of the mill Hollywood shoot-em-up flick. It's art. When the main character wakes up, 28 days after he got hit by a car and went into a coma, he can't find anyone. London is empty. He wanders around the city for awhile and walks into the main part of a church. The camera shows us that the pews are filled with dead bodies, or so we think at first. The bodies, in the lighting and the colors, reflect the stain-glass window perfectly above them. Something about the similarities between the church and the dead bodies gives us a thrill of cosmic terror. There are interesting shots like this one throughout the movie, that allow the movie to rise above Dawn of the Dead and others like it.

The story, portrayed by great actors, is also much more interesting than a regular old zombie movie. A group of four people get together in the story and hear a radio announcement that says that there is a group of military men who say that they have a cure to the rage-infection that has swept London. So the group heads to the military base, only to find a group of men that bother us from the beginning. Something just seems wrong about them. Again, this is nicely done--subtly, so we're really not sure if we're imagining it. Until we find out that the commander feels that he should let his men rape the 20something year old women and the 13 year old girl that are part of the group we've been following. He tells us that, after only 28 days, he feels that they need to feel they have a future, and a future means women and continuing the race. The main character does not agree, and so they arrange to have him killed. He escapes, however, and when he does he sees an airplane. That's it. Just a shot of an airplane. Subtle. And then we know that the apocalypse is not really one after all. It cannot have reached the whole world if he's seeing an airplane. And he goes back to save the girls anyway. He ends up fighting one of the military men to get him off of the girls. He's so enraged by their behavior, that the girls wonder if he has been infected by the rage-virus when he brutally kills one of the military men. The symbolism is interesting in that this group survives all the zombies, only to meet the true threat: other people. When even the main character seems like he could be as violent as one of the zombies, we see the darker truth the film is telling us: there's a blood-thirsty part in all of this. This movie is intelligent in that it is reflecting real, human problems by using the zombie genre.

Modern Vampire Portrayals Suck

While working on my final project, I did an analysis of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and decided to write my final blog comparing the modern day vampires’ versus the ones that were created earlier. What I've found is that the vampires whose characters were created over ten years ago are considerably more frightening and scary than those that have come into existence lately.
For example, the seductive vampire character has appeared in both older works and modern works. Anne Rice’s novels, such as Interview With a Vampire and her series The Vampire Chronicles feature sympathetic and seductive vampires, however they are still portrayed as monsters. They still inspire fear. No fear is inspired by Edward Cullen in Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight series. The emphasis has become more on star crossed love stories and less on the horror of the vampire. Twilight is more Romeo and Juliet than it is Dracula.
Similar to Twilight, in Buffy when there are seductive vampires, such as that of Spike and Angel that become love interests to Buffy it is more of an exception than the rule. The Cullens’ in Twilight are supposedly rare forms of vampires that don’t kill humans and the vampires Buffy falls in love with are the rare vampires that have souls. Clearly these modern interpretations of the vampire are attempting to reconcile lore that does not fit with the traditional lore of vampires. In doing this, the creatures that once inspired fear are now merely making for good teenage angst stories and the use of the vampire character is being degraded. Personally, I am not having nightmares about vampires that sparkle in the sun, but instead vampires such as those of Dracula that have nefarious intentions such as wanting to kill and destroy the world.

Are You Afraid of the Dark?

Bobby's post below entitled "Children's Horror" brought back memories of watching Are You Afraid of the Dark? at my Grandma's house with my little sister. Does anyone else remember the episode with the monster in the swimming pool?

Behold: "The Tale of the Dead Man's Float"



Best. Episode. Ever.

Humor and Horror: A Love Story

In conjunction with our Honors class, I have been taking an independent study course that focuses specifically on zombie literature and film. In the course, we have looked at a slew of popular novels and films that feature zombies, including:

Novels
The Zombie Survival Guide by Max Brooks
World War Z by Max Brooks
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
Breathers by S. G. Browne
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies by Seth Grahame-Smith

Films
Night of the Living Dead
Zombieland
Resident Evil: Extinction
I Am Legend
Fido
Pride and Prejudice (for comparison, of course!)
Shaun of the Dead

Although we have touched on the role of zombies in the horror genre today, we have not really discussed their influence. Some believe that the zombie fad is fading, but society’s obsession with zombies appears to be increasing. Novels, film, and television have all jumped on the flesh-eating bandwagon; nevertheless, the role of the zombie within the horror genre has evolved. Today, zombies are often used by authors and directors to create relevant satires. Each of the works listed above feature aspects of the absurd, however, only a few succeed in mixing elements of humor and horror to create a satisfactory work of satire (see the bolded works).

As Bobby discussed in his presentation last week, humor and horror have many similarities that allow them to work seamlessly together – especially in works of satire. Satire, which depends on the conventions of dark humor, strives to enact change in society by emphasizing social ills. Authors and directors of horror films today often use zombies to achieve this goal. This practice goes back to George Romero’s Night of the Living Dead (1968), which utilizes zombies as a means to comment on themes such as communism, sexism, and racism. In my final project for my independent study course, I decided to examine the use of satire in zombie literature and film and to share this examination with you.

For my project, I designed three posters. The first is a collage that depicts some of the instances of satire featured in the works listed above. These include commentaries on consumerism, communism, racism, sexism, patriotism, medical ethics, the American cowboy mythos, violence, and romance (you can click on the pictures to make them larger):

















The second and third are protest posters designed in the spirit of the various Rights Movements (i.e. the Civil Rights Movement, the Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement, and the Women's Movement):
































My main inspiration for this project was the film Fido. Out of all the novels and films (except Shaun of the Dead) this film best represents the synthesis of horror and humor and best demonstrates an effective use of satire. I highly recommend it!

Dracula- Cincinnati Shakespeare Company version

Let’s watch Dracula, again. I’ve already seen a few movie versions, read the book and discussed it in class but let’s go watch a play of it too, why not? Before going to see the play, I really didn’t think I would find it entertaining at all. I figured, if I already know the story line and ending, how could it be entertaining? I was very wrong though.

First off, I like how they changed the order of the plot. I feel the flashbacks made the story more dramatic. It allowed you to be introduced to all the characters, and then see what previously happened. It also gave the scenes at the Count’s castle more meaning because of the timing it is presented. The timing of it was in the middle of Lucy’s becoming “sick.” The flashbacks therefore showed what was going on with Lucy after it had already begun. The book, however, has the scenes at the Count’s castle first, and then when everything happens with Lucy, you already know what’s going on.

The cast selection was also done very well. The man the cast to play Dracula was truly creepy. He walked in a very smooth, flowing way. His bone structure also made him seem very rigid which made him seem stronger. Something about the way he held himself just gave me a very eery feeling.

The rest of the cast as well played their parts very well. The best one, I believe, was Reinfield. That actor did an excellent job in his performance. The way he moved and spoke really made him look crazy. His eyes, however, are what I remember the most. He truly seemed out of his mind.

I also really enjoyed the scene where they were all traveling towards the Count’s castle because while they were stationary, they still created a sense of movement and intense suspense. I feel with many plays that the scenes involving traveling are done in a very cheesy way. They did it very elegantly though.

Overall, the Dracula play that we saw was by far my favorite version of the story. While the casting and change of plot helped. I believe that seeing the story in person is what made it better than the other versions.

The Description in the Deceit

Rotting corpses, strange alien beings, whippoorwills, "An' Gawd in Heaven-that haff face on top!"
Lovecraft certainly knew how to create the atmosphere.

Throughout this semester we have read a few of Lovecraft's stories. The one that really sticks well in my memory is The Dunwich Horror. But it isn't the monster, nor the plot that truly drew me into the story, it was the way the author described everything in the story. Every mountain, every house, every character however insignificant, every hideous abnormality of Wilbur Whateley and his father was described in careful detail. I truly think that the description and art with which an author spins a tale is what determines the quality. But why? Why does the description draw a reader in?

For a lie to be believed, the more detail given the better. When you are making up a fib, if you can create a story with details, you have a better chance of it succeeding. Storytelling is extremely similar. Detail is everything. When one writes a story, he/she becomes the Creator. The author creates the world, the characters, the danger, the smells, sounds, sights, and the plot using only words. With the decisive stroke of a pen, a character can live or die. A few clicks of a keyboard can create a utopia as quickly as they can create a hell.
In short, a world is created. A good author slowly pulls a reader in by describing enough in detail to interest, but leaving enough spaces for the reader's imagination to fill in the blanks. Lovecraft does both. He describes the environment in vivid adjectives and careful detail, but leaves his monsters strangely unknown. I believe that his description of the setting, characters, and environment pull the reader in, and the true horror lies in what the reader's imagination supplies for the monster. An imagination unattended can be a dangerous thing.

Lovecraft's horror lies in his artful use of description and imagination. I theorize that every reader sees Yog-Sothoth as a different monster, and that, is the true horror.

Lovecraft and Scientology

Over the course of the semester, I've done a bit of reading on Lovecraft and his theories. They interest me mainly because I feel as though he could be a descendant of L. Ron Hubbard, the science-fiction novelist who found the "religion" of Scientology. Essentially, followers believe that L. Ron Hubbard was actually a prophet who held incredible secrets about life. What exactly do they believe? Well, I'll let South Park demonstrate it to you:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104274/what-scientologist-actually-believe
(Note: It seems very comical, but this really is what scientologists believe)

After watching that clip, it may be more apparent now that Lovecraft seems related to Scientology. Lovecraft's stories often involve "gods" who turn out to actually be aliens. Just as scientologists believe that our human nature, or "spirit", is actually the deceased spirits of alien races, "anything that originally seems to be spirit in Lovecraft's works is ultimately revealed to be the work of aliens from far distant reaches of space and time, while magic is revealed to be higher science and previously unexplained workings of nature." (Things We Were Not Meant to Know: H.P. Lovecraft and Cosmic Horror, Mack Knopf)
Thus, scientology and Lovecraftian theory appear to have a lot in common. Both typically derive their ultimate explainations from supernatural, alien beings. Either way, both of them seem like slightly idiotic, and preposterous ideologies that shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Night of the Demon

Carroll defines the horror genre based on two main components: the first is a supernatural, disgusting monster and the second is a complex discovery plot. In the film "Night of the Demon", the monster is made apparent in the opening scene. It obviously meets all of the criteria for a monster in that it is fearsome, disgusting, and obviously unexplainable by science. The complex discovery plot is also apparent throughout the film. With both of these criteria for a horror story met, Carroll would most definitely consider "Night of the Demon" to be in the horror genre.
I, too, think that the film could be placed within the horror genre. However, I disagree with Carroll's reasoning. For myself, I would place "Night of the Demon" in the horror genre specifically because the creators of the film had it as their main agenda to evoke fear onto audiences. That, to me, is the only important factor when trying to classify a film or story in the genre.
"Night of the Demon" also does a very good job of delivering the emotional response that Carroll identifies as a characteristic of the horror genre. According to Carroll, it is important that the story makes the audience sympathize with the characters' predicament and fear for their fate. Especially since the demon was actually shown on film in the very beginning of the film so the audience knows without doubt that the demon exists, they become even more worried that the characters will fall victim to the sinister plot of Karswell. There is certainly a sense of "cosmic fear" as well. This is seen by Karswell's tampering with this black magic throughout the film, which is obviously outside of his full understanding or control since ultimately it is what kills him. Audiences aren't entirely sure what powers he possesses, or the outcomes that will follow as he uses those powers.
The film utilizes both the Complex Discovery Plot and the Overreacher Plot Carroll defined. The onset, again, is the opening scene of the film where the monster is seen and made apparent to audiences. The discovery aspect happens over time as more and more supernatural things begin to occur and the characters of the film slowly but surely allow themselves to believe in the black magic taking place. The confirmation is the end result as both Joanna and Dr. Holden believe that the monster truly exists. The confrontation aspect of the complex discovery plot typically involves the characters battling the monster to survive. This doesn't directly happen in the film, however, it can be argued that they are fighting the monster by trying to trick Karswell into taking back the ancient parchment. The Overreacher Plot is typically defined as the protagonist of the film delving into forbidden knowledge, using that knowledge, then dealing with the consequences. However, in "Night of the Demon," it is Karswell, the antagonist, who is actually using the black magic. It can still be argued, however, that even Dr. Holden deals in black magic since he wants the ancient book to learn about it and then he uses the parchment's abilities at the end to trick Karswell.
The most suspenseful scene of the film in my opinion is the end scene on the train. The clock slowly dwindles down as Holden and Joanna chase down Karswell and attempt to pass the parchment back to him. Karswell refuses again and again until the audience believes there is no longer hope for Holden. Then ultimately, Holden is able to pass the parchment back to Karswell in his jacket. Throughout the entire scene, the audience is led to believe that Holden will be unable to pass Karswell the parchment because time is running out and Karswell refuses, knowing what will happen if the parchment is returned. Thus, the morally disturbing outcome is expected during the entire scene.
I do not believe that there are any social, political, or moral themes within the film. I believe the creators specifically made it to be a horror film and nothing more. Perhaps a small Lovecraftian theme tied in in terms of meddling with the supernatural, but overall it was only meant to frighten viewers.
Tourneur employed sound very well in the film to heighten the sense of fear of the demon appearing again. Another technique used was the camera angle. Specifically in the scene where Holden snuck into Karswell's mansion to find the book, Tourneur uses angles throughout to make audiences believe that Holden was being watched. In fact, they even placed an eerie, unexplained hand in the scenes to convey the idea that perhaps the demon was there in the mansion with him.

Children's Horror

While working on my final paper for this class, one of the things I've encountered is the use of horror in children's media. The fact that my paper is on the mixture of comedy and horror should say something about exactly how horror is used in children's entertainment. Because children are more likely to become uncomfortably scared by horror movies, some lighter emotion must be mixed into any attempt to convey horror to children, and comedy does a very effective job of preventing children's horror from becoming too scary. In fact, many horror movies are rated at least PG-13 with a great deal of them rated R, only further proof that straight up horror is not for children. But that of course doesn't mean that kids have to be totally removed from this genre. I know that, although I did not watch R rated horror movies until I was a teenager, I did see shows which included elements of horror that provided enough of a scare for me that I liked them but not so much that they made me cry and curse the name of horror. I think the reason for this was the injection of comedy into horror.

Take one very popular example of children's television with horror in it: Scooby Doo. Each episode has a "monster", or at least that's what it looks like at first. These baddies are always pretty frightening, especially to little children, and include such things as ghosts, frankensteins, werewolves, mummies, etc. However, the antics of the members of Mystery, Inc., especially Shaggy and Scooby, greatly decrease the potency of the horror. When Scooby and Shaggy go searching for food and run into a monster, a chase scene is often started which includes light-hearted music and a humorous movement of the characters between doors in a hallway. So, although the show usually starts off in a spooky setting with creepy characters and the introduction of a scary "monster", the rest of the show is absolutely riddled with comedy to make children laugh at their fears. Watching a horrific monster clumsily searching a set of drawers for the hiding Scooby and Shaggy makes him seem funny and not so scary.

True, it seems more comedy is used in this "horror" children's media than even in the horror-comedy of today aimed at adults. But this seems only natural. Forcing a child to watch a horror-comedy movie like Creep-Show would probably scare them to an uncomfortable level, causing the some to even cry. I think that using something "fun" like comedy is an excellent way to allow children to be introduced to the genre of horror so that, when they grow older and more mature, the transition into true horror is made a lot easier!

Why B Movies Matter

Many people discount the ‘B’ movies of yesteryear as being naïve, teenage drivel, fit for nothing more than visual stimulation for eating popcorn in the front seat of your’58 Thunderbird, while you contemplate how to most effectively make moves on your girlfriend. The monsters aren’t threatening, the acting is terrible, and the stories are even worse. I would argue, however, that simply because these films are mindless does not mean that our response to them must be. In terms of pop culture history, there must have been some reason why films such as Billy The Kid Versus Dracula (1966) and The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958) sold tickets. Admittedly, the previous drive-in scenario still holds true with these films, (people didn’t mark their calendars to see these films, they merely got out of the house on a Friday night and saw what the theater was playing), but there is something significant in the place these films hold in history. People want horror films, and will stretch the suspension of disbelief to new levels in order to enjoy a horror film (as is necessary with films such as The Torture Chamber of Dr.Sadism). Without B Movie horror, we may have forgotten what horror is all about. It is not about being frightened, or being scared. It is about seeing humanity confront evil, which takes some form of Noel Carroll’s art-horror monster. It is not science fiction. It is not primarily concerned with exploring the dangers and possibilities of new worlds and the future. It is ultimately about the average person confronting non-average evil. This primordial struggle is very much evident in B Movies, and we owe a debt of gratitude to the directors who kept this spirit alive.
Surviving the withering effects of science-fiction was a difficult task for horror to do. It needed to recede into the depths of B movie obscurity to preserve its purity. Like the monks of the Dark Ages who receded into their monasteries to preserve the culture of the West, horror film makers of the 1950’s and 1960’s were forced to make low-budget, (often) low quality films. We must not judge these films as falling out the horror genre merely because they are not horrifying. It is important to judge a genre by its intended effects, rather than make high achievement of these effects the standard. In B Movies we find honest efforts of filmmakers to make horror films. You may laugh at them, but I urge you all to view B movies in a new light. Laugh not at the filmmakers, but laugh in joy at the notion that horror can survive all odds, even the confines of B movies, while retaining its primitive purity; a beauty in simplicity, without pretense.

robert

WH40k and the 3 Faces of Horror

For my last post, I thought I'd talk about one of my favourite subcreated universes(layman's terms-fictional world) and how it provides illustration of the different theories of horror we've studied over the semester. Welcome to the universe of Warhammer 40,000.

Now, in WH40k, the universe has to halves: the materium, or physical world; and the immaterium, colloquially referred to as The Warp. The Warp exists parallel to the materium, and is home to all the strong basic emotions of the psychically attuned races: Men and Elves. If a certain emotion is prevalent and strong enough in the material world, its Warp counterpart will take on a life of its own, and become a powerful psychic being titled a Chaos God, akin to a Lovecraftian Elder Being like Yog Sototh. There are also lesser beings formed the same way, called daemons. There are four Chaos Gods in the Warp presently, and they illustrate well several of the principles of horror.

Khorne

Khorne was formed from mankind's anger, and illustrate's Carroll's theory of art-horror. His minions(predominantly Bloodletters, pictured above) are physically revolting to look upon, and terrifying to imagine encountering. Their "bodies" used to inhabit the physical world are resistant to conventional weaponry, and their daemonic blades cleave right through armour. The fact that they have "bodies" is a transgression of boundaries and mixing of categories. Psychic beings should stay in the Warp and material beings should stay in the materium, right? Nope, they literally cross the boundary into the physical world and assume a terrifying form, part beast, part man. Khornate beings are primarily more fearsome than disgusting however, which is why we have Nurgle!

Nurgle

The dripping diseased fellow above is a Plague Marine of Nurgle, the chaos god of decay and disease. He shows the more disgusting side of the fearsome/disgusting coin tossed by Carroll. All of Nurgle's followers bear the marks of terrible diseases, they ooze pus and ichor, and their weapons carry deadly pestilences and poisons. The main source of Nurgle's horror comes from the disgusting aspects of his minions rather than a fearsome visage.

Tzeentch

While the premise of the Warp and chaos gods is already Lovecraftian enough, Tzeentch, the chaos god of ambition, trickery, and impossibly elaborate planning best represents Cosmic Horror. While Tzeentch daemons are physically terrifying in there own right (consult the Lord of Change seen above), the particular horror of Tzeentch is the complete alien-ness of his mind and manner of thinking. Unlike us humans, who think in terms of achieving goals, and are frustrated when our plans are foiled, Tzeentch can turn any failure into part of a different plan for victory. While his minions carry out his plans, Tzeentch has all the time in the world to come up with new ones. Even if you win, or think you've beaten him, you've just been an unwitting pawn advancing some other plan towards its completion. While a popular joke among WH40k plans is that any victory against Tzeentch was all part of his plan, in reality this would be no joking matter. Like Yog Sototh or Cthulhu there is ultimately no way to defeat him, just delay him.

Slaanesh

Representing Freudian and Freelantian sexual horror is Slaanesh, chaos god of sensual desire. I'm at a loss for words here, the image speaks for itself. That ugly...thing...oozes transgressive eroticism out of every...you know....*goes to bleach brain*

Thoughts on the Dracula Play

I really enjoyed going to see the play Dracula – it turned out to be better than I expected. I saw the play Frankenstein at that same theater when I was a senior in high school. The actor who played Dracula in our play was the same actor who played Frankenstein in the other play. I believe his name is Giles, and Giles played all of the characters in the Frankenstein play. It was very interesting to see a one-man play, but at the same time it detracted from the horror of the story of Frankenstein. Also, the setting never changed so there was a great deal left up to the imagination. I was going into our Dracula play with the same sort of expectations, but was surprised to find quite the contrary. One thing I immediately noticed was that they made great use of the set and the characters really did a great job, especially the crazy Renfield.

The way that the play was performed really drew the audience in, to the point that I felt completely immersed within the plot of the play. I really liked how the play made the scenes at Count Dracula’s castle flashbacks because it really allowed for the audience to feel more of a connection to Mina. Since Mina is reading the diary and seeing the events that happened to Jonathon, it really connects the audience to her character to find out about these events for the first time along with her. Then we can feel the same shocked feelings that she is experiencing. Lucy was very well done and her costume in the graveyard scene was perfect! I loved how she walked down the aisle and again the audience was able to connect with Van Helsing, Dr. Seward and Jonathan when they see Lucy for the first time in her horrifying vampire form. We can feel the fear that the men are feeling when seeing the disgusting monster of Lucy.

Also, I noticed some connections between the play and the Dracula films we have watched in class. There was one scene in which, from my perspective, Dracula’s shadow was really emphasized by appearing on the wall to the left. This shadow effect was similar to the shadow effects in Nosferatu. Another connection I noticed was that Giles movements were very smooth and feminine like, like in the Dracula film with Bela Lugosi. Also there was definitely a side of eroticism in the play that would be in accordance with Cynthia Freeland’s essay. The scene in which Mina is sucking the blood from Dracula’s chest was performed in a very erotic sense. Overall, I thought the play was very well done!

Hammer Film of the Week

For those brave souls who still dare to journey down the path of art-horror after the semester closes, I have decided to stick around on this planet in the blogosphere, and continue to contribute to this noble human effort. My humble offerings will be a weekly/biweekly/monthly/twice daily/as directed dose of Hammer Horror, shining the light on some forgotten classics, whose contributions to modern horror are sorely underappreciated. I will be your Virgil as you wander through this Inferno of horror. I will make sure that the presentations and reviews will have information that is not immediately within Wikipedia range, so as to make the trip worth your while. The first film will be the 1966 classic, “Plague of the Zombies”. Many think George Romero emerged fully formed out of the head of Zeus with his “Night of the Living Dead”, but as this film will show you, the zombie movie existed before Romero. Be expecting this sometime after finals week, when I can sit back, relax, and share stories from the dark, scary, and sometimes confusing place that is my head.

Dracula According to Freeland

In the wake of seeing Dracula, I thought it would be especially relevant to discuss how Cynthia Freeland would perhaps have analyzed the play. While the plot way very similar to that of the novel, I found that the portrayals of certain characters and the degree of sexuality expressed in the play differed from that of the original work from which it was derived.

In terms of genre familiarity, there is no doubt that the play is very much like the novel in the sense that it establishes the very characteristics that we now expect to see in all vampire films/plays/etc. In the play, Dracula was portrayed as a stately, perhaps aristocratic man with a personality as mysterious as his accent. He displayed a hatred of light, mirrors, and religious artifacts, and there were many scenes in which a coffin was present or implied. In fact, even the doorway leading into Mina's room was coffin-shaped. In this way, there is no doubt that Freeland would agree that the play followed all of the norms of vampire genre familiarity.

Freeland's next condition can also be found within both the play and the novel. According to Freeland, vampires must violate the boundaries between life and death. In doing so, they exist as a contradiction to how humans usually consider life; they are, in a sense, both alive and dead simultaneously. The play effectively portrayed this dual nature; the scenes in which Harker, Mina, Van Helsing, and others strove to first figure out what Dracula was and later how to defeat him presented the very existence of the vampire as a puzzling metaphysical problem.

Finally, I think Freeland would agree that the play portrayed Dracula as a creature that violated the norms of femininity and masculinity; perhaps even more so than the Dracula in Bram Stoker's novel. In the novel, Dracula had the desire to drink blood from all humans; both male and female. This is also true in the play. The scene in which Harker first cuts his neck, however, goes above and beyond Freeland's stipulation in the sense that it definitely generated homosexual undertones. This is not to say, however, that Dracula was in any way homosexual; there were numerous scenes that possessed blatant heterosexuality, such as the scene in which Mina is forced to drink from his chest and the scene in which Dracula forces himself onto Lucy's bed. Scenes such as these demonstrate the dual nature of the sexuality present in both the play and the novel; which proves Freeland's point that true vampires must in some way violate the norms of femininity and masculinity.

Dick Van Dyke and the Porpoises

Here is a link to the article I mentioned in class. Draw your own conclusions.

Just thought I'd share...

I'm not sure how very relavent this is, but I thought it interesting and wanted to share it here.

I read today that energy use in the frontal cortex of the brain increases 30% during a nightmare. Being scared is like exercising, then, right?





Info from: J.M. Bourre, "Effects of Nutrients (in food) on the Structure and Function of the Nervous System: Update on Dietary Requirements for the Brain. Part 2: Macronutrients," The Journal of Nutrition, Health, and Aging, Vol. 10, No. 5, November 5, 2006

Essentialism and the Haunted House

I recently read that some states in the US have disclosure laws that force realtors to state whether they are selling a "stigmatized home." What's that mean? Well, they have to tell you whether they're selling you a potentially haunted house, essentially. If something happened in the house at some point that would creep people out -perhaps a murder or something similar- the government forces them to tell you about it. Now what's the rationale for this? The house is cleaned and sterilized, all new carpet and furnishings, it's a perfectly good house in all physical and tangible ways... only it maintains a "certain something else" and "essence" that we attribute to it. And this belief in an essence is obviously not confined to the sophomoric superstitious -there are state laws. The City Council of Glancester, England ordered the destruction of a home where a couple raped, and killed several young girls, burying them in the garden and under the basement floor. The council made a point of removing all the bricks, crushing them into dust, then scattering them in a landfill at a secret location. A similar intervention occurred at the apartment where Jeffery Dahmer lived; it is now a parking lot.
This idea of an "essence" is an idea associated with a person or object, and though it's recognizably irrational, it's something many of us can't bring ourselves to overcome. A certain psychologist once conducted studies during which he asked people to try on a sweater that once belonged to Adolf Hitler. Needless to say, the subjects were reluctant to do so. And why? Isn't this sweater just like every other sweater that was manufactured at that same factory? Yes, it is. Same color, same texture, same thickness -all identical. Yet we regard objects not only as a compilation of their tangible and perceivable characteristics, but also as individuals. It's not just a sweater, it's that sweater, it's Hitler's sweater. We attribute an intangible characteristic to objects that ultimately affect our attitudes toward them. And it's this arbitrary assignment that's often more powerful than the actual properties the item has if forming out attitudes toward it.

Talk about the power of the mind.

The Evil Dead, Art-Horror, Art-Dread, and the Phenomena of Ash Williams

(NOTE TO DR. LANGGUTH: THIS IS A REPRINT OF A PREVIOUS POST FROM THE HORROR CLASS. THIS IS NOT NEW MATERIAL)

In light of this class' ability to actually use and comment on the blog, I have decided to repost one of my posts from my time in the Horror Film class that used the same blog. Unfortunately, during that run, not many people read the blog... hopefully you all enjoy

Sam Raimi’s 1981 horror classic, “The Evil Dead” is often cited as the definititive low budget horror masterpiece, and largely holds up as a truly horrifying, suspenseful film. Raimi’s visionary direction led The Evil Dead to receive much critical praise, and ultimately, an increased budget for two sequels (which progressively moved farther away from horror and into comedy). The Evil Dead can be applied to both Noel Carroll’s account of Art-Horror and Cynthia Freeland’s account of Art-Dread, and the film is a near perfect hybrid of both.
The movie begins with five college students, led by Ash Williams (Bruce Campbell), going camping in a Tennessee cabin in the woods. Immediately after they arrive, odd things begin happening (porch swings moving by themselves, trees making noises, strange fog, etc) but the students continue and unpack.
After the cellar door flings open unexplained, Ash and Scotty investigate. While in the cellar, they find a book and a tape. The book, which is later revealed to be The Necronomicon Exmortis (a book with demonic incantations), is bound in human flesh and written in blood. The tape is of a professor who lived in the cabins deciphering the book. For thrills, the students playback the tape, which reveals the incantations to have demonic properties, and immediately the woods seem to come alive in search for revenge. Later that night, one of the students, Cheryl, is brutally attacked by the woods, and demands to return to town. Ash takes Cheryl and drives away from the cabin, but the bridge on which they came in is now in ruins, stranding the frantic campers. Ash listens to the rest of the tape and learns that humans can be possessed by Candarian Demons released by the incantations and the only way to stop the demons is through bodily dismemberment. Cheryl soon becomes possessed and attacks the campers, but is detained and locked in the cellar. Scotty’s girlfriend Shelly is the next to be possessed by the demons, and she attacks Ash and Scotty, only to be brutally dismembered. After burying the body, Scotty flees from the cabin and is mortally wounded by the woods. Finally, Ash’s girlfriend Linda falls victim to the demons and is possessed. Ash is left alone to find a way to defeat the demons and escape the woods. Tortured by his possessed girlfriend, Ash drags her outside and buries her (unable to dismember her). She soon rises from the grave and attacks Ash, who is at the last moment able to behead her with a shovel. A wounded Ash returns to the cabin only to find that Cheryl has escaped from the cellar and Scotty has become possessed by a demon.
Ash hurriedly grabs a shotgun and barricades the doors to prevent Cheryl from re-entering the cabin. Ash then proceeds to the basement in search of shotgun shells in what is one of eeriest sequences of the film. In the basement, the house begins to bleed, random calls of “we’re gonna get you” can be heard, clocks begin rolling backwards, and windows slam open and shut. Ash returns upstairs for the final confrontation between himself and the demon possessed Scotty and Cheryl.
Ash realizes that if he tosses the Necronomincon into the fire, then the demons will disappear. After a brutal struggle, Ash is able to toss the book into the flames and defeat the demons in the cabin. At dawn, Ash leaves the cabin, but is stalked by an unseen demon.
The Evil Dead evokes a strong feeling of art-horror. The film does have a monster as Carroll would define, which is both disgusting and fearsome. The Demons are physically, as well as categorically, disgusting. The monsters would be considered fusion monsters by Carroll. The film’s imagery is intensely horrific, with graphic violence and gore throughout (from dismemberment, to decaying corpses, to self mutilation, gouging eyes out, etc.) which adds to the overall terror and physical agitation felt by the audience. The film follows a typical onset/confrontation plot (like The Thing From Another World) where our characters are thrust into a completely isolated situation, discover the workings of a monster, and are immediately the targets of its evil. The film does have several very suspenseful scenes which accentuate the high probability of the undesired outcome, such as when Cheryl walks at night into the woods (and is attacked), when Ash goes to the basement in search of shotgun shells (and experiences preternatural terrors), and when Ash looks for the missing demon/Cheryl.
The film has an atmosphere of dread throughout, which would help place it in the category of art-dread as theorized by Cynthia Freeland. For Freeland, in order for a work to evoke art-dread, it “must depict an encounter with something terrible or unsettling that is also deep, obscure, and difficult to comprehend” (Freeland 193). Some grand themes of art-dread films include cosmic justice, Man’s place in the universe, the amorality of the universe, and the struggle between good and evil. Though The Evil Dead’s primary theme is of survival, one could make the argument that it also examines the futility of Man’s effort in the face of supernatural evil, like the Candarian Demons. Freeland also argues that “a film of art-dread must make plausible the thought of imminent danger from something that is vague but profoundly evil or unsettling” (Freeland 196). For Freeland, “The Evil Dead” would probably be too concrete in its reveal of the ‘monster’, but also very good for its vague, unsettling depiction of the ‘evil woods’. In “The Evil Dead”, there seem to be multiple monsters at work. The most obvious (and of most concern to our hero) monsters are the Demons which possessed Ash’s friends, but there is also a greater evil which seems to have possessed the entire woods which we never actually see. The greater power of the objectless evil is felt throughout the film, like when Ash attempts to drive out of the woods, only to see that the bridge has been knocked out and the metal beams holding it up folded into a hand. Several of the characters frantically scream “it won’t let us leave!”, giving the viewer an unsettling feeling about something unknown. Freeland would applaud “The Evil Dead” for its tremendously unsettling and dread-inspiring setting.

“The Evil Dead” does not merely have one or two scenes of dread, but sustains a plausible environment of dread and unsettling fear throughout the film, forcing viewers to entertain such thoughts as “is there a demon around that corner?”. Truly a masterpiece, “The Evil Dead” is primarily a work of art-horror, but definitely would fall into Freeland’s classification of art-dread.
Director Sam Raimi used several cinematic techniques to enhance and sustain an environment of dread and horror. Several point of view shots from the position of “the demon of the woods” established the potential omniscience of the evil in the film, which seemed to be everywhere. Several chilling sequences also used the point of view technique, such as when Ash first walks through the basement, Scotty looking for the missing Shelly, and scariest of all was the point of view shot from the “demon in the cellar”. The extensive use of first person shots ties the viewer intimately with the action on screen, and with the protagonist, along side of whom we as viewers are not too many steps ahead in the narrative. If Ash turns a corner, we do not know what lurks behind it, unlike many horror narratives which have at least one scene which compels the viewer to scream “No, don’t go in there you idiot!”. The use of fog, off screen sound, and generally unsettling imagery helped set the stage for a truly horrifying narrative. The acting in the film was the weakest aspect, with Campbell providing the only decent performance.


No analysis of “The Evil Dead” would be complete without mentioning the truly odd phenomena that is the character of Ash Williams. Ash has gained a mythic, global, cult following that dwarfs that of any other B Movie Horror protagonists. In later installments of the series, Ash builds his mythic stature by such macho maneuvers as cutting off his possessed hand and replacing it with a chainsaw, and perpetually wielding his “boomstick”. The character reached such popularity that the third installment of the series was officially titled “Bruce Campbell versus the Army of Darkness” in several areas. Bruce Campbell’s charismatic, accessible, and weirdly believable portrayal of Ash is a memorable aspect of “The Evil Dead”.

Overall, “The Evil Dead” still stands the test of time, and 28 years later still provides a chilling account of horror and encounters with supernatural evil.

Special Effects

Horror has many aspects to portray itself. From all the books we have read in class, there have been many descriptions to get across to the reader the feeling of fear. They usually describe the scenes so well that you could visualize everything, and in your mind, and possibly make the scene even scarier than it was ever intended. I know that while we were reading Dracula, the scene with the carriage driver scared me a lot more than it seemed to affect anyone else. I kept imaging being in the carriage alone with the odd driver who kept disappearing and with wolves surrounding me. The element of fear from reading that blew me away, and I had to keep reading to see what was going to happen next. In the movies, sometimes it almost seems that those scenes don’t have as much effect. When watching this same scene in the newer 90’s version of Dracula, Keanu Reeves didn’t seem worried at all; then again that might just have been Keanu Reeves himself. The driver, still creepy and weird, didn’t seem to have the same effect to me. He didn’t disappear back and forth and there weren’t the wolves surrounding them the whole time. More than anything I think Reeves was scared of the cliff height. Sometimes it just seems that the special effects and visual images just hold back the true horror it could release on the audience.

Special effects I think have a lot to do with how well the audience gets that feeling of horror. Some movies it just doesn’t cut it. A lot of this has to do with recent technology also. Some special effects that seem common place today were un-thought of back in the day. Even some the older ones though knew their capabilities. ¬¬I think Night of the Demon, although it would have been intimidating without the monsters shown, did a great job with the effects, especially for being in 1957 and very limited with their technology in special effects. The monster was very frightening looking with smoke and fangs, very intimidating. Another horror movie from that same time period, 1958, was The Brain from Planet Arous. This is a perfect example of a movie with ridiculous special effects that just make it humorous. The thought of a giant brain attacking from another planet is still a frightening monster but it just makes it hilarious. Even the newer ones today don’t know when to say they are out of their hands. The make-up, costumes, gore, sounds, and any other special effects really make a difference on how the movie is portrayed. I personally am not fond of scary movies but some of them just make me laugh. It makes me laugh harder when I find out they didn’t mean it as a spoof. Other scary movies, that do themselves justice with their special effects, I can’t watch because I will get paranoid and sleep with the lights on for weeks. The horror parody movies are the best at pointing out the ridiculous effects. One parody with surprisingly good gore effects is Shaun of the Dead. There are parts in there that almost make it worse to me than some of the horror movies. There is a scene when the zombies are ripping out a man’s intestine that is truly horrific looking. Another perfect example of a horror movie that has ridiculous special effects making it more of a comedy is Shark Attack 3. It was made in 2002 and it’s supposed to be a horror movie but it cannot even be taken seriously. All these special effects just add to the movie if done correctly; they can make it truly superb. However, when done incorrectly the special effects just make it another laughing matter.

Here are the four clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvPowFM_-XM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qImQ1YBZtwg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nzd0R_OeOc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGDqYnKHHrU

Defending Freud, and a Look at Freudian Literary Criticism

So far, the arguments I’ve seen against Freudian theory have amounted to: “Freud talks about sex, thus he is a fraud.” I don’t necessarily hold that argument against anyone personally, especially considering that in my Psychology experience during my undergrad time, it seems as though the accepted pedagogical approach to Freud is, “His theory is a crock, so we’re not going to really cover him with any depth.” There are a few inconsistencies with the Freud-bashing that I’d like to address. First, to dismiss Sigmund Freud as a fraud is ignorant on two counts: Freud’s theory does not “boil down to sex,” and his theory undeniably altered the approach to psychology, if not the way the entire world thinks about human mind. Furthermore, to use an analysis of a story through a Freudian lit. theory perspective written by a third party as proof that Freud is a fraud is an assumption that Sigmund Freud himself tailor-made his theory for a literary approach.

To say that Freud’s literary theory boils down to sex is to ignore both the primary emphasis and the final goal of his research. If anything, Freud’s research boils down to a “battle,” if you will, between natural human urges and subconscious thought, the result of which constitutes one’s personality and ability to live within society. We begin with the “id,” the natural desires which include but are not limited to sexual desires that are by their nature incompatible with social living. In other words, if our natural urges were to reign uncontrolled, killing everybody we disagree with and having sex in the streets would not be considered wrong. If the id had its way, all of that oedipal desire to kill dad and mate with mom would be a-okay. The subconscious “Super-ego,” which represents morals, justice, and all other socially acceptable ideals, fights to repress all of those nasty id ideas. Stuck in the middle of the battle is the “ego,” which is basically our conscious awareness. When the super-ego is, for one reason or another, overwhelmed by the id, that failure is manifested in our conscious behavior, in what we call neuroses and psychoses (conditions as simple as anxiety and as complicated as schizophrenia). Freud’s theory addresses the balance between base urges and social order, and the problems that arise between the two, and he formed it on the basis that an individual’s certain physical or social problems could be attributed to a problem within the mind other than something that “made sense” back in the day, like witchcraft or evil spirits. (Source) Granted this is just a nutshell version of Freud’s theories, which are far denser, but it goes to show that his ideas can’t be dismissed as a bunch of rambling about penises and vaginas.

Of course anyone could still call Freud an insignificant crackpot, had his ideas not revolutionized psychology. The fact that I’m even discussing the notion of a human subconscious and a human personality can be attributed to Freud. Right or wrong, Freud opened the door to the study of the human mind, along with psychiatry as a practice. The theories of his successors, even those who completely disagreed with him, have been sparked by his work’s relevance, and continue to shape psychiatry today. To put this in perspective, the National Institute of Mental Health reports that over 26% of Americans over the age of 18 suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder, which is about 58 million people (Source). That means that if you know anybody who suffers from anything from claustrophobia to schizophrenia, their condition may not even have been recognized had it not been for that “fraud” taking the first step into acknowledging the subconscious.

Thanks, fraud.

As far as literary theory is concerned, using a critics choice of the Freudian lens as proof that Freud himself is a fraud is ludicrous, considering that Freud himself has nothing to do with literary interpretation. Freudian literary criticism, like any other critical formula, is simply a set of ideas transposed onto fiction. This doesn’t guarantee that the critical formula will accurately fit the story. Furthermore, the interpretation does not depend on the set of ideas that the story is measured against, it depends on the way that the critic uses the ideas to view the story. Since it is dinnertime, I will use a food metaphor. Using critical literary theory is like going to a buffet. You pick and choose things on the buffet, and what you put together you call a meal. The way you put things together might be different from the way the guy behind you puts them together. The point is, if there is anybody to be blamed for a lousy critique, it is the critic, not lens.

In addition to this, an interpretation of the losing-eye-horror from other critical lenses could seem just as ridiculous. In fact, a feminist critic might propose that losing the eyes can be interpreted as a fear of emasculation, because without eyes with which to see, man can no longer be the dominant sex. This isn’t very far from a Freudian interpretation, yet if the feminist lens was used to depict a situation of fear over emasculation, I doubt that there would be accusations of fraudulent thought against feminists.

The word “fraud” seems like one of those weighty words like “hate,” that shouldn’t get used very often because they are pretty strong. Yeah, I know Freud’s name is only one letter away from it, and I have my own problems with the foundations of Freud’s theories, but I can’t deny that his theories had an impact; a big impact, on modern thought, and he’s about as far from a fraud as it gets. If we dismissed every idea that had novel yet somewhat disturbing conclusions, we would still be afraid to fall off of the flat edge of the earth, and we’d still be letting sick people bleed out in order to get rid of the bad spirits in their blood.