Contents - macmillanihe.com · Contents List of Figures and ... Andrew Patrick Nelson 6 Roses Are Red, ... (McCabe 2011, 9). 3 By attempting not to adopt, bare or communicate an ideology,

Contents

List of Figures and Tables ix

Acknowledgements x

Notes on Contributors xi

introduction: The Collection Awakes 1Wickham Clayton

Part I The Birth, Death and Revenge of the Hollywood Slasher 15

1 (In)Stability of Point of View in When a Stranger Calls and Eyes of a Stranger 17David Roche

2 Undermining the Moneygrubbers, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Friday the 13th Part V 37Wickham Clayton

3 I Framed Freddy: Functional Aesthetics in the A Nightmare on Elm Street Series 51Karra Shimabukuro

4 Candyman and Saw: Reimagining the Slasher Film through Urban Gothic 67Stacey Abbott

Part II Older, Darker and Self-Aware 79

5 Franchise Legacy and Neo-slasher Conventions in Halloween H20 81Andrew Patrick Nelson

6 Roses Are Red, Violence Is Too: Exploring Stylistic Excess in Valentine 92Mark Richard Adams

7 Puzzles, Contraptions and the Highly Elaborate Moment: The Inevitability of Death in the Grand Slasher Narratives of the Final Destination and Saw Series of Films 106Ian Conrich

Copyrighted material – 9781137496461 Copyrighted material – 9781137496461

Copyrighted material – 9781137496461

viii Contents

8 The Killer Who Never Was: Complex Storytelling, the Saw Saga and the Shifting Moral Alignment of Puzzle Film Horror 118Matthew Freeman

9 Resurrecting Carrie 131Gary Bettinson

Part III Form versus Theory 147

10 Reframing Parody and Intertextuality in Scream: Formal and Theoretical Approaches to the ‘Postmodern’ Slasher 149Fran Pheasant-Kelly

11 Crises of Identification in the Supernatural Slasher: The Resurrection of the Supernatural Slasher Villain 161Jessica Balanzategui

12 ‘Come on, Boy, Bring It!’: Embracing Queer Erotic Aesthetics in Marcus Nispel’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) 180Darren Elliott-Smith

13 Beyond Surveillance: Questions of the Real in the Neopostmodern Horror Film 195Dana Och

14 The Slasher, the Final Girl and the Anti-Denouement 213Janet Staiger

Bibliography 229

Filmography 240

Index 247



Introduction, Selection and editorial content © Wickham Clayton 2015Chapters © Contributors 2015

All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission.

No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6-10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.

Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.

The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

First published 2015 byPALGRAVE MACMILLAN

Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS.

Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010.

Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world.

Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries.

ISBN: 978–1–137–49646–1

This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin.

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.



1

introductionThe Collection AwakesWickham Clayton

Leon Trotsky (1923/1996) once warned of the dangers of formalism. I’d like to think that if he’d seen Friday the 13th Part V, Trotsky would have changed his mind.

While this may not be the case, I contend that a) formalism is a valuable methodology that can be utilized to understand a range of phenomena within film studies, and b) within discourse on the slasher subgenre of horror, and most especially the Hollywood slasher film, formalism is con-spicuously absent. Although academic work on the slasher film has been present since the 1980s, the focus, and praise, has been primarily on the stand-out independent films frequently linked to auteurs, which display the flexibility, non-institutionalized freedom and often political impetus to create overtly subversive works that respond to or reflect the culture and conditions under which they appeared. Where form appears, it is often infused with interpretational significance that may or may not be either intentional or applicable. Furthermore, it is the Hollywood product, the texts created or distributed within the confines of the larger for-profit wings of the industry, overtly developed to capitalize on trends and turn a profit, that either broadly stand as contrasting examples to these ‘great’ works, that is dissected as emblematic of the socio-political, cultural or psychological status quo, or is ignored altogether.

While I personally know some young academics currently working to fill sections of this gap in scholarly writing, this book aims to simultaneously address all of these elements. The chapters in this book provide examples of the way in which this particular method (formalism) can be used to study these particular films (Hollywood slashers) and ultimately demonstrate that these elements do not have to stand opposite of, or in isolation from, the-ory, interpretation or non-Hollywood slashers. Although I speak highly of formalism, there is a (still) ongoing debate, as there was in Trotsky’s day,



2 Style and Form in the Hollywood Slasher Film

about the utility and moral propriety of formalism, which I will first address to contextualize the position of this book within this debate.

The style and form . . .

Formalism, sometimes called neo-formalism, is taken from the principles of Russian formalism, which was created as a form of literary analysis and remodelled for application to cinema (Thompson 1988, 5–6). Much groundwork has been laid here, particularly by David Bordwell, Kristin Thompson, Stephen Prince and Noël Carroll. I was personally taught dur-ing my undergraduate degree by Todd Berliner, whose book Hollywood Incoherent: Narration in Seventies Cinema (2010) opens with a staunch and fairly aggressive defence and call to use of formalism. Berliner’s aggres-sive defence is not unwarranted. Formalism is the subject of an ongoing methodological debate between those who practise the method and those who feel it is both practically and morally contrary to modes of cultural analysis. I have more extensively discussed this debate in my PhD thesis (Clayton 2013), but I will here outline the key points of debate.

The major arguments against formalism are outlined below:

1 Formalism is a method that is too cold, clinical and dull for an approach to the arts, which are designed to elicit passion and emotion: ‘The effort to set art free from life, to declare it a craft self-sufficient unto itself, devitalizes and kills art’ (Trotsky 1923/1996, 57).

2 By its very nature, formalism cannot engage with questions of value, which is of utmost importance in discussing art: ‘It is of course the case that there are a variety of sociological and formal enquiries, from Moretti’s distant readings to Bordwell and Thomson’s (sic.) statistical analysis of classic Hollywood, which must, by their very methodol-ogy, ignore questions of value’ (McCabe 2011, 9).

3 By attempting not to adopt, bare or communicate an ideology, formalism either works contrary to socio-political/economic posi-tions that are more progressive or it upholds dominant ideologies: ‘Although Žižek finds it necessary to address science as “knowledge in the Real” (i.e., Marxism) and therefore criticizes some of the reigning practices in cultural studies, particularly a certain variety of historical relativism, he considers this silent passing over of the tough ideo-logical questions by post-Theorists to be somewhat of a spontane-ous ideological attachment to the reigning political power’ (Flisfeder 2012, 90; parentheses in original).

4 By focusing on microcosmic elements of film form, formalists risk missing, and failing to engage with, the ‘big picture’ or larger



introduction 3

‘meaning’, even to the point where formalists ignore basic repre-sentative indicators (i.e., this image is a series of patterns, lines and colours, not a mountain at sunset): ‘This focusing on the way of talk-ing, rather than on the reality of what is talked about, is sometimes taken to indicate that we mean by literature a kind of self-referential language, a language which talks about itself’ (Eagleton 2008, 7).1

Some of these arguments are accurate and some either misrepresenta-tive or misunderstanding of the aims of formalism. I cannot claim to speak for the other contributors to this collection, but I shall here speak for myself (evoking some research) to support my position as a propo-nent of formalism, and hence the purpose of this book, as well as the bulk of my other work.

Regarding the first point, I deem it both accurate and not. Ultimately, the question of formalism’s effect on the reader or the writer of such analysis is highly subjective. I love observing film form, and I find it exciting and fascinating, though I know people that find it tedious and unenjoyable. This, however, is beside the point. As an academic, I find it of utmost importance to understand the medium, how it communi-cates ideas and concepts, and why we love certain texts, groups of texts or the medium as a whole. Formalism is central to discovering this and absolutely essential to understanding any medium. Shakespearean critic Stephen Booth responds to the function of criticism, more precisely interpretive criticism, in the humanities, saying,

. . . academic criticism, which would do well to join the ‘pure’ sciences and revel in having no motive ulterior to the desire to know, is ordinarily all too ambitious of producing practical consequence. It is a criticism that implies, seems indeed to assume, that critical atten-tions make literary works work better (1990, 262).

Whether you agree with or even approve of Booth’s damning accu-sations against the state of academic criticism (as I do) or not, his ini-tial claim, that criticism should take a scientific approach, is worthy of consideration and places works of art well within the realm of valid academic observation. However, Trotsky’s claim that art has an inher-ent vitality and life, a specious claim at best, is directly contradicted by Booth, who claims that ‘imaginative literature is frivolous. Deniably frivolous, however’ (263).2 It is, of course, this deniability that causes the fundamental rift between formalists and ‘theorists’.

In considering McCabe’s statement that formalism is unable to discuss questions of value, this indicates, to my mind, a working within a set of valuation criteria that I find imperceptible. Berliner’s Hollywood Incoherent




is fully dedicated to looking at a decade where Hollywood was produc-ing films such as The French Connection (1971; dir William Friedkin), The Exorcist (1973; dir William Friedkin), Nashville (1975; dir Robert Altman) and Taxi Driver (1976; dir Martin Scorsese), which are still loved by audi-ences and considered among the greatest films ever produced, and the formal characteristics that would explain their longevity. According to Berliner, in reference to Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather (1972), ‘if Francis Ford Coppola could take a book by Mario Puzo commonly regarded as pulp (even by Puzo) and, with minimal thematic changes, turn it into what most commentators and filmgoers consider one of the best movies of the decade, then ideology and social relevance cannot be fundamental to artistic value’ (2010, 17). A look at davidbordwell.net will show a range of blog entries by Bordwell and Thompson, together and individually, not only looking at considerations of form but how form can be used to create valuations of certain texts. Indeed, establish-ing value is one of the more significant uses of formalism.

The third point, with regards to upholding dominant ideologies, is somewhat justified to date. However, David Bordwell highlights the lim-ited scope of what Žižek appears to deem the appropriate ideology: ‘For our theorists, politics equals left politics equals the glory years of May 1968 theory. Marx is always invoked, with nods to Eurocommunism, Althusser, and, surprisingly, Mao’ (2005b). Bordwell brings into question the ideological scope of theorists opposed to formalism on ideological grounds. Booth considers theorists with such ideological preconcep-tions as ‘critics who usually end up accusing the past of being the past and [ . . . ] triumphantly accusing the culture that produced a work of being the culture we already know it to be’ (265). Counter-attacks aside, Berliner is forthright with his position:

A colleague once accused me of excluding non-dominant, non-normative experiences in my scholarship. I instinctively sought to defend myself against the accusation, until I realized that she was right. I do sometimes exclude non-dominant and non-normative experiences, just as scholars such as [Janet] Staiger sometimes exclude the dominant, normative experiences that I want to illuminate in this book. My specialization here offers a way to understand the means by which a movie stimulates shared experiences for spectators’ (20–1).

Here, Berliner is appropriating a mode of analysis to understand, as sci-entifically as possible, common reception experiences. Kristin Thomp-son, however, fully rebuffs this accusation, saying, ‘Before neoformalism



introduction 5

is condemned as conservative, however, it should be noted that its view of the purpose of art avoids the traditional concept of aesthetic contemplation as passive. The spectator’s relationship to the artwork becomes active’ (10). That said, within this book I provide an outlet for critics, theorists even (including Staiger), to use formalism to support their readings for their dominant, non-dominant, normative or non-normative positions, and many of the contributors, in agreement with Thompson, consider active reception within their analyses.

Finally, regarding Eagleton’s statement about the myopic rigidity of formalism, it must be admitted that he refers specifically to Russian for-malism. However, as Kristin Thompson states,

Though it is frequently assumed that the Russian Formalists advo-cated an art-for-art’s-sake position, this was not at all the case. Rather, they found an alternative to a communications model of art – and avoided a high/low art split as well – by distinguishing between prac-tical, everyday perception and specifically aesthetic, non-practical perception. For neoformalists, then, art is a realm separate from all other types of cultural artifacts because it presents a unique set of perceptual requirements. Art is set apart from the everyday world, in which we use our perception for practical ends (1988, 8).3

Furthermore, it is important to point out that, within cognitivism and historical poetics as branches of formalism, contexts are absolutely nec-essary. Cognitivism engages with the psychological processes of being an active reader of a film, historical poetics with film texts developing within an overarching aesthetic continuum. Considering lines, shapes, colour, sound and so on without meaning or context is impractical, impossible even, within these branches. And while these arguments may not fully quell the arguments against a study of form, I hope this book demonstrates to a certain extent, even if you’re not wholly converted to Booth’s ‘scientific’ approach, that form and theory are, at the very least, not necessarily mutually exclusive. Furthermore, I hope that this book demonstrates that formalism doesn’t necessarily require a high/low art split even within the same medium, as can be seen through the follow-ing examples . . .

. . . of the Hollywood slasher film

There are a few key works which already address the slasher, and many of the chapters in this collection respond to and engage with these




works. One of the most (if not the most significant) work to date on the slasher film is Carol J. Clover’s book Men, Women, and Chain Saws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film (1992). Clover’s book aims to engage with the assumption that the slasher is a voyeuristic source of violent male misogynistic pleasure. Clover, who fully grants that these are far from progressive or feminist texts, argues that these films allow for fluid gender identification, where male viewers willingly identify with female characters, particularly with the ‘Final Girl’, the primarily female char-acter who survives until the end and dispatches or escapes the killer. The term ‘Final Girl’ still circulates within the common parlance of slasher discourse.

While Clover’s is extraordinarily significant, there are other key works on the genre. Robin Wood, in his book Hollywood from Vietnam to Reagan . . . and Beyond (2003) includes a chapter ‘Horror in the 80s’ which argues that, unlike the radical liberal commentary provided by 1970s horror cinema, the 1980s (particularly the slashers which this book takes as its primary subject) depict a politically reactionary, sexu-ally and socially repressive world view, reflective of mainstream Rea-ganite culture. I must say, I disagree. In 1984, John McCarty published Splatter Movies: Breaking the Last Taboo of the Screen, detailing the his-torical trend in cinema to show graphic, explicit violence, containing a significant early historical account, and defence, of the slasher film. Vera Dika, in her book Games of Terror: Halloween, Friday the 13th, and the Films of the Stalker Cycle (1990), isolates the structural and generic formula of the ‘stalker’ film – Dika argues that ‘slasher’ is a misnomer, as the bulk of the narrative consists of characters being stalked, not slashed – and how these films function individually and can be char-acterized. Finally, Adam Rockoff, in Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film, 1978–1986, and an anonymously directed documentary eponymously titled, historically details the rise and decline of the first stalker cycle, demonstrating its later influence. While this is not compre-hensive, these are the key works that have laid much of the theoretical groundwork on the films this book discusses.

The slasher film, as a subgenre of horror, has formal, aesthetic and generic roots dating almost as far back as history itself. From early experiments in literal first-person camerawork to German expression-ism’s development of an abstract and all-encompassing approach to rendering mood, emotion and perspective – which is notably most often associated with early horror cinema – the overall general format of the slasher is the result of a cumulative effect of aesthetic devel-opment.4 However, three key films released in 1960 are attributed as



introduction 7

significant forbears to the slasher: Georges Franju’s Eyes Without a Face (Les Yeux Sans Visage; 1960), Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom (1960) and Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960).5 These films contained many signif-icant narrative elements (multiple sequences dedicated solely to the depiction of specified modes of murder, victims being stalked, sym-pathetic killers, attempts to display visceral bodily mutilation) and thematic elements (strong focus on voyeurism and either suggested or explicit consideration of psychoanalysis to understand transgressive behaviour) which still proliferate within the various current iterations of the slasher film.

While certain films, like The Honeymoon Killers (1969; dir Leonard Kas-tle), The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974; dir Tobe Hooper), Black Christ-mas (1974; dir Bob Clark) and even Jaws (1975; dir Steven Spielberg) and Carrie (1976; dir Brian De Palma), can be seen as early prototypes of the slasher, as well as the individual auteurist styles of Alfred Hitchcock and Italian giallo film-makers Mario Bava and Dario Argento, it was John Carpenter’s 1978 Hitchcock-inspired film Halloween that is considered the first slasher proper (Rockoff 2002, 61). Carpenter’s film, produced and distributed independently on a $300,000 budget (50) acted as a template to films that would later be categorized as ‘slashers’.6 Halloween proved an unexpected and unprecedented success, making $50 million (50) at the box office. Hollywood, seeing profitable potential in a narrative and stylistic formula, began developing and purchasing for distribution films that adhered to this template. This is where Style and Form in the Hollywood Slasher Film begins, and I will here outline a loose working chronology (perhaps not widely agreed upon, but which will be used for the purposes of this book) of the slasher subgenre as it appears in this book and how the chapters within address this chronology.

Contents

The slasher, according to Richard Nowell in his book Blood Money: A History of the First Teen Slasher Film Cycle, contains a story structure char-acterized by ‘a shadowy blade-wielding killer responding to an event by stalking and murdering the members of a youth group before the threat s/he poses is neutralised’ (2011, 20). Similarly, Clover describes the slasher as ‘the immensely generative story of a psychokiller who slashes to death a string of mostly female victims, one by one, until he is subdued or killed, usually by the one girl who survives’ (1992, 21). While Dika does not contest such summaries, she feels that the focus is overtly misplaced. Dika writes,




Although many of the films identified in this way have been called ‘slasher’ films (thus placing the defining characteristic on the cen-tral narrative action) the term ‘stalker’ film (which will be used here) alludes instead to the act of looking and especially to the distinctive set of point-of-view shots employed by these films (1990, 14).

Ultimately, there is still a clear idea of the general narrative template for the slasher, which it will be called here, and this book is dedicated to showing how this narrative model is rendered in different texts and what film style can tell us about these movies.

Nowell makes the claim that while Halloween may have been influen-tial, the scale of its influence has been overestimated, and the first film of the first slasher film cycle is definitively Sean S. Cunningham’s Friday the 13th (1980, 9). Cunningham, overtly influenced by both Halloween and Mario Bava (Grove 2005, 11–12) created a film explicitly intended to capitalize on the success of Halloween.7 While Friday the 13th stands as a significant text for the subgenre, particularly due to its success-ful recombination of Halloween’s elements (Dika 1990, 64) as evinced through financial profits, it is by no means the first film to have that idea. Indeed, too many films modelling Halloween’s form were released within months of Friday the 13th, both before and after (e.g., Paul Lynch’s Prom Night [1980] which was released two months after Friday the 13th), for it to be determined the first film to capitalize on Halloween’s success, though to Nowell’s credit, the success of Friday the 13th was unseen by its immediate contemporaries.

The first section of this book, ‘The Birth, Death and Revenge of the Hollywood Slasher’, begins with this period of significant dissemina-tion of slasher texts. In the first chapter, ‘(In)Stability of Point of View in When a Stranger Calls and Eyes of a Stranger’, David Roche looks at these two films, the former (1979; dir Fred Walton) released before Friday the 13th, and the latter (1981; dir Ken Wiederhorn) released after, to critically examine cognitive conceptions of point of view within what he calls the ‘slasher-thriller hybrid’. Roche argues that the destabilized point of view, a key trope of the slasher film, illuminates the difference between the slasher and the thriller, both of which are founded on a similar narrative premise.

These films represent the period from 1979–81, when the slasher was extremely prolific. Friday the 13th Part II (1981; dir Steve Miner), Hal-loween II (1981; dir Rick Rosenthal), Happy Birthday to Me (1981; dir J. Lee Thompson), Terror Train (1980; dir Roger Spottiswoode), The Burning (1981; dir Tony Maylam), My Bloody Valentine (1981; dir George Mihalka),



introduction 9

Maniac (1980; dir William Lustig), The Funhouse (1981; dir Tobe Hooper) and The Driller Killer (1979; dir Abel Ferrara) is but a shortlist of the more significant titles made independently, by minor studios, and by major studios in the genre during those three years. Slashers were still a sub-genre that met with significant success in 1982 – the year that Friday the 13th Part III 3D (dir Steve Miner) was released, which introduced Jason’s iconographic hockey mask. During this period, a tendency for sequeliza-tion emerged, as can be seen through the annual release between 1980 and 1982 of a Friday the 13th film, as well as a sequel to Halloween in 1981, and even a second sequel, Halloween III: Season of the Witch (dir Tommy Lee Wallace) in 1982, which retained the franchise link without any narrative connection to the previous two. The following year, 1983, was another successful year for the slasher, with a notable diminishment in 1984 of both the number of slashers made and their box-office tak-ings. This was the year that the Friday the 13th franchise tried, for the first time, to complete the film series with Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (dir Joseph Zito). The following year saw the attempt to continue the series: Friday the 13th: A New Beginning (dir Danny Steinmann). It is this film that is of concern in Chapter 2.

‘Undermining the Moneygrubbers, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Friday the 13th Part V’, apart from providing a requisite Kubrick reference, is a defence of this oft-ignored and derided (though increasingly becoming a cult favourite) film. Though the profitable, but disappoint-ing, performance at the box office, as well as recent online fan reviews, are partially indicative of dislike of this entry in the Friday the 13th series, A New Beginning, I argue, is a bold piece of subversive film-making that has rarely been equalled either in the slasher or in other genres, based on an analysis of generic and narrative development, characterization and aesthetics. A New Beginning failed to significantly influence or help revive the slasher film; the previous year provided a text that did.

In 1984, Wes Craven released A Nightmare on Elm Street – a slasher film infusing overt supernatural elements – through the mini-major studio New Line Cinema, which led to tremendous box-office success and the strengthening of the studio, leading it towards eventual ‘major’ status (Rockoff 2002, 156) and a revitalization of the slasher film. The film spawned five sequels between 1985 and 1991, a self-referential follow-up in 1994, a franchise crossover with the Friday the 13th franchise in 2003 and a remake in 2010. Karra Shimabukuro turns her attention to the original film and its first five sequels in Chapter 3, ‘I Framed Freddy: Functional Aesthetics in the A Nightmare on Elm Street Series’. Taking Bordwell’s outline of the properties of modernist film-making,




Shimabukuro demonstrates how these films adhere to these qualities, while simultaneously demonstrating how the franchise itself dictates a form of authorship, with stylistic qualities being anchored to the need for narrative consistency and continuity between films.

During this time, there were not only more A Nightmare on Elm Street films but also three more Friday the 13th films, two more Halloween films, two sequels to The Slumber Party Massacre (1982; dir Amy Jones) and two sequels to Sleepaway Camp (1983; dir Robert Hiltzik) among others. Dur-ing the early 1990s, there were some interesting, if not always successful, experiments with the slasher format. The aforementioned self-referential follow-up to the A Nightmare on Elm Street sequels, New Nightmare (1994; dir Wes Craven), saw the return of Craven as director, creating a film about the actors from the original film – Heather Langenkamp, Johnny Depp and even Craven playing fictionalized versions of themselves – dealing with the ‘actual’ dream monster that inspired the first film. In 1993, the Friday the 13th series was picked up by New Line with the second attempt to end the series, Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday (dir Adam Marcus), featuring a Jason that is a body-travelling demon worm. Hallow-een 666: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995; dir Joe Chappelle) explained that Michael Myers was in fact being controlled by a pagan cult all along. However, amongst these films, which had varying levels of success, one film appeared that is still acknowledged as a significant film of the genre (Worland 2007, 107); it is one of Stacey Abbott’s two case studies in Chapter 4. In ‘Candyman and Saw: Reimagining the Slasher Film through Urban Gothic’, Abbott looks both at this period and ahead 12 years, ana-lysing stylistic elements of Candyman (1992; dir Bernard Rose) and James Wan’s 2004 film Saw to demonstrate how these films, each linked to the slasher subgenre, utilize qualities of urban Gothic.

While the slasher seemed to have waned in the early 1990s, in 1996, Wes Craven continued his experiments in self-referentiality with the suc-cessful film Scream, a slasher film where the killer is highly and explicitly aware of the tropes of the slasher, and the potential victims must be aware of these tropes in order to survive. Valerie Wee has dubbed this tendency of the slasher ‘hyperpostmodernism’ and has noted the Scream series’ import in this tendency (2005). This period marks the beginning of Part II of this book: ‘Older, Darker and Self-Aware’. Scream resulted in three sequels, and in its immediate wake through the rest of the decade, slasher films were released that either emulated Scream’s tendency to metanarration, such as Urban Legend (1998; dir Jamie Blanks), or took the film as a cue for revised interest in the original slasher template, such as I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997; dir Jim Gillespie).8



247

Index

3D, 9, 41, 60, 66 n.6, 113, 117, 122, 140, 228 n.10

9/11, 149, 196, 200–4, 208–9Abbott and Costello

Meet Frankenstein, 109Meet the Mummy, 109

advertising, 180, 211 n. 4see also marketing

adaptation, 132, 134, 139, 140, 141, 143–144, 153,

Aisenberg, Joseph, 133, 135Allen, Graham, 150, 153Altman, Rick, 22, 36 n. 9Amazing Adventures of

Spider-Man, The, 66 n. 6Amityville Horror, The, 182

And Then There Were None, 68animation, 55, 60

stop-motion, 58April Fool’s Day, 109, 217, 219, 220Argento, Dario, 7, 35 n. 2, 68, 109,Assault on Precinct 13, 91 n.4Austen, Ben, 74

Bad Boys, 114Bad Seed, The, 153, 156Bakhtin, M. M. and P. N. Medvedev,

138, 144 n. 2Baldick, Chris, 69Baudriallard, Jean, 110, 150, 155Bava, Mario, 7, 8, 110Bay, The, 204Bay of Blood, A (also Ecologia del

Delitto or Twitch of the Death Nerve), 110, 111

Beauty and the Beast 3-D, 66 n. 6Benshoff, Harry M., 182–183, 194 n. 5.Berenstein, Rhona J., 227 n. 1 n. 3,

228 n. 16Berliner, Todd, 2, 3–4, 38, 48Bersani, Leo, 184, 194 n.3Birds, The, 132

Black Christmas(1974), 7, 18, 22, 110(2006) (also Black Xmas), 140

Blair Witch Project, The, 195, 202, 204, 208, 209, 211 n.8

Blanks, Jamie, 10, 11, 82, 92, 99, 100, 101, 103, 113, 140, 170

Blood and Black Lace (also Sei donne per l’assassino), 110

Blow Out, 144 n. 5Body Double, 144 n. 5, 145 n. 8Booth, Stephen, 3, 4, 5, 14 n. 2Bordwell, David, 2, 4, 9–10, 51–52, 53,

56, 77, 119–120, 132, 137Boreanaz, David, 92–93, 104Botting, Fred, 67BoxOfficeMojo, 104Bracke, Peter, 14 n. 7, 39, 43–44, 49 n.

3, 50 n. 6Briefel, Aviva and Sianne Ngai, 74Bruhm, Steven, 27, 36 n. 10Buckland, Warren, 119, 120–121, 122,

125, 127, 129, 130 n. 2 n. 3Buffy the Vampire Slayer, 95Burning, The, 8, 107, 141, 216, 219,

220

Cabin in the Woods, The, 106, 114, 195, 198, 204–207, 209

Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, The, 210 n. 2Campsite Massacre, 108Candyman, 10, 67–78, 111, 112, 156,

179 n. 8Cannibal Holocaust, 208Captivity, 126Carlito’s Way, 145 n.8Carroll, Noël, 2, 141, 213, 228 n. 11

n. 12Carpenter, John,7, 18, 35 n. 2, 64, 69,

82, 91 n. 4, 93, 107, 121, 125, 127–8, 133–4, 150, 156, 161, 165, 174, 197, 199–200, 214



248 Index

Carrie(1974 novel), 132–45(1976), 7, 12, 102, 131–145, 159,

194 n. 4, 222–223The Rage: Carrie 2, 137, 139, 140(2002), 137, 139(2013), 12, 131–45

Cat and the Canary, The, 68Cawelti, John G., 107Cell, The, 179 n. 1CGI, see Computer Generated ImageryChang, Justin, 145 n. 13Cherry, Brigid, 94Cherry Falls, 113, 170Child’s Play, 111–12, 141–2, 167,

Curse of Chucky, 140Seed of Chucky, 140

Chinatown, 144 n. 7Christensen, Kyle, 51, 166,Church, David, 89Clayton III, G. Wickham, 2–3, 14 n. 1,

37–8, 39–40, 49 n. 1Clouser, Charlie, 73Clover, Carol J., 6, 7, 13,17, 18, 20,

22, 24, 35, 36 n. 11, 47, 50 n. 8, 51, 69, 71, 76, 87, 107–8, 133, 141, 144 n. 1, 151–2, 155, 156, 172–3, 179 n. 2, 181–8, 194 n. 2, 213–228

Cohen, Lawrence D., 135, 145 n.14Collins, Jim, 154, 163, 179 n. 4colour, 3, 5, 35–6 n. 4, 53, 75, 93,

96–105, 151, 198–200, 202composition, 19–20, 22, 24–28, 30–35,

42, 62, 70, 90, 98, 99–100, 139, 157, 165, 186, 191, 198, 199, 207, 208, 207

Computer Generated Imagery (CGI), 66 n.7

Con Air, 114Connelly, Kelly, 87, 91 n. 6, 227 n. 6Conrich, Ian, 11–12, 68, 106–117Cook, David A., 35 n. 1Cover Girl Killer, 110Cowen, Gloria and Margaret O’Brien,

227 n. 7Craft, The, 93Craig, Pamela and Martin Fradley,

153

Crane, Jonathan, 144 n. 6Craven, Wes, 9, 10, 36 n. 6, 39, 51, 58,

59, 69, 82, 83, 92, 107–108, 111, 114, 121, 133, 136, 149, 156, 161, 166, 167, 170, 195, 213, 228 n. 13

Creed, Barbara, 51, 132, 224–225C.S.I.: Crime Scene Investigation, 117Cube, 106, 114, 116Cunningham, Sean S., 8, 14 n. 7, 41,

44, 64, 69, 107, 156, 169Curse of Chucky, see Child’s

Play – Curse of ChuckyCurtis, Jamie Lee, 81–86, 91 n. 2, 156

Dance of the Dead, 137Dargis, Manohla, 145 n. 13Dark Knight, The, 138Dawson’s Creek, 94, 95De Palma, Brian, 7, 12, 102, 131–145,

194 n. 4, 222–3Deadly Spawn, The, 93Deliverance, 135–136Dial M for Murder, 145 n. 16Diary of the Dead, 204Dickstein, Morris, 224Dika, Vera, 6–8, 14 n. 6, 17,

18, 34, 51, 57, 107, 144 n. 4, 213, 222

Dogma 95 (also Dogme 95), 195, 202, 204

Donaldson, L. F., 198Don’t Go in the House, 228 n. 19Doty, Alexander, 183Dracula

(1931 film), 68(1958 film), 158

Dressed to Kill, 144 n. 5, 145 n.9Driller Killer, The, 9Dyer, Richard, 150, 154

Eagleton, Terry, 3, 5Ecologia del Delitto, see Bay of Blood, AEdmundson, Mark, 125Eikhenbaum, Boris, 131, 144 n. 2Elliott-Smith, Darren, 13, 50 n. 8, 194

n. 4Everitt, David, 41–42Event, The, 123



Index 249

Evil Dead, 156Exorcist, The, 4, 18, 143, 144 n. 7,

156, 157Eyes of a Stranger, 8, 17, 20–21,

27–36Eyes of Laura Mars, 174Eyes Without a Face (also Les Yeux Sans

Visage and The Horror Chamber of Doctor Faustus), 7

fabula, 119–123, 127, 129, 162, 178Faculty, The, 140, 178–179 n. 1Fall of the House of Usher, The, 69Fallen, 12–13, 161, 167–172, 174, 175,

176, 179 n. 5Fangoria, 39, 41,Fatal Games, 108feminine(ity), 17, 51, 164, 174,

184–185, 186, 214, 216–217, 222, 226

feminism, 6, 20, 138, 181, 185, 207Femme Fatale, 144 n. 5Festen, 204Final Destination, 11–12, 106, 110,

114–117, 178–179 n. 1Part 2, 114, 115Part 3, 114

Final Girl,first-person shot, see point–of–view

shotFischer, Lucy and Marcia Landy,Fiske, John,flashback, see narrative, non–linearFlashForward,Flesh and Blood Show,Flisfeder, Matthew, 2Fog, The, 156formalism (also neoformalism), 1–5,

95, 119found footage, 195, 198, 200–201,

204, 208, 209, 211 n. 3Frailty, 13, 161–162, 176–179framing, see compositionFrankenstein, 218

(1931 film), 156Freddy Vs. Jason, 139French Connection, The, 4Freud, Sigmund, 184, 194 n. 3,

224–225

Friday the 13th

series/franchise, 9, 10, 14 n. 1 n. 7, 39–41, 43, 49 n. 1, 59, 65 n. 2, 68, 84, 89, 106, 111–114, 122, 125, 130 n. 4, 170, 179 n. 6, 218–219

(1980), 6, 8, 41, 43, 49–50 n. 4, 64, 69, 107–8, 111, 144 n. 4, 145 n. 9, 156–7, 169, 170, 179 n. 6, 217, 221

Part 2, 8, 41, 49–50 n. 4, 107, 111, 217, 221

Part III 3–D, 9, 41, 114, 217, 221(Part IV:) The Final Chapter, 9, 39,

40–42, 108, 217, 221, 228 n. 19Part V: A New Beginning, 1, 9,

37–50, 89, 91 n. 8, 194 n. 2, 217, 221

Jason Lives!: Part VI, 95, 113, 165–166, 217, 221

Part VII: The New Blood, 113, 145 n. 10, 217, 221

Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan, 113, 210, 217, 221

Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday, 10, 113

Jason X, 11, 111(2009), 112–113, 140

Frost, Craig, 187, 188, 191, 192, 194 n. 1

Fuchs, Michael, 196, 197Funhouse, The, 9Fury, The, 144 n. 5

gaze, 17–18, 20, 24, 26, 32, 42, 73, 164, 166–9, 172, 174–175, 201, 208

male, 17, 174–175, 184, 198, 209Geaghan, Stephen, 92genre, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 18–19,

20, 22, 34, 35, 37–8, 41, 43, 45, 52, 57, 64–5, 67–69, 71, 77–78, 84, 86, 88–9, 92–95, 97, 99, 107–110, 119, 120–121, 129–130 n. 2 n. 3, 131–138, 141, 143–144, 144 n. 4 n. 6 n. 7, 149–152, 156, 160, 163, 167, 170, 174, 179 n. 3, 181, 182, 185, 190, 191, 195–196, 197, 199–200, 202–4, 209–210, 210 n. 1, 211 n. 6, 215, 224



250 Index

genre, (continued)sub, 1, 6–11, 13–14, 14 n. 9,

38–39, 43, 47, 49, 57, 107–110, 115, 144 n. 4, 161–4, 167, 170, 172, 178, 183, 184, 197, 222, 227 n. 4

formula, 6, 7, 20, 39, 41, 82, 89, 94, 132–6, 141, 143, 151, 155, 158, 161, 163, 170, 176, 178, 179 n. 4, 193, 213–8, 222–4, 226–7 n. 5, 228 n. 16

Ghost Adventures, 212 n. 13Ghost Ship, 178–179 n. 1Giles, Dennis, 224–5, 228 n. 14Glass, Philip, 70–1, 73Godfather, The, 4Gombrich, E. H., 132, 134Gone Girl, 136Gothic, 10, 18, 56, 67–78, 109, 134,

190, 197,Gothika, 178–9 n. 1Graduation Day, 107Grand Guignol, 68, 114–5Grant, Barry Keith, 121, 127, 129Green, Bruce, 39Grove, David, 8, 39, 49 n. 3

Halloweenseries/franchise, 10, 14 n. 9, 59, 64,

65 n. 2, 82–3, 89–91, 106, 122–3, 125,

130 n. 4, 170, 218(1978), 6–8, 12, 14 n. 7, 18–20,

22–4, 26, 28, 30, 33, 35, 35 n. 1, 35–6 n. 4, 64, 69, 82, 88, 89, 90, 91 n. 4 n. 5, 93, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 121, 124, 125, 128–129, 133, 134, 136, 144 n. 4 n. 6, 150, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 165, 167, 169, 172, 174, 197, 199–200, 214–215, 217, 219, 220, 222, 223, 227 n. 3

II (1981), 8, 9, 82–9, 90, 217, 219, 220

III: The Season of the Witch, 9, 894: The Return of Michael Myers, 89,

217, 219–205: The Revenge of Michael Myers, 89,

91 n. 2, 217, 218–20

666: The Curse of Michael Myers, 10, 88, 91 n. 2

H20: 20 Years Later, 11, 81–91, 92, 140, 227 n. 6

Resurrection, 87–9, 91 n. 6(2007), 113, 140II (2009), 140

Hantke, Steffen, 57, 85, 194 n. 1,Happy Birthday to Me, 8, 107–8, 170Happy Endings, 122Harryhausen, Ray, 58Hayward, Susan, 153Heigl, Katherine, 97Hell Night, 107, 216, 219, 220Heller-Nicholas, Alexandra, 200–1,

208Hellraiser, 111–112, 156Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, 179 n.

3, 208Hills, Matt, 117, 118

and Steven Jay Schneider, 162–3, 166, 174, 177

Hills Have Eyes, The (2006), 180Hitchcock, Alfred, 7, 17, 36 n. 4, 82,

107, 132–3, 135, 140, 144 n. 4 n. 5, 145 n. 7 n. 16, 151, 172, 197, 214

Hitcher, The (2007), 140Homicide: Life on the Streets, 204Honeymoon Killers, The, 7Hopgood, Fincina, 211 n. 8Horror Chamber of Doctor Faustus, The,

see Eyes Without a FaceHostel

series/franchise, 114(2005), 96, 106, 126II, 106III, 106

House of Wax(2005)

Howling, The, 156Hutchings, Peter, 108–110, 153,

184–6

I Know What You Did Last Summer, 10, 14 n. 8, 82–3, 86, 92, 104, 113, 140, 170, 195

I Still Know What You Did Last Summer, 82, 113, 170

I Spit on Your Grave



Index 251

(1978), 107(2010), 211 n. 4

Identity, 179 n. 1In Dreams, 12–13, 161, 172–6incoherence, see narrative,

incoherenceInnocents, The, 165

Jameson, Fredric, 153–5Jancovich, Mark, 85, 150, 160Jason and the Argonauts, 58Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday, see

Friday the 13th, Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday

Jason X, see Friday the 13th, Jason X

Jaws, 7, 223Jeepers Creepers

series/franchise, 106, 114(2001), 179 n. 1

Jess-Cooke, Carolyn and Constantine Verevis, 64–5

Johnston, Dierdre D., 228 n. 16Jones, Steve, 14 n. 10, 118–9, 126–8Jost, François, 18, 34

Kael, Pauline, 133Kakmi, Dmetri, 133Keen, Suzanne, 120Keisner, Jody, 196–7, 207, 227 n. 1Kendrick, James, 59Kermode, Mark, 118, 188Kerswell, J. A., 39, 59, 66 n. 4Kids, 204King, Stephen, 132–5, 139–44Knapp, Laurence F., 134Kolker, Robert, 97Kristeva, Julia, 153Kuersten, Erich, 188–90, 193

Lacan, Jacques, 194 n. 3Lagier, Luc & Jean-Baptiste Thoret,

35 n. 2Lane, Richard, 155Last Week Tonight, 212 n. 14Lee, Nathan, 181, 194 n. 1Leigh, Janet, 81–4, 90 n. 1, 157Leprechaun

series/franchise, 111

4: In Space, 111Les Yeux Sans Visage, see Eyes Without

a FaceLevin, Thomas Y., 202–3Lion King 3–D, The, 66 n. 6Lizardi, Ryan, 181, 186–7, 189, 193,

194 n. 1Lord of the Rings, The films,

58–9Lost, 123Lost Highway, 120Lovers Lane, 113

Macdonald, Moira, 138Magistrale, Tony, 153, 210 n. 2Man Bites Dog, 208, 211 n. 6Manfredini, Harry, 39, 42Maniac

(1980), 8–9(2012), 179

Martin, John Edward, 197masculinity, 172, 183–8, 190,

194 n. 4, 214, 227 n. 8Maslin, Janet, 43McCabe, Colin, 2–4McCarty, John, 6, 14 n. 6Memento, 120Metropolis, 210Metz, Christian, 23Mighall, Robert, 70, 74Miller, Victor, 14 n. 7Miner, Steve, 8, 9, 11, 41, 81, 84, 92,

107, 140, 227 n. 6mise en cadre, 22–35mise-en-scène, 69–70, 73–5, 90, 95,

101, 134, 152, 188, 191, 199, 225–6

Mitchell, Elvis, 92–3modernism, 9–10, 51–65Modleski, Tania, 196, 228 n. 9Molitor, Fred and Barry S. Sapolsky,

227 n. 7Monaco, James, 133, 223Morris, Jeremy, 14 n. 10Murphy, Bernice, 165My Bloody Valentine

(1981), 8–93-D (2009) 113, 140, 180

Mysteries of London, The, 74



252 Index

narrativeincoherence, 38, 46–9meta–, 10–11, 52, 58, 165non–linear, 64, 77, 101, 91 n. 5,

119–23,127–9, 141–2, 176perversity, 48–9

Nashville, 4Ndalianis, Angela, 115–116Neale Stephen (also Steve Neale),

19–20, 30, 35, 43, 50 n. 7, 224–5Nelson, Andrew Patrick, 91 n. 7Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street

Legacy, 52–60Newman, Kim, 118, 130 n. 1Night of the Creeps, 136Night of the Living Dead, 121, 206Nightbreed, 93Nightmare on Elm Street, A

Series/Franchise, 9–10, 14 n. 9, 51–66, 88, 89, 108, 109, 110, 111, 122–123, 124, 125, 130 n. 4, 170, 218, 219

(1984), 9, 39, 51, 53, 58, 59, 61–62, 107–108, 109, 121, 136, 166–167, 170, 175, 217, 221

2: Freddy’s Revenge, 53, 55, 60–61, 62, 217, 221

3: Dream Warriors, 54, 55, 57–58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 66 n. 3 n. 5, 109, 217, 218, 221

4: The Dream Master, 55–56, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63, 66 n. 3, 217, 221

5: The Dream Child, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 66 n. 3, 217, 221

Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare, 51, 58, 59–60, 61, 62, 63–64 179 n. 3, 217, 221

Wes Craven’s New Nightmare, 10, 58, 83, 213

(2010), 140Nosferatu, 210 n. 2Nowell, Richard, 7–8, 35 n. 3, 38, 49

n. 3nudity, see sex

O’Sullivan, Michael, 137–8, 145 n. 13Obsession, 132Old Dark House, The, 68Oliver Twist, 74

omnipresence, 23–7, 29, 31, 35, 116, 125, 141, 167, 172, 203, 206, 225–6

Opera, 109Others, The, 68, 93

Paradise Lost (1667 John Milton Poem), 153

Paranormal Activity, 197, 205, 209Passion, 144 n. 5pathos, 21, 44–5, 48Paul, William, 223Peeping Tom, 7, 17, 110, 197, 204Perkins, Claire, 83Perkins, V. F., 38Person of Interest, 203perversity, see narrative, perversityPetridis, Sotiris, 91 n. 3Phantom of the Paradise, 132Phillips, Kendall R., 91 n. 3Pinedo, Isabel Cristina, 121–2,

124–6, 196, 207, 210 n. 1, 227 n. 1

Pinkerton, Nick, 68Pirie, David, 136Poe, Edgar Allan, 57–8, 69, 117, 121,

136point-of-view shot 8, 19, 68, 72, 157,

162, 174, 179 n. 7, 191, 200, 201, 216–217

Poole, Benjamin, 117Postmodernism, 12, 83, 109–10,

149–160, 196hyper–, 10, 84, 154neo–, 11, 195–212

Powell, Michael, 7, 17, 110, 197Premature Burial, The, 121Prom Night

(1980), 8, 107, 136, 144 n. 4, 156, 169–70, 216, 219, 220

(2008), 113, 137, 140Propp, Vladimir, 107Psycho

(1960), xvi, 7, 17, 18, 32, 35–36 n. 4, 82–4, 87, 107, 110, 132–7, 140–2, 143, 144 n. 4, 151, 157–9, 172, 194 n. 1, 197, 214–15, 216, 219, 220, 223–4

(1998), 140



Index 253

Puppetmaster, 111–2puzzle film, 12, 106, 118–30

queer(ing), 13, 53, 180–94, 223aesthetics, 182–3, 186, 188–94gender, 190

Raising Cain, 144 n. 5Rear Window, 35–6 n. 4Red Lights, 136Red Right Hand, 153Reifschneider, Matt, 41Reiser, Klaus, 164, 167, 172Remake, 9, 11–13, 50 n. 3, 91 n.

4, 112–113, 131–45, 153, 160, 180–94, 211 n. 4

Rio Bravo, 91 n. 4Roche, David, 8, 19–20Rockoff, Adam, 6–7, 9, 38–9, 40, 49 n.

3, 109Roscoe, Jane, 211 n. 6

and Craig Hight, 198Roswell, 97

Sawseries/franchise, 11–12, 96, 106,

113–117, 118–130(2004), 10, 11, 67–78, 116, 124, 126,

127–128II, 116, 124III, 123, 124IV, 123, 125–126V, 123–124, 1293-D/ VII: The Final Chapter,

117, 122Scary Movie, 150, 160Schizoid, 141–2Schneider, Steven Jay, 84, 86, 91 n. 3

n. 5Sconce, Jeffrey, 97, 162, 179 n. 3Scream

Series/Franchise, 10, 12, 82–85, 87, 89, 91 n. 3, 92, 96, 109, 113, 149–160, 170, 204

(1996), 10–11, 12, 36 n. 6, 69, 82–85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91 n. 3, 92, 94, 95, 96, 104, 133, 136–137, 140, 149–160, 161, 163, 170, 195, 199–200, 228 n. 13

Part 2, 82, 83, 85, 86, 94–95Part 3, 82, 83, 85, 114

Seed of Chucky, see Child’s Play, Seed of Chucky

Sei donne per l’assassino, see Blood and Black Lace

September 11, see 9/11Session 9, 178–9 n. 1Seven (also Se7en), 14 n. 9, 34sex, 6, 44, 59, 88, 97, 104, 107, 110,

133, 151, 155, 158–9, 182–94, 196, 198–9, 211 n. 4, 212 n. 15, 214–5, 216, 218, 219, 220, 222, 224–8

–ism, 104–5, 185–6nudity, 59, 103–4, 110–ual repression, 141, 151–ual transgression, 44, 88, 110,

151, 184, 204, 214–5Sex and the City, 93–7, 104Shadow of a Doubt, 144–5 n. 7Shining, The, 134Shklovsky, Victor, 131, 135–6, 144

n. 2Shivers (also They Came From

Within), 121Shocker, see Wes Craven’s ShockerSilence of the Lambs, The, 34, 156, 217,

219, 220Silver, Tim, 39Sipos, Thomas M., 93–5, 99, 101Sisters, 132Sixth Sense, The, 120Sleepaway Camp, 10, 108

Part 2, 217, 219, 220Slumber Party Massacre, The, 10, 216,

219, 220Part 2, 217, 219, 220

Smallville, 139Smith, Claire, 67–8Sorority Row, 140‘splatter movies’, 6, 14 n. 6,

107, 157Staiger, Janet, 4–5, 13–14Stalker, 211 n. 7stalker movies, 6–8, 14 n. 6, 17, 51,

107, 136, 144 n. 4, 174–5Steinmann, Danny, 9, 37, 41–3, 48,

89, 194 n. 2



254 Index

Stepfather, The(1987), 136(2009), 140

Stranger, The, 144–5 n. 7Strayer, Kirsten, 197supernatural, 9, 12–3, 29, 33, 39,

67, 82, 89, 111–3, 121, 124–6, 161–79, 195, 197, 201, 204–5, 208–10, 218, 226, 227 n. 5

Suspiria, 35 n. 2, 35–6 n. 4, 68,syuzhet, 119–20, 122–3, 127

T2 3–D: Battle Across Time, 66 n. 6Taking Lives, 141–2Taxi Driver, 3–4‘Terrible Place’, 69–73, 75, 133, 152,

156–7, 225Terror Train, 8–9, 107, 156, 169–70,

216, 219, 220Texas Chain Saw Massacre, The, 7,

18–19, 50 n. 8, 69, 77, 107–8, 110, 143–5, 156, 180, 214, 216, 219, 220, 223

Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The, 11, 13, 139, 180–94

Part 2, 107–8, 216, 219, 220The Next Generation, 136The Beginning, 140, 187Texas Chainsaw (3D), 140

They Came From Within (see Shivers)Thing, The, 91 n. 4Thing From Another World, The,

91 n. 4Thompson, Kristin, 2–5, 67, 71, 131Tietchen, Todd F., 91 n. 3Todorov, Tzvetan, 143Totaro, Donato, 56Tower of Evil, 110Town that Dreaded Sundown, The, 156Train, 96Trash Humpers, 195–208, 211–12 n. 11Trencansky, Sarah, 138, 227 n. 8Trotsky, Leon, 1–3Tudor, Andrew, 88, 95, 100, 109–10,

141, 213–14, 223, 227 n. 5, 228 n. 9

Twin Peaks, 123

Twister, 114Twitch of the Death Nerve, see Bay of

Blood, ATwitchell, James, 224–5, 227 n. 3Tynjanov, Jurij, 131

Underwood, Tim and Chuck Miller, 133

Urban Legend, 10, 82–3, 85, 92, 110, 140, 170

series/franchise, 109, 113Urban Legends: Final Cut, 82, 170

Valentine, 11, 82, 92–105, 113Vertigo, 135voiceover, 70, 73, 188, 211 n. 7

Warwick, Alexandra, 74,We Need to Talk About Kevin, 136Weaver III, James B., 187, 227 n. 7Wee, Valerie, 10, 84–5, 88–9, 91 n. 3,

94–6, 149–51, 154–5, 160, 170Weinstock, Jeffrey Andrew, 165Wells, Paul, 152Wes Craven’s Shocker, 111, 167Westbrook, Bruce, 91 n. 2Wetmore, Kevin J., 149, 196,

211 n. 3When a Stranger Calls

(1979), 8, 20–8, 30, 34–5, 35 n. 3, 35–6 n . 4

(2006), 36 n. 6 n. 10, 140While the City Sleeps, 35–36 n. 4whodunit (also whodunnit), 41–3,

113, 117, 162, 165, 169–172, 175, 178

Wieand, Dick (Richard), 39Williams, Linda, 17, 51, 228 n. 14Wishmaster, 111Wood, Robin, 6, 20, 27, 138,

227 n. 3Woodward, Adam, 137Worland, Rick, 10, 121, 126, 150–1,

153Wright, Will, 107

You’re Next, 195, 203–8



Documents

Contents - macmillanihe.com · Contents List of Figures and ... Andrew Patrick Nelson 6 Roses Are Red, ... (McCabe 2011, 9). 3 By attempting not to adopt, bare or communicate an ideology,