American Horror Film - Tumblr Posts
It Follows (Mitchell, 2014)
What makes It Follows (Mitchell, 2014) so effective as a horror film is that it tells the spectator that they are right to fear the unknown, because the unknown is the voyeur. The Male Gaze objectifies the subject (usually feminine) and empowers the gazer (usually masculine), It Follows subverts this typical film convention. If we gaze into the unknown we believe that we hold the power, yet if the unknown gazes back, without noticing, we are objectified. Mitchell’s use of camera panning encourages passivity, the camera moves for us, the spectator holds no power as in our nightmares, we are passive. Many shots of our protagonist, Jay, are positioned uncomfortably. Some show Jay passing a window whilst others place us with her, gazing at the antagonist. Through the repeated use of the wide shots, the spectator is left vulnerable as we gaze at the shot in it’s entirety, much like our protagonist, we have no idea where it is.
Another way in which It Follows is incredibly effective is it’s use of isolation as a key theme. In order to pass on the curse, sex is needed. Although this should connote intimacy and love, sex is the cause of this isolation for the ones who suffer from the curse. In isolation, we find ourselves at our most vulnerable and when we are in need, only we truly knows what we need. The almost art-house-esque focuses on the stillness of the shot, the minimalism of most of the shots and mise-en-scene also connotes the emptiness of the film and furthermore, anchors the lack of intimacy.
Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960) is notable for a number of reasons, one of these is the first use of the “man gone wrong” antagonist. Although this is a common and popular narrative device in many modern Horror films, such as Patrick Bateman in American Psycho and Michael Myers in Halloween, at the time Norman Bates was a revolutionary character as he would change the role of antagonists forever. Norman’s name was chosen simply because it would close to the word “Normal”.
Hitchcock was obsessed with the idea of verisimilitude throughout the filming of Psycho, he used television actors from his series “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” rather than high profile actresses and actors, as he had done in films such as Vertigo (1958) and Rear Window (1954). The audience is encouraged to identify with Norman as soon as Marion leaves the narrative, the spectator follows Norman cleaning the mess and film critic Zizek argues that we identify with this as he undertakes cleaning jobs like the spectator.
Hitchcock’s innovation with the “man gone wrong” antagonist has changed horror films and furthermore, highlighted the horror of true life. Part of the attraction in horror films is that fact that, most of the time, the antagonist is caught and the spectator revels in the idea that the protagonists are safe. However, in real life this is rarely the case, numerous murderers and criminals are not caught and this was what the man gone wrong antagonist proves- it points out that serial killers/murderers/general criminals look like the everyman and we are living amongst them, just as Marion lived next door to Norman Bates.
Identity can be an ambiguous subject in Horror but increasingly, Horror narratives are turning towards the theory of the “Other”. The Other acts as the antagonist, one that the spectator cannot identify with and that the spectator realises in quintessentially different from themselves. The Other often takes on the form of the foreigner in Horror, thus increasing the xenophobia in modern horror and furthermore, exploiting current xenophobic social fears.
The three films above, The Strangers (2008, Bertino), Funny Games US (2007, Haneke) and The Purge (2013, DeMonaco) all feature the “Other”. All three films use this technique as it places the audience as the vulnerable voyeur, enabling the spectator to fully engage in a cathartic experience with the protagonists. If the spectator does not understand the motives of the antagonist we are forced to constantly ask questions and therefore, continue to become engrossed and interpellated into the film.
Is Maniac (Khalfoun, 2012) a Horror film that only women will fear?
The narrative starts in a place that people who have ended, what should have been an “amazing night out with friends”, completely alone. For some, the experience of walking home alone at night surrounded by drunk people may not be a jarring thought. However, for many, the experience is incredibly uncomfortable and films like Maniac reenforce the horror of these situations. Aziz Ansari hilariously pointed out the difference between the genders in this situation in his Netflix series Master of None. In an episode dedicated to pointing out Ansari’s own feminism, his character Dev walks home and so does another girl who was at the bar with him that night. The editing cuts between both of them, when the camera fixes on Dev the music is cheery and more specifically plays the tune from “don’t worry, be happy” but the female’s music is much more sinister. Dev believes his night has gone poorly as he steps in dog poo, whilst the woman’s night goes badly as she is followed home by a drunk man who would not leave her alone in the bar and is catcalled frequently. After he follows her home, the drunk man states, “let me in…let a nice guy win for once”. As 90% of all rape victims know their rapist, it seems fair to suggest that the “nice guy” is more dangerous than the creepy person lurking in an alley (This scene can be watched here). Unlike Master of None,Maniac forces the audience to see through the disgusting eyes of the completely sober man following women home at night.
All the above shots have voyeuristic elements but the whole film is shot in POV (the last one is used through the protagonist, Frank, looking in a mirror) and only once does the film allow us to see outside of Frank’s vision. Frank only targets women in his attacks and the other men in the film are used as ways of intimidating Frank, whilst he anonymously follows women home, he stutters when he speaks to other men. Maniac is a film designed to scare women, as to men, it simply poses no threat. However, what makes Maniac a truly abhorrent film is Khalfoun appears to suggest that Frank’s poor relationship with his Mother is too blame for his behaviour. At various points the film cuts to a flashback of Frank watching his Mother have sex and the audience quickly comes to the conclusion that this plays a huge part in his psychosis. It is impossible for the audience to identify with the Mother as she does not seem maternal throughout the narrative and her character is simply there to show how her sexuality has harmed Frank. Through the flashbacks, Khalfoun creates a sense of sympathy with Frank as he shows him as a young child looking afraid, it becomes difficult for the audience to remain unsympathetic towards the character. This makes the film more uncomfortable, sympathy is encouraged with a sadistic, psychotic murderer and the female characters are hugely undeveloped to the point where at times it is difficult to have sympathy towards them.
Maniac is clearly designed to terrify a female audience. The unrelenting use of POV shots forces the audience to gaze at a victim, whilst the eyes we are looking through are clearly a man who, on the surface, appears completely ‘normal‘. Khalfoun plays with the concept of the “nice guy” but still, forces sympathy with the protagonist. Maniac is an incredibly uncomfortable watch at times, particularly when discussing the cause of Frank’s psychosis and Khalfoun clearly suggests that female sexuality is too blame. Is the director suggesting that female sexuality is the cause of attacks on women? After re watching the film, I do believe that at times the director appears to take a victim blaming approach. To a certain extent, most Horror encourages a victim blaming approach. The typical “if I was in a horror film I would never….” or “is that character stupid?! why would they do that!” response is victim blaming at it’s core. Rather than the audience feeling abhorrent towards the murderer, victim blaming seems to be an audience’s way of dealing with the texts. What makes the film so unnerving is that at times Khalfoun forces us to identify with the man who ruthlessly kills anonymous women that the audience know nothing about.