There's a strange aspect to slasher movies, one that may have more to do with audiences and even more to do with the state of criticism in general. What I mean is this: while they're basically horror movies of varying degrees of style and shock, they're expected to show their allegiance in terms of sexual politics. Is the heroine/"final girl" virginal, or the opposite of that? Who does the killer target and what are they doing with each other? All this is evaluated in terms of how feminist and sex-positive (a verbal🚩if ever there was one) they are.
That's one of the things that makes the 1974 chiller Black Christmas refreshing. The killer, who calls himself "Billy", isn't enforcing sexual conservatism, nor could you use him to subvert the patriarchy. He's just nuts. Part of this, you could say, is because the subgenre was still in its cradle at the time, four years before Halloween and five before Friday the 13th. But really it goes beyond that. The heroes of the movie―both the sorority girls and the police―make assumptions about the case that lead them so far astray, they still haven't figured things out at the end. And while the red herring for the killings is definitely an asshole, he's not bad in the way he's assumed to be. So in part it's about not seeing what's in front of your face because of what you believe should be there.
----
Another note about the movie. One of the sorority sisters is played by a pre-SCTV Andrea Martin. The movie's Wikipedia page claims that Gilda Radner was offered this same role but turned it down due to her commitment to Saturday Night Live. This seems very dubious to me, considering the movie came out before SNL―how you say?―existed. Radner wouldn't have had any real time commitments until the summer of '75, when it would be time to start promoting it. My conclusion here is that urban legends come easy and die hard.
2 comments:
Okay, you got me with this one since I don't enjoy watching slasher movies. So I don't unless Jer insists that something like a slasher movie is worth watching - ie, The Cabin in the Woods. I also liked Tucker and Dale vs Evil for similar reasons. Sometimes things get so ridiculous even I have to laugh.
I was a bit surprised at her referencing Natalie Wood as being promiscuous since that was never implied - thievery, yes, but being naked in a shower proves nothing. Ah well.. I found the logic of her article hard to follow since it seemed to be more subjective than substantive.
We haven'r seen Black Christmas but I get your point about the sorority girls and the police making all the wrong assumptions - wrong assumptions continue to be all the rage as you noted when you said 'not seeing what's in front of your face because of what you believe should be there'. So true.
Yeah, Gilda Radner may have been approached about a role but who knows? She's no longer around to say different and you're right about urban legends.
Tucker and Dale vs Evil was a fun movie. I remember someone in my old horror book club recommending it. The Cabin in the Woods certainly gets points for trickiness.
Well being naked in the shower does prove that you know how showers work. You might think that you could save time by getting your shirt clean but alas! you need to use a whole other device for that. But yeah, that's the thing about criticism. You can "win" it by ignoring or steamrolling anything that doesn't fit your argument.
A horror movie is a pretty good place to show the consequences of being led by assumptions. Cheesy, perhaps, but effective.
The movie was filled in Canada. I think it's supposed to be Upstate New York, but most of the actors betray themselves whenever they have to say "house." Radner was in the Toronto Second City, so it's possible they'd be interested in her. Her reason for turning it down sounds bogus, though.
I should also note that Margot Kidder has a prominent role in the movie, pre-Superman. Her character spends pretty much the whole movie drunk and inappropriate.
Post a Comment