Sex, Death, and Slasher Films

Lisa Wade, PhD on April 5, 2013

Re-posted in honor of Roger Ebert’s passing. Cross-posted at BlogHer.

University of Minnesota doctoral candidate Chris Miller sent in a fascinating episode of Siskel and Ebert, a long-lasting TV show devoted to reviewing movies. What is amazing about this episode is the frankness with which the movie critics — Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert — articulate a feminist analysis of a group of slasher movies.

The year? 1980.

First they describe the typical movie:

A woman or young girl is shown alone and isolated and defenseless… a crazy killer springs out of the shadows and attacks her and frequently the killer sadistically threatens the victims before he strikes.

They pull no punches in talking about the problem with the films:

These films hate women.

They go on to suggest that the films are a backlash against the women’s movement:

I’m convinced it has to do with the growth of the woman’s movement in America in the last decade. I think that these films are some sort of primordial response by some very sick people… of men saying “get back in your place, women.”

…

One thing that most of the victims have in common is that they do act independently… They are liberated women who act on their own. When a woman makes a decision for herself, you can almost bet she will pay with her life.

They note, too, that the violence is sexualized:

The nudity is always gratuitous. It is put in to titillate the audience and women who dress this way or merely uncover their bodies are somehow asking for trouble and somehow deserve the trouble they get. That’s a sick idea.

And they’re not just being anti-horror movie. They conclude:

[There are] good old fashioned horror films… [but] there is a difference between good and scary movies and movies that systematically demean half the human race.

It’s refreshing to hear a straightforward unapologetic feminist analysis outside of a feminist space. Their analysis, however, isn’t as sophisticated as it could be.

In doing research for a podcast about sex and violence against women in horror films (Sounds Familiar), I came across the keen analysis of Carol Clover, who wrote a book called Men, Women, and Chainsaws.

Clover admitted that most horror films of the time sexualized violence against women — meditating on the torture and terrorizing of beautiful female victims — but she also pointed out that the person who ultimately vanquished the murderer was almost always also female. She called this person the “final girl.”

The final girl was different than the rest of the women in the film: she was less sexually active, more androgynous, and smarter. You could pick her out, Clover argued, from the very beginning of the movie. She was always the first to notice that something frightening might be going on.

Boys and men watching horror films, then (and that is the main audience for this genre), were encouraged to “get off” on the murder of women, but they were also encouraged to identify with a female heroine in the end. How many other genres routinely ask men to identify with a female character? Almost none.

In this sense, Clover argues, horror films don’t “hate women.” Instead, they hate a particular kind of woman. They reproduce a Madonna/whore dichotomy in which the whores are dispatched with pleasure, but the Madonna rises to save us all in the end.

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

Siskel and Ebert full episode:

———————–

Full transcript after the jump:

>> RUN IF YOU MUST.
>> HELLO, OPERATOR.
>> HIDE IF YOU CAN.
SCREAM IF YOU ARE ABLE, BUT ABOVE ALL, IF YOU ARE ALONE… [ TELEPHONE RINGING ]
DON’T ANSWER THE PHONE.
DON’T ANSWER THE PHONE!
RATED R.
[ TELEPHONE RINGING ]

Roger Ebert:
TV COMMERCIALS LIKE THAT, EXPLOITING THE PLIGHT OF WOMEN IN DANGER. THEY HAVE BEEN SATURATING TV FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS AND THE SUMMER AND FALL OF 1980 ARE THE WORST YET. IT’S A DISTURBING NEW TREND AT THE MOVIE BOX OFFICE, ONE WE WILL BE DISCUSSING ON THIS SPECIAL EDITION OF SNEAK PREVIEWS. ACROSS THE HEIL FROM ME IS GENE SISKEL OF THE “CHICAGO TRIBUNE.”

Gene Siskel:
AND THIS IS ROGER EBERT OF THE “CHICAGO SUNTIMES.” WE WILL LOOK AT A GROUP OF RECENT FILMS THAT HAVE UGLY THEMES IN COLUMN. THEY ARE THRILLERS FEATURES EXTREME VIOLENCE DIRECTED AT YOUNG WOMEN. TO PUT IT BLUNTLY, WHAT YOU SEE IN MOST OF THESE YOUNG FILMS IS YOUNG GIRLS BEING RAPED OR STABBED TO DEATH, USUALLY BOTH. THIS IS A DEPRESSING DEVELOPMENT IN AMERICAN MOVIES. WE WILL EXAMINE THE NATURE OF THIS TREND AND SPECULATE ON WHY WE ARE GETTING SO MANY OF THESE FILMS AND GETTING THEM NOW. A LOT OF MOVIE GOERS, ADULTS AND TEENAGERS SEE THESE R RATED FILMS AND THEY ASSUME THEY WILL SEE A BUNCH OF ROUTINE SCARY PICTURES BUT OFTENTIMES THEY ARE REALLY SHOCKED HOW AWFUL THESE FILMS ARE. AS WE EXPLORE THIS TREND, WE WILL NOT BE SHOWING YOU EXTREME VIOLENCE IN THESE MOVIES. WE PICKED THEMES THAT ONLY SUGGEST THE VIOLENCE. WE WANT TO INFORM YOU NOT OFFEND YOU.

Roger Ebert:
IT’S JUST AS WELL WE ARE NOT SEEING SOME OF THOSE FILMS. I THINK PEOPLE WOULD TURN THEIR SETS OFF.

Gene Siskel:
YES.

Roger Ebert:
TO BEGIN WITH, ONE OF THE SOCALLED WOMEN IN DANGER FILMS HAVE IN COMMON, THEY PORTRAY WOMEN AS HELPLESS WOMEN. AS YOU SET THROUGH HALF A DOZEN OF THESE FILMS AS GENE AND I HAVE HAD TO, THEY FALL INTO THE SAME PATTERN. A WOMAN OR YOUNG GIRL IS SHOWN ALONE AND ISOLATED AND DEFENSELESS AND THE SUSPENSE FILLED SCENES AND THEN WHEN YOU THINK EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE OKAY AND NOTHING WILL HAPPEN, A CRAZY KILLER SPRINGS OUT OF THE SHADOWS AND ATTACKS HER AND FREQUENTLY THE KILLER SADISTICALLY THREATENS THE VICTIM BEFORE HE STRIKES. THAT’S WHAT’S HAPPENING FROM LAST YEAR’S SLEAZY MOVIE “WHEN A STRANGER CALLS” WHICH HAS BEEN RERELEASED BECAUSE OF THE RECENT UPSURGE OF THE POPULARITY OF THESE MOVIES AFTER TACKS ON WOMEN. THE WOMAN HAS BEEN TOLD TO KEEP THE CALLER ON THE LINE THAT HAS BEEN THREATENING HER UNTIL THE POLICE CAN TRACE THE CALL.

[ TELEPHONE RINGING ]
>> HELLO?
>> IT’S ME.
>> I KNOW.
WHO ARE YOU?
I’M NOT GOING TO BE HERE MUCH LONGER.
I’M COMING HOME.
>> I KNOW.
>> CAN YOU SEE ME?
>> YES.
>> TAKE ME HOME, OR MAYBE EVEN THE POLICE.
>> YOU CALLED THE POLICE?
>> I WANT TO TALK TO YOU.
[ DIAL TONE ]

TELEPHONE RINGING ]
>> LEAVE ME ALONE.
>> JILL, LISTEN TO ME.
WE TRACED THE CALL.
IT’S COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE.
JUST GET OUT OF THAT HOUSE.

Roger Ebert:
THAT BASIC SCENE HAS PROVIDED THE PREMISE FOR AT LEAST A DOZEN FILMS IN THE LAST YEAR. IT’S ALWAYS THE SAME, THE GIRL IS AT HOME ALONE. THE MENACING ATTACKER, THE RINGING TELEPHONE, THE WIDE, FRIGHTENED EYES. I THINK THERE’S SOMETHING TERRIBLY WRONG WHEN AN IMAGE LIKE THAT BECOMES THE BUILDING BLOCK OF AN ENTIRE MOVIE GENRE.

Gene Siskel:
A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK THAT THE BATTLE HAS BEEN WON THAT THERE ARE STRONG WOMEN IMAGES IN THE FILM AND JILL CLAYBURGH IN “UNMARRIED WOMAN” AND FONDA AND CLAYBURGH MAYBE ONE FILM A YEAR. AND THESE FILMS COME OUT WEEK AFTER WEEK AND THE DOMINANT FILMS IS NOT FONDA AND CLAYBURGH IT’S WOMEN LIKE THAT COWERING IN THE CORNER, KNIVES BEING BRANDISHED IN THEIR FACES, BEING RAPED AND BEING SLICED APART. THAT’S WHAT’S GOING ON IN AMERICAN MOVIES. THAT’S WHY WE ARE DOING THE SHOW.

Roger Ebert:
I THINK PEOPLE IDENTIFY THESE FILMS WITH EARLIER THRILLERS LIKE PSYCHO OR MORE RECENT FILMS LIKE HALLOWEEN. THESE FILMS ARE NOT IN THE SAME CATEGORY. THESE FILM HATE WOMEN AND UNFORTUNATELY THE AUDIENCES THAT GO TO THEM DON’T SEEM TO LIKE WOMEN TOO MUCH EITHER. WE GO TO SEE THESE FILMS IN MOVIE THEATERS. THESE ARE NOT THE KIND OF MOVIES WHERE THEY HAVE NICE PRIVATE LITTLE SCREENINGS FOR THE CRITICS AND TO BE SURROUNDED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE CHEERING THE VILLAIN ON IS A SCARY EXPERIENCE.

Gene Siskel:
THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF THE KILLER AND REALLY AGAINST THE WOMEN COWERING BACK. I DON’T THINK WE CAN STRESS THIS TOO STRONGLY THAT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT JUST A COUPLE OF FILMS. IT SEEMS LIKE WE ARE GETTING NEW ONES OF THESE TYPES OF FILMS EVERY OTHER WEEK. THAT AMOUNTS TO A MAJOR MOVIE TREND. HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES. THERE’S PROM NIGHT WITH TEENAGED GIRLS BEING SLAUGHTERED AT THEIR HIGH SCHOOL PROM. THE AD CAMPAIGN IS, IF YOU ARE NOT BACK BY MIDNIGHT, YOU WON’T BE COMING HOME. THERE’S DON’T GO IN THE HOUSE. A GUY WHO WAS TORTURED BY HIS MOTHER BURNS THREE WOMEN TO DEATH, AND THE SELL LINE HERE IS YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. AND THERE’S THE HOWLING, A NEW MOVIE ABOUT A WOMAN WHO GOES ALONE ON A VACATION AND IS TORTURED BY THE LOCALS. THE COME ON LINE HERE IS IMAGINE YOUR WORST FEAR A REALITY. AND THERE’S TERROR TRAIN IN WHICH SIX COLLEGE STUDENTS AT A MASQUERADE PARTY ON A TRAIN ARE STALKED BY A PSYCHO PATH AND THERE’S THE BOOGEYMAN. A SUPERNATURAL KILLER HAUNTS A HOUSE. HERE’S ONE OF THE ADS FOR THE BOOGEYMAN.

>> YOU CAN’T HIDE FROM HIM.
[ CRYING ]
>> BY THE TIME YOU BELIEVE IN HIM, IT WILL BE TOO LATE.
THE BOOGEYMAN, HE WILL GET YOU.

Gene Siskel:
AND WE ARE OUT TO GET HIM BEFORE HE GETS YOU AND YOUR $4. THESE ARE THE MOVIES WE ARE GETTING. IT’S RELENTLESS. EVERY FILM COMPANY SEEMS TO BE MAKING ONE OF THESE MOVIES OR DISTRIBUTING ONE. IN ADDITION TO THE FILMS WE ALREADY MENTIONED THIS SEASON, WE ALSO HAVE “HE KNOWS YOU ARE ALONE,” MOTEL HELL, PHOBIA, MOTHER’S DAY, SCHIZOID, SILENT SCREAM AND I SPIT ON YOUR GAVE, WHICH IS EASILY THE I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, WHICH IS EASILY THE WORST OF THIS BUNCH.

Roger Ebert:
THEY SEE THE R RATING AND THEY THINK, R, THAT MEANS IF YOU ARE UNDER 17, YOU HAVE TO TAKE ALONG A PARENT OR A GUARDIAN, AND IT CAN’T BE THAT BAD. MAYBE THEY SAW THE BLUE LAGOON OR THE BLUES BROTHERS AND THEY SAY, WELL, THAT’S NOT SO BAD. THEY HAVE NO IDEA. I AGREE WITH YOU, ABOUT I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. THAT’S THE MOST VIOLENT, EXTREME, GROTESQUE, NAUSEATING R RATED FILM I HAVE EVER SEEN. I DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW THE R RATING HAS GROWN SO LARGE TO INCLUDE THAT MOVIE.

Gene Siskel:
WHAT IS HAPPENING, THE GOUGINGS, AGAIN TO MAKE THE POINT ARE TAKING PLACE AND THEY ARE BASICALLY, BASICALLY WOMEN THAT ARE BEING GOUGED. I THINK AT THIS POINT SOMEBODY IS PROBABLY WONDERING WHY. WHY? WHY NOW? WHY IS THIS HAPPENING? I THINK IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS I HAVE BEEN SEEING THESE PICTURES, I’M CONVINCED IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE GROWTH OF THE WOMAN’S MOVEMENT IN AMERICA IN THE LAST DECADE. I THINK THAT THESE FILMS ARE SOME SORT OF PRIMORDIAL RESPONSE BY SOME VERY SICK PEOPLE OF MEN SAYING GET BACK IN YOUR PLACE, WOMEN.

Roger Ebert:
I THINK YOU ARE BASICALLY RIGHT, GENE. YOU KNOW, AFTER YOU SET THROUGH HOUR AFTER HOUR OF THIS COMPLETE TRASH, YOU BEGIN TO ASK YOURSELF, WHAT DID THESE FEMALE VICTIMS DO TO DESERVE THE HORRIBLE ATTACKS THEY UNDERGO IN THESE FILMS? WHAT WAS THEIR CRIME? WHY IS IT SUDDENLY OPEN SEASON ON YOUNG WOMEN IN THE MOVIES? ONE THING THAT MOST OF THE VICTIMS DO HAVE IN COMMON IS THEY DO ACT INDEPENDENTLY. I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT ONE POINT. THEY ARE LIBERATED WOMEN WHO ACT ON THEIR OWN. WHEN A WOMAN MAKES A DECISION FOR HERSELF, YOU CAN ALMOST BET SHE WILL PAY WITH HER LIFE, AND HERE’S A SCENE FROM “THE SILENT SCREAM” WHERE SHE’S LOOKING FOR OFF CAMPUS HOUSING.

>> I’M NOT A VIOLENT PERSON BY NATURE.
IF THERE’S A ROOM HERE, I’M READY TO FIGHT FOR IT.
>> WHY FIGHT?
WE CAN SHARE IT.
>> SHE GETS A ROOM, BEATEN, GAGGED AND ATTACKED WITH A KNIFE.
[ WHIMPERING ]

Roger Ebert:
AND IN MOVIE “FRIDAY THE 13th” AND INDEPENDENT CAMP COUNSELOR GETS A RIDE WITH THE WRONG DRIVER.

>> HI.
I’M GOING TO THE LAKE.
I GUESS I ALWAYS WANT SISTERS.
I HATE WHEN PEOPLE CALL THEM KIDS.
IT SOUNDS LIKE GOATS.
BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A DREAM AS LONG AS I HAD, YOU WILL DO ANYTHING.
HEY, WASN’T THAT THE ROAD FOR CAMP CRYSTAL LAKE BACK THERE?
I THINK WE BETTER STOP.
PLEASE.
PLEASE.
PLEASE STOP!
PLEASE!
PLEASE STOP!

Roger Ebert:
NOW THAT SCENE DEMONSTRATES A VERY COMMON AND PROBABLY VERY SIGNIFICANT TECHNIQUE THAT’S USED AGAIN AND AGAIN IN THESE FILMS. WE VIEW A SCENE THROUGH THE EYES OF THE KILLER. YOU NEVER SAW THE DRIVER IN THAT LAST SCENE. INSTEAD, YOU SAW EVERYTHING THROUGH THE DRIVER’S EYES. NOW, IN THE TRADITIONAL HORROR MOVIE, WE OFTEN SAW THINGS FROM THE VICTIM’S POINT OF VIEW, BUT THAT’S NO LONGER. NOW WE LOOK THROUGH THE KILLER’S EYES. IT’S ALMOST AS IF THE AUDIENCE IS BEING ASKED TO IDENTIFY WITH THE ATTACKERS IN THESE MOVIES AND THAT REALLY BOTHERS ME.

Gene Siskel:
THAT’S A GOOD POINT. THE BEHAVIOR THAT THESE WOMEN ARE ENGAGING IN, IF DONE BY MEN WOULD BE BRAVE, BOLD AND FUN, HITCHHIKING LIKE IN “EASY RIDER.” A WOMAN TRIES TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THESE FILMS, WHAMO, THEY GET SLICED UP. WHENEVER WE SEE A MOVIE TREND, I THINK THAT’S WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON. I THINK I TALKED ABOUT THIS IS A CONVALESCED DREAM THAT THE PEOPLE MAY BE FEELING AND THE FILMMAKER HITS ON. THEY TALKED ABOUT EVERYBODY BEING AFRAID THAT SOMETHING BAD MIGHT HAPPEN TO THE WORLD, A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION. I THINK THEY ARE PICKING UP THAT MEN ARE ANGRY WITH WOMEN AND THEY ARE PANDERING, EXCITING, INFLAMING MEN. VERY BAD.

Roger Ebert:
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE CONVALESCED DREAMS. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE URGES OR FEARS THAT THEY DON’T ARTICULATE THEMSELVES AND SOMETIMES A MOVIE COMES ALONG THAT STRIKES THAT CHORD. WHEN “AIRPORT” CAME OUT IN 1970, NOBODY KNEW THAT WAS GOING TO BE THE FIRST OF COUNTLESS, UMPTEEN DOZEN DISASTER MOVIES BUT IT SPOKE TO PEOPLE THAT MADE THEM INITIATE IT. I THE FIRST MOVIE IN THESE WOMEN IN DANGER FILMS WAS HALLOWEEN, WHICH WE WILL GET TO HALLOWEEN IN JUST A MOMENT. I THINK IT’S A PRETTY GOOD PICTURE BUT IT CAPTURED AN ENORMOUS AUDIENCE. IT DID MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN BUSINESS AND THEN THE SLEAZE MERCHANTS LOOKED AT THAT MOVIE AND TRIED TO PUT THEIR FINGER ON WHAT IT WAS THAT MADE IT SO SUCCESSFUL. WOMEN BEING CHASED BY A KILLER.

Gene Siskel:
THAT’S WHY THEY CALL THEMSELVES EXPLOITATIONS, THESE ROTTEN ONES BECAUSE THEY EXPLOIT ONE ELEMENT AND MAKE IT SICK. AND MANY OF THESE ATTACKS TAKE ON WOMEN WHO ARE SCANTILY CLAD. I THINK THAT THE INTENT IS TO EXPLOIT THE SEX ANGLE IN THESE PICTURES. THE NUDITY IS ALWAYS GRATUITOUS. IT PUT IN TO TITILLATE THE AUDIENCE AND WOMEN WHO DRESS THIS WAY OR MERELY UNCOVER THEIR BODIES ARE SOMEHOW ASKING FOR TROUBLE AND SOMEHOW DESERVE THE TROUBLE THAT THEY GET, THAT’S A SICK IDEA. HERE’S AN INNOCENT SUN BATHER IN “I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE.” WATCH WHAT HAPPENS TO HER.
[ SHOUTS ]

Gene Siskel:
AND IN FRIDAY THE 13th WE WATCH AS A YOUNG WOMAN PRIMPS PROVOCATIVELY IN A BATHROOM MIRROR AS SHE’S STALKED BY A HATCHET KILLER. IT’S A FILM SAYING ACT THIS WAY YOUNG WOMEN AND YOU ARE ASKING FOR TROUBLE.

>> HELLO?
>> NED?
COME ON.
>> TRUST ME.

Gene Siskel:
IN THE PAST YEAR, I MUST HAVE SEEN THAT SCENE 100, 150 TIMES, EVERY MOVIE OF THIS KIND HAS EIGHT OR TEN SCENES JUST LIKE IT. I’M SICK OF THEM. I DREAD GOING TO THESE TYPES OF MOVIE. IT’S THE MOST DEPRESSING PART OF MY JOB AS A FILM CRITIC.

Roger Ebert:
THERE WE ARE IN TOTAL AGREEMENT. WE GO TO SEE THESE MOVIES AND I ALMOST FEEL AS IF I DON’T BELONG IN THE THEATER BECAUSE EVERYBODY ELSE APPARENTLY WENT TO THE MOVIES LIKE THIS VOLUNTARILY. THEY ARE REACTING AND HAPPY TO BE THERE. I FEEL LIKE AN UNDERCOVER SPY IN THE DARK. I SPENT TO SEE “I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE” AND I WAS SITTING NEXT TO A MAN WHO WAS 50 YEARS OLD WHO WAS TALKING BACK TO THE SCREEN WHO SAYS, SHE REALLY ASKED FOR IT NOW. OR THERE WAS A RAPE SCENE AND HE SAID, THIS SHOULD BE A GOOD ONE. I FELT CREEPY SITTING THERE.

Gene Siskel:
I SAW A LOT OF COUPLES ON DATES. WELL, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SEE THIS FILM AND IMITATE THE BEHAVIOR. SOME PEOPLE MAY, BUT I DON’T KNOW. A MAJORITY OF MIDDLECLASS PEOPLE ARE SEEING THEM. I WORRY ABOUT THIS IDEA WHICH IS WHEN YOU VIEW WOMEN, CONSTANTLY AS SPORT, BEING STABBED, I THINK THAT’S A SORT OF SICK NOTION THAT JUST SORT OF MAKES IT’S DEGRADING. YOU VIEW THEM AS SECOND CLASS, THAT SOMEHOW THIS IS ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR. YOU SAID BEFORE THAT ALL MOVIES TEND TO ARGUE IN FAVOR OF THE BEHAVIOR THAT THEY SHOW. THESE ARE WOMEN AS SPORT TO BE STABBED. I THINK THAT’S A BAD IDEA. THEY OUTLAWED BULLFIGHTING BECAUSE IT WAS CRUEL. I ALMOST HAVE SOME OF THE SAME FEELINGS TOWARDS THESE KINDS OF MOVIES.

Roger Ebert:
IT PUTS SOME BAD IDEAS IN SOCIETY IN THE CONTEXT OF ENTERTAINMENT, YES. YOU KNOW, GENE AND I HAD SOME LONG DISCUSSIONS BEFORE WE DECIDED TO DO THIS SPECIAL PROGRAM ON WOMEN IN DANGER IN THE MOVIES AND FRANKLY, WE WORRIED ABOUT WHETHER ADDITIONAL PUBLICITY FOR THESE MOVIES MIGHT SIMPLY HELP THEM OUT AT THE BOX OFFICE. WE SURE HOPE NOT. OUR INTENTION IS TO SIMPLY REPORT ON THIS TREND AND TO WARN UNSUSPECTING PEOPLE WHO MIGHT GO TO THESE FILMS THINKING THEY ARE MERELY, GOOD OLDFASHIONED HORROR FILMS, THE KIND THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE USED TO ENJOY BECAUSE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD AND SCARY MOVIES AND MOVIES THAT SYSTEMICALLY DEMEAN HALF THE HUMAN RACE. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MOVIES WHICH ARE VIOLENT BUT ENTERTAINING AND MOVIES THAT ARE GRUESOME AND DESPICABLE. THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HORROR MOVIE AND A FREAK SHOW. AND A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT IS THE FACT THAT BOTH OF US GAVE FAVORABLE REVIEWS TO A VERY SCARY 1978 HORROR FILM NAMED “HALLOWEEN” THERE MUST BE PEOPLE ASKING HOW COULD WE PRAISE A MOVIE LIKE THAT AND NOW SAY THESE OTHER MOVIES SORE TERRIBLE. WELL, HERE’S A SCENE FROM “HALLOWEEN” IT HAS THE SAME BASIC SITUATION AS ALL THE WOMEN IN DANGER MOVIES HAVE. THERE’S A WOMAN ALONE IN A BIG HOUSE AND SHE’S BEING CHASED BY A KILLER, BUT LET’S LOOK AT IT FIRST AND TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES.

>> WE WILL TAKE A LITTLE WALK.
>> WHAT IF IT’S THE BOOGEYMAN.
I’M SCARED.
>> THERE’S NOTHING TO BE SCARED OF.
>> WHY?
>> I KILLED HIM.
>> YOU CAN’T KILL THE BOOGEYMAN.
[ SCREAMING ]
>> LOCK THE DOOR!
¶

Roger Ebert:
OKAY. THAT’S “HALLOWEEN” A HORROR MOVIE WE BOTH THINK IS PRETTY GOOD.

Gene Siskel:
VERY GOOD.

Roger Ebert:
HALLOWEEN IS DIRECTED AND ACTED WITH MORE ARTISTRY AND CRAFTSMANSHIP THAN THE SLEAZE FILMS WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. AS YOU WATCH HALLOWEEN, YOUR BASIC SYMPATHIES ARE ENLISTED ON THE SIDE OF THE WOMAN, NOT WITH THE KILLER. THE MOVIE DEVELOPS ITS WOMEN KILLERS AS INDEPENDENT, INTELLIGENT, SPUNKY AND INTERESTING PEOPLE. HALLOWEEN DOES NOT HATE WOMEN.

Gene Siskel:
YOU KNOW WHEN I SAW THAT SCENE, I MUST ADMIT I WASN’T WORRYING AS MUCH ABOUT THE WOMAN, BUT I WAS THINKING ABOUT THAT KILLER AND HOW I WOULD HANDLE. I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT HALLOWEEN NOT ONLY HATES WOMEN BUT IT LOVES FILM AND FILMMAKING. THE MUSIC IS FABULOUS, THE WAY HE STARTS ONE THEME AND KEEPING THE OTHER THEME REALLY GOOD. ALSO THE LIGHT COMING THROUGH THE SLATS IN THAT CLOSET. IT’S A FILM THAT’S UP. THAT SCENE IS UP AND YOU ARE JUMPING RATHER THAN GETTING DEPRESSED AND FEELING SORRY AND FEELING SORRY THAT YOU ARE WATCHING.

Roger Ebert:
ARTISTRY CAN REDEEM ANY SUBJECT MATTER. THAT’S WHY I HAVE BEEN OPPOSED TO CENSORSHIP. I DON’T BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE OFF BASE. WHAT DOES THE ARTIST DO WITH IT? HOW DOES HE PUT IT THROUGH HIS ART IN ORDER TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT IT OR TO MAKE IT INTO A COMMERCIAL FILM OR A SERIOUS FILM. I BELIEVE IN THE CASE OF THE MOVIE LIKE HALLOWEEN, WE CAN ENGAGE IN THAT JOY OF FILMMAKING THAT YOU TALK ABOUT. THAT’S NOT THE CASE WITH THE OTHER FILMS THAT REALLY ADDRESS THEMSELVES TO THE LOWEST POSSIBLE COMMON DENOMINATOR.

Gene Siskel:
THE FILM WE ARE DEALING WITH DO NOT HAVE THE ARTISTRY OF HALLOWEEN. THEY BOIL DOWN TO ONE IMAGE, ONE DISTURBING IMAGE, A WOMAN SCREAMING IN ABJECT TERROR.

[ SCREAMS ]

Gene Siskel:
AS TO WHAT PEOPLE CAN DO ABOUT THESE FILMS, THE TREND IN THE MOVIES THAT WE HAVE BEEN SPOTLIGHTING, I THINK PEOPLE HAVE TO REALIZE THAT THE BOX OFFICE SPEAKS LOUDER THAN JUST TWO FILM CRITICS. IF ONE OF THESE FILMS IS AROUND, IF YOU HAVE AN IDEA THAT IT MIGHT BE AROUND, STAY AWAY.

Roger Ebert:
HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT FILMS TO STAY AWAY FROM, USUALLY YOU CAN TELL BY THE ADS, R RATED WITH A KNIFE OR A HATCHET, A GIRL SCREAMING AND SOME GUY IN A HOOD. THESE MOVIES ARE JUNK AND GIVE THEM A PASS.

Gene Siskel:
WE WILL SEE YOU AT THE MOVIES.

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky:
I MEAN I HATE TO DEFEND A FILM THAT ISN’T ALL THAT GOOD. I THINK ROGER IS BEING UNFAIR TO “I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE.” IT’S A FILM ABOUT A BRUTAL ACT.

Christy Lemire:
BUT HE’S APPALLED BY THE ORIGINAL, AND “LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT” WHERE THEY LANGUISH OVER AND FETISHIZE THE RAPE IT’S NOT JUST ALLUDED TO. THEY SPEND TIME WITH IT NEEDLESSLY AND THERE’S THE WHOLE TREND OF MOVIES LIKE “HIGH TENSION” WHERE THE WOMAN IS A VICTIM IN THE BEGINNING BUT SHE GETS HER REVENGE IN BLOODY, GORY WAYS.

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky:
MANY OF THESE FILMS WHERE WOMEN ARE QUOTE/UNQUOTE VICTIMIZED OR PUT IN DANGER ARE WHERE WOMEN TRIUMPH OVER DANGER. HORROR IS THE ONLY PLACE WHERE YOU CAN FIND A FEMALE PROTAGONIST.

Christy Lemire:
JAMIE THREE CURTIS “THE FINAL GIRL.”

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky:
SHE LASTS THROUGH THE ENTIRE FILM WITHOUT GETTING KILLED. JOIN US NEXT WEEK FOR ANOTHER LOOK BACK AT SNEAK PREVIEWS. YOU CAN FOLLOW THE DISCUSSION ON FACEBOOK AND ON TWITTER. UNTIL THEN, THE BALCONY IS CLOSED.

Comments 83

ldogorman — December 9, 2011

Haven't you heard? Women are equal now so we don't need to concern ourselves with things like systemic violence in the media or in real life.

Jessica Franken — December 9, 2011

I was really struck by this, and I'm left with a feeling of real sorrow. I haven't seen a discussion like this in mainstream media, especially by men, any time in recent memory. Maybe it has something to do with the fragmentation of media - I get analysis like this from feminist blogs and magazines - which means only the people already in agreement with a message like this will hear it because they will have sought it out.

The fact that S&E devoted an entire show to this discussion and it was heard by families and individuals in probably millions of homes is amazing to me.

I'm going to go cry now.

No Sugarcoating — December 9, 2011

Color me impressed. It is very refreshing to see someone address violence against women in the media on mainstream TV....and two men no less! If only we were still having these conversations a few decades later. They had obviously thought deeply about this, enough to worry about whether bringing attention to these movies would actually encourage people to go see them.

"I WORRY ABOUT THIS IDEA WHICH IS WHEN YOU VIEW WOMEN, CONSTANTLY AS
SPORT, BEING STABBED, I THINK THAT’S A SORT OF SICK NOTION THAT JUST
SORT OF MAKES IT’S DEGRADING. YOU VIEW THEM AS SECOND CLASS, THAT
SOMEHOW THIS IS ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR. YOU SAID BEFORE THAT ALL MOVIES
TEND TO ARGUE IN FAVOR OF THE BEHAVIOR THAT THEY SHOW. THESE ARE WOMEN
AS SPORT TO BE STABBED. I THINK THAT’S A BAD IDEA."

I thought this part was especially poignant, and could be applied to other forms of media, such as pornography.

Seth Eag — December 9, 2011

Not to minimize the larger social issue, but this isn't very odd for Ebert. He still often puts things in context like this, but just happens to have had more popular resonance in the 80s than he does now when, almost literally, everyone is a critic. Unfortunately things like this get lost in the tl;dr era, while the most shallow, surface-readings get elevated.

Nathan — December 9, 2011

No, there's nothing shocking about this. Roger Ebert has always been a Lefty. Matt Rothschild(of The Progressive Magazine) has an interview here: http://www.progressive.org/mag_intvebert

Erik B. Anderson — December 9, 2011

That was 30 years ago. According to Christine Spines, the trend has reversed quite a bit:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20293304,00.html

Maggie Champaigne — December 9, 2011

And they yelled the whole thing! Oooh that transcript is hard on the eyes. :(

Jessie Winitzky — December 9, 2011

It seems significant that many of these movies are being remade (i.e. When a Stranger Calls and I Spit on Your Grave). Does this represent a renewed backlash against feminism?

Aeon Blue — December 9, 2011

Something to keep in mind is that viewers can inhabit the perspectives of many different characters at once. So, with a "rape revenge" plot, the viewer can savor the titillating experience of the rape through the eyes of the rapist, then, immediately afterward, feel outraged on behalf of the victim. Then they can vicariously savor the thrill of "justified" murder. Because every part of the plot falls into a comfortable cultural narrative that is viewed as morally just, they never have to question why they enjoy the rape or the killing.

Anonymous — December 9, 2011

Goodness, this is something stright out of a genderstudies class! So advanced comapred to even the most forward popular analysis nowadays. What I'm wondering is this: what happened?

Leslee Beldotti — December 9, 2011

Is anyone else having trouble finding part 2 of this video? I've searched on Youtube, but all I can find is part 1 and part 3.

Nick Green — December 10, 2011

Hi Lisa,

This is excellent! It's refreshing not only for it's frank discussion about the misogyny in those films (which is relevant to many today), but that many review shows would simply note the trend and move on; Siskel and Ebert devoted an entire episode!

Interestingly enough, Ebert was quite critical of the film 'Wolf Creek' for similar reasons to those discussed in this episode. Although the film was very sadistic and hard to watch - and perhaps I'm sounding like a Slate-esque contrarian (I hope not) - I felt that particular film had a scathing subtext about the 'Myth of the Aussie Male'; a mythology that Ebert may have not have been entirely familiar with, as many non-Australian audiences may not have been.

Nevertheless, it was relevant in showing he maintained that focal point to the current day. I have noticed other reviews give this perspective attention too; sadly, however, they lack the profile, depth and detail of this original S&E episode.

Cheers,
Nick

Anonymous — December 10, 2011

Notice how they actually endured the pain of watching the movies in question before they critiqued them? Ahem.. http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/08/09/on-deadgirl-the-movie-nsfw-trigger-warning/

Anonymous — December 10, 2011

You don't see feminist arguments like this on TV anymore because frankly, such arguments are way past their expiration date.

Americans are extremely media literate. While they may not be media studies degree holders, many know in their guts and can pretty clearly articulate that films like these far exceed Siskel and Ebert's hackneyed feminist analysis here.

I'm not opposed to hearing more feminist points of view on TV - let a thousand flowers bloom, I always say - but I'm in no hurry to hear *these* arguments, yet again.

Abritti — December 10, 2011

Hello everyone...I am from India and regularly follow SI...though this will be the first time I comment.
I avidly follow Hollywood films and also film critics like Ebert. Though I have my complaints against him, I was pleasantly surprised with his review of Sofia Coppola's "Marie-Antoinette". He actually provided a very touching and perceptive insight neatly divided into ten points (as if pointedly rebuffing the critical backlash against the film)...something many mainstream and even some female critics failed to do.
You can check it out....
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061019/REVIEWS/610190303/1023

gayle — December 10, 2011

There was an active vocal and public women's movement at the time. Men of their generation, like it or not, that objectification of women and violence against women was unacceptable. Women were not standing for that crap.

The backlash was going on but there were still voices out there arguing the feminist viewpoint. Now we just have the backlash, libertarian movement that calls itself the third wave. It supports porn and other violent and objectifying- media in the name of "agency."

And look were we are now! We need a vibrant woman's movement that is actually brave enough to call men out. When that goes moribund, like it is now, women get pushed back and pushed out.

Larrycharleswilson — December 10, 2011

I wasn't aware that there were supposedly educated individuals who disagreed with Siskel and Ebert's interpretation of these movies. Of course the problem is not just present in horror movies...then or now.

Andrew — December 10, 2011

Lisa asks: "Where’s the feminist analysis now?"

Lisa - it's on the internet now. The brief period in which television was a serious medium for in-depth analysis of culture, art, film, and literature in the US ended years ago. Feminism aside, how often do we see a serious and intelligent discussion on the nuances and subtext of a film in the very brief time allotted to movie reviews on TV now? What we get now tends to be rapid-fire collages of sound bites spliced between hypervisual marketing imagery and fluff. Political commentary on TV, it must be said, is seldom better, considering that TV journalists are routinely outclassed and outsmarted by comedians in satire programs.

In short - TV got really, really dumb.

Also, the internet turned out to be a much better forum for insightful analysis of culture, as it doesn't limit any dialogue to short running times or force it to collide with the interests of media advertisers. The small niche of people who take film seriously as an art form are numerous enough to keep thousands of websites afloat, but are not a profitable demographic for something as expensive as airtime on national TV . I can guarantee, you'll find exponentially more feminist commentary on contemporary film with a web browser in 2011 than you could in every available outlet combined - including print - in 1980, or 1990, or 2000. Believe me, I was a film student back in the microfiche era, it really is night and day.

Lunad — December 10, 2011

Given that this trend was 30 years ago, we can see the results ourselves, not just speculate. What do we have? A culture of fear. Can't let children go to the store on their own, or play outside without supervision, or take public transit: there are kidnappers and rapists everywhere.

Rjjspesh — December 12, 2011

That is real film critisism. Excellent

Random Monday Movie Dump: Black Christmas, Near Dark, Tucker and Dale Vs Evil, etc. « Film Chatter — December 12, 2011

[...] Also relevant I think! This review by Siskel & Ebert about slasher films and feminism. They mention a lot of the same things that I sometimes talk about when I express my distaste for films such as Last House on the Left. And a lot of newer films. Also, they were saying all of this in 1980. So that’s how much things change! Women in Danger. [...]

pduggie — December 13, 2011

I think this kind of discussion got drowned out (by well meaning folks) in the Tipper Gore PMRC era. Free speech voluptuaries like Zappa and others made the case that opposition to bad cultural messages was worse than the bad cultural messages. "The Man" (heh) was trying to take away your fun. You couldn't watch what you wanted, and had to be babysat by a nanny state or you'd go out and do bad things or think bad thoughts.

And "everybody knew" that this was just fantasy and character playing. That doesn't have any social effect! nosir! Violent lyrics or pronography don't *make* people do bad things, only bad people do bad things.

Such was the level of discourse, and its won out in spades in the internet era. Sometimes the free speech voluptuaries are taken aback by where we've gotten this way, but they don't connect it to their own position.

Esse Cass — December 20, 2011

But don't let the Siskel-Ebert review be the last word! In "Men, women, and chain saws: gender in the modern horror film," Carol J. Clover gives an alternative reading of slasher films. Her reading of the role that gender plays can't be summarized in a blog comment, but she certainly disagrees with the judgement that "These films hate woman."

If I remember correctly, a rough summary of the argument is that the male-viewer of the film is meant to identify with the female-victim, and this identification serves as a mechanism that allows the viewer to experience masochism without challenge to his masculine identity.

To quote Clover: "its [the Siskel-Ebert position's] insistence that "I Split on Your Grave" makes rapists of us all works, in fact, to deflect attention from the possibility that it just as well makes Jennifers of us all, and that the powerful feelings the film evokes may have less to do with a sense of mastery than with the sense that one has just been shafted."

“Contrarian” take on gender in ‘Wolf Creek’ « Strange Days — January 9, 2012

[...] episode of Sneak Previews with Siskel & Ebert titled “Women in Danger” (via this Sociological Images post). The first (of 2) videos is [...]

Quickies: 06/06/2012 - Queereka — June 6, 2012

[...] Lisa Wade of Sociological Images lately appeared on Blake Cooper’s Sounds Familiar podcast talking about feminism and horror films. Links and a transcript of a fantastic 1980 episode of Siskel and Ebert on the subject here. [...]

Rachel Krieger — June 6, 2012

This sickens me. The fact that women are still being discriminated today is horrifying. I feel that although we have made a huge rise in becoming more equal to man, we are still not fully there due to many roles in the media. When they talked about how the women dress, they should realize that society puts such an image out that this is the idealistic woman and that is how they should look. I do like the fact though that these two men took the feministic view and analyzed these films in front of millions of people. Maybe something will change due to their words.

Abuso sexual y películas de horror. | Qué Joder — September 22, 2012

[...] el artículo Sex, Death and Slasher Films, en el que muestran un episodio de una serie de Siskel y Ebert, dos reconocidos críticos de cine [...]

Jens Tomko — April 6, 2013

"Their analysis, however, isn’t as sophisticated as it could be.... I came across the keen analysis of Carol Clover, who wrote a book called 'Men, Women, and Chainsaws.'"

Glover's work is an important milestone in film analysis across many frameworks, but also is important for the sheer volume of reference points it collects across different perspectives. The book, published in 1992, takes a thorough approach to collecting a lot of great information-- including two key 1980 contributions from Siskel and Ebert (clearly cited in Glover's book).

Also worth noting that 1980 represented an interesting time in film history, as a marker of social/cultural activity as well. The independent cinema aesthetic of the 60s and 70s gained a wider audience, the threshold for what would be depicted on screen really pushed a lot of boundaries, and it caught many people off-guard. The analytic frames we can now take for granted in academia feel like they were just getting their sea legs among some vocal, thoughtful learners (for which I know I am thankful now).

It just doesn't seem right to knock two critics for not being "sophisticated enough" in their presentation of an issue 12 years earlier, particular when the perspective 12 years later benefits from that initial presentation. Ideas take time to form and take root. Overall great post and discussion, but a small quibble I know I am guilty of as well.

Ami Rao — April 7, 2013

I think your closing paragraph before the jump is flawed: "...horror films don't “hate women.” Instead, they hate a particular kind of woman. They reproduce a Madonna/whore dichotomy in which the whores are dispatched with pleasure, but the Madonna rises to save us all in the end."

The films Siskel and Ebert are criticizing here do hate all women...because how many people can be 'Madonnas' their entire life? The Madonna is an idealistic pedestal that people can point to to deny their hatred for all women. "If only you were like that you would be treated better."

But the key point is that it is purposefully unrealistic, a dichotomy that >99% of women are _intended_ to fail at. If the vast majority of women started remaining androgynous virgins for their entire lives, I firmly believe that this dichotomy would vanish, and a NEW largely unattainable standard would replace it.

I Have Feelings about The Guardians | Marginalia Editorial Services — April 14, 2013

[...] certainly not the first to point out that violence against women is often portrayed as titillating and sexy in pop culture. [...]

Media Thoughts: “Wrong Turn” | Chick Flicking Reviews — March 14, 2014

[…] the grandparent of slasher movies Halloween, but I am speaking of the genre in broad terms. (Read Sex, Death, and Slasher Films to get a full breakdown of this […]

Klpna — December 6, 2024

Thank you for your suggestion and click here to join us. https://klpna.com/