The articles Slasher films and gore in the 1980s by James Kendrick and The Gothic revival (1957-1974) by Rick Worland discuss the evolution of two distinctive sub-genres in the genre ‘horror film’ throughout the mentioned historical periods – specifically, ‘slasher’ and ‘Gothic.’ Nevertheless, even though Kendrick and Worland addressed the qualitatively similar subjects, there can be only a few doubts that both articles do differ rather substantially, in the sense of what accounts for their objective value as analytical inquiries into the domain of cinematography. In plain words – when compared to Worland’s article, the one by Kendrick appears to be much more enlightening and analytically sound. In my paper, I will aim to substantiate the validity of this suggestion at length.
In his article, Kendrick describes the emergence and sub-sequential development of the specific sub-genre (or trend) in horror films through the eighties, commonly referred to as ‘slasher.’ According to the author, the main formulaic elements seen in the ‘slasher’ type of horror films include, “a psychotic killer, a terrible place, a variety of weapons of death, a group of young victims, and a ‘Final Girl’ who survives either to be rescued or dispatch the killer” (2014, p. 317). Among the most typical ‘slasher’ films Kendrick mentions Friday the 13th, Halloween, and A Nightmare on Elm Street, as such that exemplify the trend’s innermost specifics, which can be outlined as follows:
The graphic depiction of bodily mutilation and death. Unlike what it used to be the case in horror films through the sixties and seventies, most ‘slasher’ films make a deliberate point in savoring gore, as something that has the value of a ‘thing in itself.’ It its turn, this can be explained by yet another notable characteristic of this type of films – they often aim to exploit sadistic instincts in the audience members, “Not only do stabbings, garrotings, and gougings allow for the ample deployment of gory make-up effects, but they also emphasize the close proximity of killer and victim” (Kendrick, 2014, p.319). This is exactly the reason why ‘slasher’ films have been traditionally referred to as much more perverse when compared to the ones that belong to other sub-genres of horror.
The strongly defined motifs of sexuality. Most ‘slasher’ films are concerned with exposing the audiences to the scenes of young and sexually attractive people being stalked by an unseen killer (often endowed with super-natural powers). As the author noted, “Their (victims’) youth, health, and energy are usually coded in sexual terms, and the victims are sexually active, which results in a frequent correlation between sexual activity and endangerment” (Kendrick 2014, p.320). Partially, this explains why ‘slasher’ films have been assumed to appeal to the predominantly younger audiences.
The ability to trigger the sensation of cognitive dissonance in viewers. Such quality of ‘slasher’ films have been predetermined by the fact that they often exploit the motif of one’s gender/physical appearance having very little to do with what happened to be the concerned person’s innate psychological inclinations. Hence, yet another distinctive trait of ‘slasher’ movies – their plots often revolve around the theme of a physically attractive female proving to be much more masculine on the inside, as compared to her outwardly manly male-friends.
As Kendrick aptly observed, “Although she (Final Girl) is physically female, she often has more masculine interests, and during the course of the film, she is… masculinized by destroying the killer and saving herself” (2014, p. 321). Therefore, even though many critics consider ‘slasher’ films to be highly sexist, this is far from being the actual case.
Therefore, there can be only a few doubts that Kendrick’s film does represent much value as an analytical piece. After all, in it, the author did succeed in outlining the main qualitative features of the horror-trend ‘slasher’ and in providing readers with the exhaustive acumens, as to what accounted for the sub-sequential phases of the trend’s development. Hence, the article’s foremost strength – the author proved himself thoroughly capable of identifying the main features of the horror-trend in question, which in turn will make it easier for those who have been exposed to this article to recognize the classical elements of ‘slasher’ in the horror films of the era.
Thus, the reading of Slasher films and gore in the 1980s should indeed come in handy to just about anyone who strives to learn more about the cinematographic genre of horror, in general, and the ‘slasher’ trend, in particular. Kendrick must also be given credit for the fact that his article features some highly intelligible and yet easy to understand language, which makes it much easier for readers to grasp the essence of the author’s conceptualization of ‘slasher.’
At the same time, however, there are some weaknesses to this article, as well. The main of them can be formulated as follows – even though Kendrick did excel in outlining the trend’s foremost specifics, he nevertheless has failed at offering a thoroughly plausible discursive explanation as to what caused ‘slasher’ films to be considered utterly popular throughout the eighties. After all, it now represents the well-established fact that the popularity of a particular theme or motif in films cannot be discussed outside of what happened to be the affiliated socio-cultural circumstances at the time. As a result, Kendrick’s article is not quite as inquisitive as it could have been.
As it was mentioned in the Introduction, Worland’s article does relate to that of Kendrick, in the sense of being concerned with researching the thematically similar subject matter. This simply could not be otherwise – ‘slasher,’ and ‘Gothic’ are now deemed the essential sub-genres/trends in the cinematographic genre of horror. In this respect, The Gothic revival (1957-1974) deserves to be praised for being thoroughly informative (the article’s only strength) – just as it is the case with the earlier analyzed article.
The article’s foremost insights, with respect to the gradual discursive legitimation of the genre ‘Gothic horror,’ which took place throughout the specified period, are as follows:
The contribution of the Hollywood major studios to the production of ‘Gothic’ horror-films through the late fifties, sixties, and early seventies was rather insignificant. According to the author, it was named the mid-sized (British-based) studio Hammer Film Productions, which took advantage of the genre’s rising popularity – something that explains why the studio’s name became virtually synonymous with the notion of ‘Gothic horror.’ As Worland noted, “Following a distribution deal with Universal in 1958, Hammer began near-exclusive devotion to the horror genre” (2014, p. 280). In its turn, this explains the abundance of clearly expressionist editing-techniques in the ‘Gothic horror’ films of the time – British film-directors have always been known for their adherence to the philosophy of cinematic expressionism.
The distinguishing feature of Hammer’s films was plenty of vivid gore and implicitly explored motifs of sexuality. In this respect, the author refers to “Hammer’s knack for combining sex and violence” (Worland, 2014, p. 282). While being fully aware of the fact that the genre ‘Gothic horror’ is rather unlikely to appeal to the broader audiences, the studio’s officials have made a deliberate point in using the so-called ‘niche-approach’ to winning the targeted sector of the market – hence, the Hammer films’ strong adherence to the genre’s classical conventions. Apparently, the rapid progress of the special-effects technology, which Hammer was quick to take advantage of, did contribute rather substantially towards sharpening the studio’s competitive edge.
Just as they helped to construct the conventions of the genre ‘Western’ in the sixties, the Italian moviemakers did aid the revitalization of the ‘Gothic horror’ genre throughout the same decade. In this regard, Worland mentions the Italian 1960 film La Maschera del demonio, which introduced the motif of a ‘revenge from beyond the grave,’ “men and women doomed to replay the loves and hates of their ancestors” (2014, p. 287). As of today, this motif is being commonly recognized as ‘genuinely Gothic,’ even though this is far from being the case.
Nevertheless, even though Worland’s article does contain much useful information, concerned the subgenre’s evolution through the specified decades, it is rather disjointed, in the discursive sense of this word – the article’s crucial weakness. One of the possible explanations to this is that the approach to researching the topic, deployed by Worland, is clearly reflective of the author’s tendency to pay little attention to the dialectical ‘cause-effect’ principle – something that undermines the article’s value rather considerably.
That is, throughout the article’s entirety, Worland merely comes up with facts, regarding the sub-genres actualization, without trying to explain why the associated developments did occur, in the first place. For example, according to the author, “Significant industry realignments and social shifts had produced the gothic revival in the late 1950s, and such changes would contribute to its end” (Worland, 2014, p. 290).
Nevertheless, even though Worland did outline some of these realignments, he never specified the actual driving force behind them. Partially, this explains the reason why, despite being informative, Worland’s article can hardly be considered outstanding, as the exemplification of analytical inquiry. What worsens the situation even further, in this respect, is that unlike Kendrick, Worland considered it fully appropriate to describe the actual plots of some ‘Gothic’ films, mentioned in his article. Such author’s move, however, does not seem to be thoroughly justified because
- The plot of just about every ‘Gothic’ movie, produced by Hammer and other studios (such as AIP), is formulaic to a varying extent;
- Readers are in no position to form their opinion of a particular film unless having watched it with their own eyes.
It is understood, of course, that this could not result in anything else but in undermining the measure of the article’s intelligibleness.
I believe that what has been said earlier, regarding both articles, is fully consistent with the paper’s initial thesis. Therefore, it will be fully appropriate to conclude this paper by reinstating once again that, when compared to Worland’s article, the one by Kendrick can indeed be confirmed much more valuable – all because it does not merely expose readers to the facts of relevance, but also helps the former to gain a better understanding of these facts’ actual significance..
References
Kendrick, J. (2014). Slasher films and gore in the 1980s. In H. Benshoff (Ed.), A companion to the horror film (pp. 310-328). New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Worland, R. (2014). The Gothic revival (1957-1974). In H. Benshoff (Ed.), A companion to the horror film (pp. 273-291). New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc.