How and why are women represented in films of the slasher genre? Paying close reference to ‘Creep’. (2004).

Hypothesis:
Women are represented to be, confidant, independent and not sexually active or, sexually fetishised, and appealing to Laura Mulvey’s “Male Gaze” theory, where The body itself becomes an object of desire for a man, and even sinful as they usually smoke, drink or take in drugs. Those who are represented to be virginal and chaste are usually the ones who are labelled “The Final Girl”, which was concluded by the Carol Clover, who is the “last person (usually a woman or girl) alive to confront the killer”

Mulvey’s and Clover’s theory are both very diverse understandings of the slasher genre. Mulvey states that the audiences are forced to view the film through a male point of view and whether you are male or female, you are forced to gaze in a fethishising manner towards the fetishised character, who is normally the women who will die next in the number of killings, which happen in the course of the film. This view contradicts what happens in the film “Creep”, as the female protagonist is not fetishised throughout the film, and she does not knowingly conform to the “Male Gaze”, however she is pretty, with blonde hair and blue eyes and does wear a yellow printed dress. The colour yellow connotes confidence and powerfulness, therefore it is portraying the character to be in control and confident.

Opposing Mulveys theory, Clover argues that every slasher film, there is a “Final Girl” character who is the only one, or one of the rare characters to be living, and in most cases it is she who kills the killer, and saves herself without the help of any authoritative figures, for example the police. “The final girl is typically sexually unavailable or virginal, avoiding the vices of the victims” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_girl therefore, the theory suggests that she in completely independent and does not follow what the other characters do in the film. Although the character is seen to be attractive, she does not conform to being sexual under any sort of circumstances. Clover also suggests the audience identify with the killer, but then starts to identify with the “Final Girl” partway during the film. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_girl. Clover argues that the “Final Girl” becomes “masculinized through phallic appropriation by taking up a weapon, such as a knife or chainsaw, against the killer” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_girl. Also Clover suggests that the villian of a slasher film is usually male, whose masculinity or sexuallity is in a crisis. An example of this would be the character of “Norman Bates”, in Alfred Hitchcocks famously low budgeted movie “Psycho”.

Alfred Hitchcock is one of the first directors in his time to make such a contraversial film, and “Psycho” even to this day is studied as one the first ever horror film. Many films thereafter followed conventions of Hitchcocks famously directed movie, “Psycho”, and these techniques and elements are picked up and repeated inorder to use on other films to make them successful just like “Psycho”. Contemporary directors for films such as, “Halloween”, “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, “The Descent”, “Creep”, “Nightmare on Elms Street” and “Friday The 13th” have all used techniques from “Psycho”, in order to make their just as successful. Elements such as using a knife or a dagger, low key lighting, close ups, long establishing shots and many more are used inoder to set a scene and to create suspence.

Similarly, “Creep” is one of the many key texts in the slasher genre as it follows the typical convention that all slasher genre films are ‘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 one girl who has survived.’ [2] this is the case in most slasher genre films. Creep follows these conventions as it includes a female protagonist whom we follow throughout the movie and we share the experiences that she faces when seeing other women dead. The killer in “Creep” however did not only kill women. At the beginning he killed Guy who was a work colleague of Kate’s. However, later we see that the killer does kill the homeless mans girlfriend. Also the fact that he went for Kate suggests that he was capable of killing her too and would have. The fact that we associate the killer instantly to be a male figure, suggests that the film is showing female strength to be stronger than that of a male’s. The audience relates to the movie and feel sadistic pleasures towards the things happening to the other characters. This builds up suspense in the audience as we are all aware that something is bound to happen, yet we are kept thinking when it will happen. The character of Sarah, the female protagonist in “Creep”, uses a dagger which she continuesly stabs the killer with. It is said that because the “Final Girl” appears to be virginal, and chaste, the reason why she is the character who kills the killer, and the fact that she continuesly stabs the killer, suggests that she is taking out her sexual frustration on the character. By using a knife or a dagger, the protagonist appears to be getting close to the killer, and intimately has contact with the killer. Also the knife or the dagger is always shown to be long, which can be referred to as a sexual object or a phalic symbol. For example, at the end when Sarah is stabing the killer vigerously, and does not stop, she is releasing sexual tension. This is why the director does not portray the “Final Girl” to be sexually active and seductive towards other characters in the film. This links to the film noir genre, where women in movies were killed if they were to be sexually parogative in any sort of way.

This is another element that has been taken in order to create the slasher genre. The director uses elements off other successful directors in order to make their movie just as successful. The low-key lighting and the fact that the sexually active character must die, also these all are used by the manipulative director in order to build up suspense. Other repertoires of elements, which are also used by the directors of slasher films, are, slow sounds, creepy background music, low key lighting, phone ringing, or the fact that it is out of service, and normally foot steps, the director is almost building up suspense suggesting something will happen. This causes the viewer to feel excitement and nervous at the same time, alongside to this, it causes the viewers to feel visceral pleasures as they are very jumpy and kept alert of every little sound and movement which is being made. This is shown in ‘Creep’ when at the beginning one of the men who went into the tunnel when working in the sewages presumably got killed by the killer, (that we see only at the end as its appearance is kept a mystery to us in order to keep the readers watching), and his friend goes inside to look for him. From features similar to this appearing in the film, we see the audiences response [3] to whether they like it. Because it follows the conventions of typical slasher genre films and does not show any variation the film is more successful. This is seen as when we notice a major variation within a textual genre, the film is not as successful as it would have been if it was to follow conventions of a typical slasher genre film. Therefore the ‘Repetior of elements’ in films is seen to be something that helps the success of the film grow. The more the film is similar to another film, in terms of storyline we see that it is more popular. However this is not always the case. Also if the characters in the same sort of genre appear frequently in the same sort of films, it also gains viewers as they know that it will be successful if that star was in it last time. This suggests the reason for including a woman as the ‘Final Girl’ to be a successful in slasher genre films. The film “Psycho” by Alfred Hitchcock, used the actress Janet Leigh, and in order to create a similar effect, the film Halloween, starred Jantet Lieghs daughter, Jammie Lee Curtis. This shows a repetoire of elements within the slasher genre.

“Creep” follows Propps Narrative Structure Theory [4] which suggested that each film or text contains constructed character roles. For example, the ‘Villian’, who is seen as the opposing force, in this case it’s the monster or the killer. The Princess, this is seen as the main objective of the Hero’s in the film, their main target or goal. In this case it is getting out of the train station alive. The Hero, this is the one who kills the killer and gets what he/she wanted. In this case we see that the hero gets what she wants which is to get out of the train station. This suggests that her task is accomplished. However if she had got killed by the killer, we would have seen that the audience and public would not have given the film such good feedback. The film would not have been so successful. This is because the audiences want a lot more than variation. They want to see repetition and conventions.

The fact that “Creep” used binary oppositions [5], which suggested that Levi-Strauss’s theory was being put into practice. This however, again is also a key theory which is used when any sort of text is used. The fact that the hero is seen, yet we have not at all familiarised ourselves with the killer, suggests suspense yet it also builds up a sense of opposing teams. For example, we are instantly on the team who we believe is good and our opposition is the one whom we see as the evil one. This is the case in many slasher genre films. The director intends on causing a bit of friction between the evil and the audience and this appeals more to the audience as it engages with them. Also this factor creates a sense that the main female is not dependant on a male or masculine figure as the binary opposition can be interpreted as the killer to be a male. This suggests that women are more independent a in control of their actions, needs and wants. If the audience do not see reocurring things happening, they automatically do not like the film.

Women, are usually seen not to rely upon men in slasher genre films, nor are they seen to be in a sexually actuve relationship, and that is if they are in a relationship at all. More contemporary slasher films, portray women to be virginal and show them to fight off any temptation of having sex with another character in the film. The slasher genre portray women to be strong against men, and show the other characters including women to be naïve. This is shown in the film “Creep”, where all the characters who had got killed, were not at all bothered about being inside an underground station. The homeless lady wasn’t bothered and neither was “Guy”, the man who tried to rape Sarah at the beginning, before his spine got stabbed into by the killer.

I have researched films where this repetitions of conventional aspects have arised and this is only one of my main film texts that there is a strong female character in is portrayed vastly in is the film Creep. Creep, is a horror/slasher genre, potentially arthouse movie and depicts an opposed view of the stereotype that women should only be seen as domestic housewives, and are only good in the house. Instead, Christopher Smith conventionally uses a typicality of slasher genre films and portrays the female protagonist in Creep (Kate) to be independent and unreliant on a male character for sexual needs and pleasure, instead she shows that she is better off without the a male character. For example, taking care of herself in a dark underground train station. We also see typically in slasher movies, in the past women are seen not to have a boyfriend nor be intimate throughout the movie. We are aware during the cause of the movie that women tend to fight off temptation of having any kind of sexual relationship with a man.[quote] This suggests to the audience that the woman is active as a female and is aware that she is in control. The women often aspire to the female viewers and therefore they play predominant figures in most slasher genre movies. During the cause of the film we view her experiences as a voyeur, and we see the struggles she as a character, whom we as an audience identify with, goes through. We see her determination to get out of the underground and attempt to save others' lives while doing so. By an audience who is actively engaging with the film, we feel her desperation to get out of the underground too. By playing such a strong character in the film, the audiences aspire to her as a role model. This is a key typicality in most slasher genre movies as the majority of women are represented to play stronger character roles. However in society itself this hasn’t always been the case.

The idea of women, not just in slasher movies, but in the world becoming more independent started in the time during the World War 1. This was where women in society and in the world started to get jobs because most of the men were going to the war. Their independence, freedom and opportunities to be in higher positions. The fact that their confidence grew from this also was an advantage for women. In the 1960’s, the contraceptive pill came out and this allowed women to be sexually independent and in control. They were able to have sexual relationships without the intention of getting pregnant. The slasher genre primarily began in the 1970’s where Texas Chainsaw Massacre and other films came out. The representation of women has only stayed the same, or have portrayed women to be more and more stronger and characters. This is suggested, because in Texas Chainsaw Massacre, although the protagonist who survives is a women, she is seen throughout the film, to follow conventions of being a “Final Girl”. She does not resort to having sex with her partner, although she is seen to have a boyfriend in the film, and when he goes missing, the third person to die, she say’s “I’m not leaving here without Steve!”, which suggests that she is still slightly relying on her boyfriend. When she goes to look for him, she says to the guy in the wheel chair, “I’m going whether you come or not”, suggesting she has no fear of what was in the house.

The reoccuring image of the house, which is usually seen as a suburban place, somewhere we usually see as a safe place as it’s a home and an area of residence. However, the directors contradict the norm of a house, and place a house in an issolated area, in the middle of nowhere. This makes the setting of the film more scarey, and makes us as an audience engage with the film as they become attached to it. This is a repetoire of element which is reoccured throughout most slasher genre films. For example,Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Holloween, Friday the 13th, nightmare on Elms Street, and even Psycho, which most of the slasher genre was adapted from.
However, “Creep” breaks away slightly from these common repetoires of elements, as it is not set in an area that the audience will be able to reasure safety. By this I mean, the underground is not somewhere which is seen to be helpful in terms of finding a way away from a killer on the loose, however when in a house, you are reassured that police or any sort of authortitative fugures will be able to come to the protagonists rescue. However, it is typical for an authoritative figure not to be helpful in the slasher genre films, as we have seen that all the films listed above did not benefit from the help of a police or even an inspector. Psycho, for example, the inspector was not the one who found the body of the main protagonist, however it was her sister, who we see was the “Final Girl”. Even in “Nightmare On Elms Street”, the protagonist herself killed the kill, by burning him to death, however there was not proper resolution, as hints at the end when the car was moving by itself suggested that the killer may still be around as a ghost. This is also the case with Friday The 13th as we see the killer running off at the end, which lines up the movie for a sequal.

This is not the case with “Creep”, as at the end there is a resolution where the killer is killed, without the help of an authoritative figure, and the protagonist is safe, and we see a new day with people getting onto trains. The fact that the character looks content in the final scene, when she is sitting in the trainstation, suggests her relief that the whole night is over. This shows a differenctation with the film “Creep” and other typical slasher genre films. “Creep” however, is also different to other slasher genre films as it is a British film. All the other films I have mention, except for “The Descent” are all US films, and have been hugely succesful, however recently this success has died down, as there was too many sequels being made. The film “Creep” also disagrees with the “Final Girl” theory slightly, as she is seen smoking a joint in the beginning of the film, and this is something the “Final Girl” does not usually do as she is seen to be someone who is well behaved and rule obiding.

The character in ‘Creep’ also appeals to the ‘Male Gaze’. This is suggested through the way in which she is portrayed at the beginning. Our first view of her is when we see her about five minutes into the movie, at a party. Kate is wearing a yellow dress which she is seen in through out the whole movie as it is meant to be showing her experience in one night. The color yellow suggests that she is confident and also the fact that the dress is relatively skimpy and short may imply that Kate is seen to me attractive to the male audience. We see her drinking, assuming it is an alcoholic drink, which suggests that she may be quite drunk, however when Guy approaches her with a line she does not approve of, we see that she handles herself well. This personality is reflected to the audience as the female is in control. Therefore, we as women aspire to her as she is seen to be powerful over men. This is usually the ‘Final Girl’ as she is the last one there and throughout the film is seen to be from Props theory [8] , the hero that killers of the killer (villian), suggesting a character classification.

Most populist slasher genre films such as, ‘Creep’, ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre’, ‘Halloween’, ‘Friday the 13th’ which have, baring in mind taken elements from Alfred Hitchcock’s horror movie ‘Psycho’ all contain typical elements of being a slasher genre film. The idea of the “Lumbering masked killer who never speaks” [12] suggests that the killer is unknown until the end and this killer does not speak either. ‘Creep’ shows this view and so does ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre’. This is also seen in the film, ‘The Descent’ where the audience nor the characters in the film does not know who is the killer. And therefore, the protagonist is determined to find the killer. However ‘The Descent’ gos against usually conventions on the slasher genre and the five brave women that we saw at the beginning did not come out of the cave at the end. This suggests that they were not capable of accomplishing their goal, they had when they first entered the cave. However the film does not in any way present men to be more powerful than women as we witness that at the beginning the one and only male character that we see is killed off. This suggests that the fact the women went into the cave alone, they had courage and were confident, and shown in control. The 5 women are also shown as confident objects of the ‘Male Gaze’. The fact that they are all attractive and seen to be very powerful and confident people suggests this.

Attainment
I would give myself a 2 for attainment, i may not be the brightest of the class, but i am definately trying to achieve higher grades this year!
Effort
Honestly, i could say, a 1 is fair for my effort, i put in a lot of hard work into my homework, and my class work. i have also posted up extra essays, which mr bush u havent marked yet lol..if you do get round to it, please do =)
Punctuality
Im always on time, and in lesson, so mr bush nor mr munro can say im never there. Mr munro would argue that i have missed the occasionall lesson..for an open day or something..even mr bush, but i do always make sure i come for the homework set, or the work in that lesson..so i would give myself a 1..ok maybe a 2..
Submission and quality of homework
defo a 1..i ALWAYS without fail do my homework!!
Ability to work independently
Hmm..probably a 2 for this as i am not yet enjoying working alone..
Quality of writing
Im geting beta..but il stil say im a 2..
Organisation of Media folder
ommmg! a 1..and its always with me in lessons!!
Oral contributions in class
hmm..2
Quality of coursework
hmmm..dont really know!! =( this is a hard one...hmmmm..mmm...2!

Standard of Med 5 blog
hmm.. i aynt done a lot recently, BUT il give myself a 2 =)
Standard of Module 6 blog (Year 13s only)
oooo excellent :D 1 !!

Media Evaluation

1. How easy has it been to set up your Independent Study blog and to get used to posting things on it? Were you given enough support in doing it? What other help would have been useful?

At first I found setting up the blog quite hard, however I got use to it. It’s just a hassle when signing in because I keep forgetting my password.

2. How did the blog help with your research? Did the blog motivate you to do more and better research? How? Why?

Personally, I think the blog helped me in terms of being more motivating to actually do the research. Honestly if there was no blog, because I’m a lazy person I would know even half the things I do now that I have the blog.

3. Is it useful having all the Independent Study/blog tasks posted on the Macguffin blog? Does it make it more likely that you will get them done?

Yeah definitely! The fact that we have a media macguffin blog helps me in terms of all my homework. I also think that it’s a good idea for homework to be posted up on there, because if we need help we can always just ask!

4. How often (honestly!) do you check the Macguffin blog? (Remember, it should be at least twice/week).

I hardly ever use to check the blog, but now it has I must admit become frequent. I take an interest in comments people have rote and I look to check what’s been posted up in terms of homework or even information about the film club!

5. Has it been useful being able to see and access everyone else’s research and planning through their blogs?

Yes I think it had been an advantage! However, I’m not too keen about the idea of posting my independent study on the blog. This is because it can be a risky idea, as people are more tempted, not to copy work, but ideas. Especially ideas you think are unique and something that no one would have thought of. It’s a bit annoying when that happens.

6. How do you feel about the fact that your teacher can keep a close check on your progress through accessing your blog? Is it too intrusive and controlling or is it encouraging and supportive?

I think it’s encouraging and supportive. This is because as I said it motivates me to actually work harder.

7. How useful have the comments been that you received from…a. Macguffin, b. other students.

The comments I have received from other students have helped. They told me I need to add pictures, but that’s something my blog don’t let me do. The other blog (mr bush’s) does, but not my independent study one. It’s a shame because I have a lot of pictures from the movie “Creep” that I would like to put on there.

8. How has the blog helped with your essay planning? How useful was the blog when it came to writing the essay? Do you think your first draft is better because you have used a blog?

The blog was useful although most of my information wasn’t! I found myself constantly looking on the net, and through books for more ideas to write about. 3000 words was a struggle.

9. How would you evaluate the quality of your blog? What could you have done better?

I think that I could have done better research and the page should be more illustrated.

10. Do you think you will get a better final grade for your independent study through having used a blog?

Yes definitely! I think this because the blog has motivated me to do research and also get help from others.

11. Which are the best three blogs? Why?

I think Jaskirat’s is good. Jantinde’s is useful. And I found Sherish’s really detailed too.

12. Do you think next year’s Year 13s would benefit from setting up an Independent Study blog?

Yep, definitely, it’s a good idea.

13. Are there any negative aspects to preparing for an Independent Study using a blog?

People can copy!

14. What could be done to improve teaching and/or learning in future through blogs?

Teachers should actually comment on your blog. Also this should be done frequently so that you are aware of what you are doing good and what you are doing wrong.

15. Overall, are you pleased that we used blogs? Has it been interesting and enjoyable? Why? Why not?

Yep! I think it’s a good idea and has been useful.

What i want to look at

Giallo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giallo

Thriller film - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thriller_film

Splatter film - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splatter_film

List of horror film killers - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_horror_film_killers

Slasher: an IFC Original - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slasher:_an_IFC_Original

x*x HiSToRiCaL TeXT x*x

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) - Marcus Nispel

The most licentious shot in recent memory comes from director Marcus Nispel and producer Michael Bay in the remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: As a hitchhiker shoots a gun into her mouth, Nispel trails the bullet's path from the chamber, into her mouth, through the hole in her brain and out through the blood-splattered back window. This is not obscene because it's disgusting; it's obscene because there's no real reason for it. Is this hole in her brain a surrealist attempt to peer into the subconscious? Or is it just something Marcus Nispel saw Sam Raimi do in The Quick and the Dead (a send-up of Western shootouts) and thought would be cool to do in his horror movie? Considering this and several other derivative shots (the camera being dropped during some Blair Witch-style grainy footage, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2's power tool crotch shot and The Silence of the Lambs's skin mask among them), the evidence suggests the latter.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre sits in theaters right next to Kill Bill, Quentin Tarantino's controversial ultra-bloody samurai movie. The key question in that debate is whether Bill has enough artistic merit to elevate it above obscenity, but you can't ask that about Massacre: This exploitation piece has no artistic ambition. In fact, the Massacre remake labors to de-aestheticize itself. The new screenplay is cleansed of the layers of subtext and suggestion that marked the original as a masterpiece of horror, instead working very, very hard to gross out teenagers. To this end, the remake occassionally succeeds in eliciting gasps, but they're nothing but pure shock; the emotions do not lie in dread and existential horror, but only in momentary repulsion or the body's reaction to loud noise.

The original Massacre is the story of Sally, her boyfriend Jerry, her friends Pam and Kirk and her brother Franklin, who uses a wheelchair. The siblings are searching for their grandfather's grave, which they think has been vandalized. While in the area, they revisit their childhood home — outside of which vandals are, literally, digging up the past. Sally and the gang aren't particularly likable, especially the pain-in-the-ass Franklin, though his pouting is somewhat understandable because of his sister's annoyance with him. Sally wanders through their childhood home with her boyfriend, reliving memories of the past, but as she most likely did as a kid, leaves Franklin forlorn downstairs, upset and lonely. You can feel the punishment coming; the gang's retribution at the hands of Leatherface could easily be read, on one level, as the punishment wrought by the freaks on the cool kids. Yet, considering the film's allusions to the Manson murders, Leatherface could just as easily represent the rejection of moral reasoning in a time of social upheaval.

Compare this to the slaughter of the remake's gang of teenagers. First off, these are not '70s teenagers; they are Gap Models masquerading as hippies, especially the boyfriend character, with his faux mechanic's shirt, machine-frayed baseball cap and great abs. These kids are on their way to get high at a Skynyrd concert, not delving into the psyche of scarring childhood memories. There's some generic relationship plot, but the story is so varnished that the film loses the raw energy of the original. These kids are all right — other than just having a good time, they've done nothing wrong except to be cool in ways the current teenage audience might find cool. But because good horror villains always represent the dark side of the attacked, what's left here for Leatherface? Jessica Biel's character is the most moral in the movie, so why her friend must be crucified for her sins on a meathook is beyond comprehension ("Please forgive me," he says while dripping blood on her head). Upon closer reading, the image makes no sense, and the details of the gore (including the crucified playing the piano with his toes) just feels all the more exploitative.

As for that hitchiker, Nispel suggests something appropriately sinister: The girl is bloody in the crotch and obviously distraught. But Nispel doesn't deal with the rape image he himself brings up. This should be something weighty and horrible, but the subsequent suicide is merely a vehicle for an extended side plot involving the cleaning of blood and brains from automobile upholstery. In addition to Nispel's brain-hole shot, there are funny but empty attempts at black humor when R. Lee Ermey (as the crazy local sheriff) makes the boys help him wrap the body in Reynolds Wrap, and when the body is tossed around for a humorous "thud" sound. Contrast this with the hitchhiker in the original, who cuts his own hand and cries with something between pain and joy. It turns out that this guy is completely numb from working in the slaughterhouse; this scene carries on for several tense minutes before he cuts himself, which creates more tension in that little cut and in the entire mess created by the gunshot girl.

In fact, the hitchhiker's slaughterhouse story is the key to the first film. Not only does it set a queasy tone for the whole film, but it lets director Tobe Hooper comment on the mass violence buried underneath mass consumerism. When they pick up the hitchiker, he talks about having spent his life firing bolts into cattle brains to the point that he's totally desensitized — slicing his hand is an attepmt to simply feel something. The kids, recognizing that he has no chance of re-entering normal society, dumped the hitchhiker by the side of the road; combine that with his fatigues, and it's easy to see that Hooper is evoking the situtation of young Vietnam veterans who witnessed mass killing, only to be rejected by society at large.

Compare this to the plot of the remake, which jettisons the slaughterhouse conversation in the van for a party atmosphere. The kids are on their way to a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert with a piñata full of pot and a sexy, slutty stranger in tow — hippie behavior for sure, but without the framing of the original, the movie has no context except for its plea of hipness to the mall crowd. Stripped of any attempts at meaning, Biel's encounter with Leatherface in the slaughterhouse is just exploitation — a sweaty chick in a white T-shirt running from a guy with a chainsaw between sides of beef.

New Yorker critic Bruce Diones called Bay's Bad Boys 2 "action porn," and it seems like Bay is using his producing career to expand the definition. Here, there's no artistic intent, no impression of the original's place in cinema as a context for today's horror films, no connection drawn between the social turmoil of then and today, nothing. Bay and Nispel's film aims square at teenage detachment and exploits it for superficial screams and groans. Some may speak of Massacre's "style," but if the film doesn't hold up to close reading even on a minimal level, then the buckets of eyeballs, salad bowls of blood, salted bloody limb stumps, projectile vomiting and quivering severed limbs are simply depraved images and nothing more. At least Jerry Bruckheimer, the megaproducer who launched Bay's directing career, manages to occasionally work in some crazy politics while he's exploiting the audience. Bay just wants to exploit viewers and get them out of the theater as soon as possible — like a bullet through the brain of moviegoers.

ReViEw...

The story goes that Michael Bay, weary of the bombs and bombast of "Pearl Harbor," wanted to sink his teeth into a small and hard-hitting film. Or, rather, a small and hard-hitting film about people who sink their teeth into other people.

"I don't want any movie bullshit," Bay told his young producer partners. He wanted to make a film that "got in the face of the viewer" -- one that "absolutely horrified."

And so we have v. 2 of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," a remake initially considered blasphemy by the horror hard-core -- until they got a load of the mind-bending work of first-time director Marcus Nispel and his co-conspirators, some of them survivors of the original massacre.

New Line Home Entertainment celebrates the improbable artistic success of "Chainsaw" Jr. with a surgically sharp two-disc "Platinum Edition" DVD set (retail $39.95). Extras dig deep, providing more background than any sane fan could want. Video (artfully letterboxed 1.85:1) and audio (ES and EX encoded) approach reference quality. Then there's that cameo by Ed Gein ... .

New Line takes its gore seriously, of course -- its "Final Destination 2" was one of last year's best DVDs -- but "Chainsaw" was something special. "This was one of our birthrights," company founder Robert Shaye says as he tells the tale of how he got a piece of the action on Tobe Hooper's 1974 original.

All involved with the remake seem awed by Hooper's legendary indie pic about rural cannibals who prey on a van full of hippies. Texas drive-in critic Joe Bob Briggs tries to explain its sickening but undeniable pull: "You're watching and thinking, 'Oh my god, I might be in the hands of a madman.' "

Remake director Nispel, a star of commercial and music-video production, notes that for all its infamy, Hooper's film was "not a splatter film at all -- it was very psychological." Before reality set in, Nispel wanted to make a "snuff film." He settled for a terrifying period piece -- of the early 1970s -- using production techniques of the era. "I don't want any speed ramps," Nispel says in his rolling German accent. "No 'Matrix' fights."

Nispel's longtime cinematographer, Daniel Pearl, worked on the original massacre and returned for the remake. (John Larroquette also reprised his bit, as the voice-of-doom narrator.) Pearl says he employed a bleach-bypass process that gave the new movie a "photochemical spin," part nightmare, part grainy docu -- all icky Gothic.

The cast of young actors, headed by Jessica Biel and Eric Balfour, did their work in the heat-and-humidity homelands outside Austin, Texas. Even the actor who plays the murderous icon Leatherface admits that he found the isolated locations too weird for comfort.

The DVD set's three feature-length commentaries give the filmmakers and cast plenty of time to delve into issues such as rewriting a pop classic and acting while hanging on a meat hook. The talks come in chapters: production, technical and story. Speakers are introduced radio docu-style, with comments edited for context and coherence. Nispel, writer Scott Kosar and producer Brad Fuller do most of the talking.

Casual viewers will get what they want from the slick but satisfying 75-minute docu "Chainsaw Redux: Making a Massacre," which begins with a brief history of the original. Don't miss the interviews with fans at the 30th anniversary screening of the original, predicting that the remake will suck. Then the night-vision footage of terrified viewers trying to ride out the new film.

A 15-minute docu rounds up deleted scenes, including a beginning and end set in an asylum, screen tests (or scream test, in the case of Erica Leerhsen) and two grisly scenes cut for the MPAA.

Connoisseurs of carnage will lap up "Ed Gein: The Ghoul of Planfield," a 20-minute docu about the Wisconsin mama's boy notorious for making skin suits out of victims. Ghastly crime-scene photos and goofy re-enactments help sell the story. "Psycho" screenwriter Joseph Stefano is on hand to proclaim Gein's crimes "the stuff of classic mythology and fairy tales."

***

The dairy state's dark side also gets a reveal in "Wisconsin Death Trip," the adaptation of Michael Lesy's book about the wave of misery, madness and all-purpose weirdness that beset the immigrant town of Black River Falls in the 1890s.

British director James Marsh doesn't make any excuses for the film's "violent and disturbing and horrible" stories. "I have an interest in that," Marsh says. "I think other people do, too." The tales are illustrated in part by the work of a gifted photographer who lived there and then. Images include keepsake funeral shots of children. The matter-of-fact narration comes straight from old newspaper accounts.

Director of photography Eigil Bryld says he blended the old photos with History Channel-style re-enactments to create "a confusion." Viewers have to "always expect that a photo might come alive," Bryld says in the commentary he shares with Marsh. The process used for the project's Super 16mm film was similar to that used for stills in the late 1800s, Bryld says.

Home Vision Entertainment has released the film-fest favorite from 1999 on one disc (retail $29.98). Images (1.78:1) are handsome, mostly silvery black-and-whites. The eclectic roots music comes across with sufficient impact.

"Midwestern Gothic: The Making of Wisconsin Death Trip" is a nicely made low-budget effort that runs 23 minutes. It gives a feel for just how close this project was to a student film. The crew all appeared in the film, Marsh says: "Everyone had to put a frock on and have something horrible happen to them."

***

George Romero's zombie flicks have suffered at the hands of video companies, especially "Night of the Living Dead," which, sadly, dwells in the public domain. Anchor Bay Entertainment, usually one of the good guys, was the perpetrator of a ghastly "director's cut" DVD of "Dawn of the Dead" back in 1997.

The company gets it right this time with a new "Dawn," this time the U.S. theatrical cut (retail $19.98). Colors that were, well, dead, on the old DVD look terrific, with Crayola reds and purples pumping up the cartoonish vibe. Contrasts are quite good, considering the 1979 vintage, and flesh tones look yummy. Audio is OK.

Commentary comes from the avuncular Romero, his co-director wife and effects man Tom Savini, who effectively got his start on the film as a "wild kid making things up."

They talk about working with drunken zombies and the "cover your ass"-style of shooting (lots of coverage; fix it in editing). Some of the zombie mall rats went on to achieve great things, they say, citing a Pulitzer Prize winner. "When you're born in (Romero's hometown of) Pittsburgh, one of the things you want to be is a zombie," Savini explains.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) - Tobe Hooper

People often misremember Rex Reed's review of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, casually misquoting him as calling the film the scariest movie he had ever seen; in fact, he called it "the most horryifying picture I have ever seen," and it's the difference that defines the split in the film's audiences, whether they be casual moviegoers or film buffs. (To be fair, Reed also called The Texas Chainsaw Massacre "more frightening than Night of the Living Dead.")

Dated though it may be, and low-budget as it is, Tobe Hooper's seminal horror film can be scary, even deceptively so, as the director works divergent styles. Deliberately overooked forays into sick humor give way to unsettling suspense and, once the shoe drops, a skin-crawlingly claustrophobic mania. On the other hand, some "horrified" culture watchers identify The Texas Chain Saw Massacre—bookended as it is by Wes Craven's 1972 The Last House on the Left and 1977 The Hills Have Eyes—as instrumental in the bottomless degradation of mainstream horror cinema.

At every opportunity, Hooper emphatically and misleadingly claims that The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is a nearly bloodless film, and mocks the MPAA's wisdom in not granting his film a PG (the MPAA cited pervasive intensity). It's true that Hooper's film suggests more horror than it actually depicts, but the ol' chainsaw does spectacularly meet flesh twice on camera. The raw immediacy of the film's budget-dictated 16mm film stock and documentary-styled proximity of camera and subject elevate tongue-in-cheek schlock to moments of genuine terror. Nevertheless, the film's most famous shot remains DP Daniel Pearl's invention of a tracking shot beneath a yard swing and up to the looming principal setting, a historic, late-1800s house.

The horror within is a brain-damaged family with a disrupted legacy in the now-automated local slaughterhouse. Burned by society, they've beat a retreat into squalor and cannibalistic madness, emerging only when hapless trespassers serve themselves up as fresh meat. The larger-than-life performances of Gunnar Hansen (as the now-iconic simpleton Leatherface), Edwin Neal (the addled "Hitch-Hiker"), teenage John Dugan (heavily made-up as "Grandpa"), and the inimitable Jim Siedow ("Old Man") have fired the imaginations of generations of horror fans to fill in the horrible blanks.

Perhaps especially in the post-Psycho era, the often dimwitted, insufferable, or shrill victims tend to inspire less audience affection than the "you'll love to hate them" villains. Paul A. Partain turns in a one-of-a-kind performance as maddening, wheelchair-bound Franklin (an arch, implied reminder of Vietnam's unwelcome returnees), but it's Marilyn Burns who earns a top rank among scream queens for infusing the grueling role of Sally Hardesty with such utterly convincing terror.

Given its whiplash stylings, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre probably shouldn't work as well as it does, but the experimental soundtrack of industrial stingers and recklessly over-the-top humor balances with subtle satirical flourishes and the stripping away of much of horror's conscious artifice. In his laughing-outlaw way, Hooper pointed a new direction for horror cinema, but his implosive career and the over-stylized Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake testify that his mad genius was a swift lightning not easily trapped in bottles.

..CoMpArInG BoTh TeXtS..cRiTiCaL

The new version of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is a contemptible film: Vile, ugly and brutal. There is not a shred of a reason to see it. Those who defend it will have to dance through mental hoops of their own devising, defining its meanness and despair as "style" or "vision" or "a commentary on our world." It is not a commentary on anything, except the marriage of slick technology with the materials of a geek show.

The movie is a remake of, or was inspired by, the 1974 horror film by Tobe Hooper. That film at least had the raw power of its originality. It proceeded from Hooper's fascination with the story and his need to tell it. This new version, made by a man who has previously directed music videos, proceeds from nothing more than a desire to feed on the corpse of a once-living film. There is no worthy or defensible purpose in sight here: The filmmakers want to cause disgust and hopelessness in the audience. Ugly emotions are easier to evoke and often more commercial than those that contribute to the ongoing lives of the beholders.

The movie begins with grainy "newsreel" footage of a 1974 massacre (the same one as in the original film; there are some changes but this is not a sequel). Then we plunge directly into the formula of a Dead Teenager Movie, which begins with living teenagers and kills them one by one. The formula can produce movies that are good, bad, funny, depressing, whatever. This movie, strewn with blood, bones, rats, fetishes and severed limbs, photographed in murky darkness, scored with screams, wants to be a test: Can you sit through it? There were times when I intensely wanted to walk out of the theater and into the fresh air and look at the sky and buy an apple and sigh for our civilization, but I stuck it out. The ending, which is cynical and truncated, confirmed my suspicion that the movie was made by and for those with no attention span.

The movie doesn't tell a story in any useful sense, but is simply a series of gruesome events which finally are over. It probably helps to have seen the original film in order to understand what's going on, since there's so little exposition. Only from the earlier film do we have a vague idea of who the people are in this godforsaken house, and what their relationship is to one another. The movie is eager to start the gore and unwilling to pause for exposition.

I like good horror movies. They can exorcise our demons. "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" doesn't want to exorcise anything. It wants to tramp crap through our imaginations and wipe its feet on our dreams. I think of filmgoers on a date, seeing this movie and then -- what? I guess they'll have to laugh at it, irony being a fashionable response to the experience of being had.

Certainly they will not be frightened by it. It recycles the same old tired thriller tools that have been worn out in countless better movies. There is the scary noise that is only a cat. The device of loud sudden noises to underline the movements of half-seen shadows. The van that won't start. The truck that won't start. The car that won't start. The character who turns around and sees the slasher standing right behind her. One critic writes, "Best of all, there was not a single case of 'She's only doing that (falling, going into a scary space, not picking up the gun) because she's in a thriller.' " Huh? Nobody does anything in this movie for any other reason. There is no reality here. It's all a thriller.

There is a controversy involving Quentin Tarantino's "Kill Bill: Volume 1," which some people feel is "too violent." I gave it four stars, found it kind of brilliant, felt it was an exhilarating exercise in nonstop action direction. The material was redeemed, justified, illustrated and explained by the style. It was a meditation on the martial arts genre, done with intelligence and wit. "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is a meditation on the geek-show movie. Tarantino's film is made with grace and joy. This movie is made with venom and cynicism. I doubt that anybody involved in it will be surprised or disappointed if audience members vomit or flee.

x*x..First Paragraph..x*x

First Paragraph -

Nowadays, women in films have been seen to be more independant, confident and in control over their actions. This is portrayed vastly in the film Creep. Creep, a horror/slasher genre, potentially arthouse movie depicts an opposed view of the stereotype that women should only be seen as domestic housewives, and are only good in the house. Instead, Christopher Smith portrays the female character in Creep (Kate) to be independant and not relying on a male character for sexual needs, but shows that she is better off without the help of a male in others masculine aspects. For example, taking care of herself in a dark underground train station. During the cause of the film we view her experiences as a voyer, and we see the struggles she as a voyeuristic character goes through. We see her determination to get out of the underground and attempt to save others' lives while doing so. By playing such a strong character inm the film, the audience aspire to her as a role model.

x*x..Detailed Essay Plan..x*x

How Are Women Represented in 'Slasher' genre films? And why is this? Paying close attention to Creep 2004.

Introduction -

*Introduction of the text.

*Mention roles of women becoming more modernised over the past years.

*Talk about social contribution of women after WW1, They started to get jobs and becoming more and more independant. Financially and socially. This showed women that they are capable of having power. Link this back to my text and also my histoical text.

*Women enjoying their power and authority. Becoming more and more active, rather than passive.

*Stereotypical views on women being challenged. Women arent weak, nor are they needy of men. Talk about 'Male Gaze' (only slightly, because it will be talked about on first paragraph) and say that this can be opposed, as their are women in the world who dont appeal to the male gaze as such, unintentionally.

First Paragraph -

*Complete comparason for both the texts

*Talk about women representation and combine this with the 'Male Gaze' theory'. In more detail this time.

*Relate this to the 'why' bit of the question. Ask why this is happening. Why she is not conforming to the 'Male Gaze' or WHY she (the protagonist) is.

*Typically most slasher/horror genre films the women who star in them are seen to be wearing items of clothing which are there to appeal to the male audience. i.e: Charlies Angles, Catwoman (Leather Clothing), and others.

1. Charlies Angels.
2. The Descent. - 4 women.
3. Thome Raider.
4. Kill Bill.

Second Paragraph -

Talk about the 'Male Motivation'. how women may have their own roles, ie, independance, however they are still in some form motivated by a man.

All these films also show their motivation has come from a man through one way or another. none are out of indevidual will. this shows the dominance over women that men have. most the directors are men. also most characters are men too.

Creep - going to meet Tom Cruise is the whole reason she ended up in a train alone at night. her motiv to get on that train was Tom Cruis. she nearly got raped by her work colegue. who has liked her. he followed her. showing his dominance over her. the 'monster' saved her.

Charlies Angels - Charlie is a man. Women taking orders from a man. shows power of men in Society. however that is American. British, we have Decent. one of the characters are going through the cave because of a man. also they all die. shows that a women is not capable of doing something like this alone. clever choice of choosing all women. showing their weaknesses.

Thome Raider - showing fetished body parts, for example, legs, stomach etc. conforming to the 'Male Gaze'. the body itself is also fetishised with tight low cut tops.

Kill Bill - Bill is a man. the protagonist's aim is to kill bill. her movtivation is a man.
Representated to be

Third Paragraph -

Why are women under male domination? Is it because the film wont be successful if it doesnt have a male dominated figure? or even a male figure. What effect does this have on the film? why do you think this is? is there another reoccuring pattern in these films? why is this typical in slasher genre films?

Compare this with historical text. how is changed since then? Compare language used by the women protagonists, the actions, EG using a knife (which can also be seen as a falic symbol, as its shows geting close to someone), has is always been this way? contrast the clothes they wear and make - up. eg, appealing to the male gaze?

Fourth Paragraph -

cAn CrEeP bEE cLaSsiFiEd aS aRThOuSe..?

FrAnKa PoTeNTe aS 'KaTe'..

- Born and raised in Munster, Germany.

- Potente recently completed filming Try Seventeen opposite Elijah Wood and Mandy Moore.

- Her German credits include Nach funf im Urwald (1995), Coming In (1996), Rennlauf (1997), Opernbail (1997), Bin ich schon (1997), Schlaraffenland (1998) and Anatomy (1999), a horror film which was her country's highest-grossing film that year.

- In 2001, she also starred in the romantic thriller The Princess and the Warrior, which re-teamed her with writer-director Tykwer in the story of two outlaw lovers.


SeAn HaRRiS..aS 'CrAiG'..

- He's appeared in films such as 'Asylum' (2005), 'Brothers on the Head' (2005), 'Isolation' (2005), 'Trauma' (2004) and '24 hour party people' (2001).

VaS bLaCkWoOd..aS 'GeOrGe'..

- Only appeared in the films Creep (2004) and Mean Machine (2001). shows that he is fairly new.

JeReMy sHeFFiELd..aS 'GuY'..

- Jeremy has only appeared in one movie. this is creep.

KeN CaMpBeLL..aS 'ArThUr'..

- Arthur has famously appeared in mostly comedy's or romances. he has appeared in 'Boat Trip' (2002), 'Saving Grace' (2000), 'Coyote Ugly' (2000), 'The Skulls' (2000), 'Titan', (2000), and 'Hard Men' (1997).

PauL cAmPbElL..aS 'JiMMy'..

- Paul Campbell has only appeared in Creep.

KeLLy sCoTT..aS 'MaNdY'..

- Kelly Campbell has only appeared in Creep.

The cast of Creep consists of not very well known actors and actresses and the main protagonist Franka Potente, is German. this shows that the cast were not hard to pay for. the director Christopher Smith has used low budget actors to star in his movie. also, the setting is verry gritty and shows a lot of the realism in london underground. this shows that the movie was a low cost movie, which may suggest it was budgeted and can very well be classified as an Arthouse Genre. the fact that the story- line is very compacted and what happens in the film is exaggurated and out of the ordinary conforms to the unique-ness of Arthouse films themselves. However, Creep was majorly successful and therefore maybe this suggests that dispite being an Arthouse film it can also hit huge success and make a lot of money.

Es$aY pLaN.. =) sO FaR..sTrUgGLiNg.. :(

How Are Women Represented in 'Slasher' genre films? And why is this? Paying close attention to Creep 2004.

iNTrOdUcTiOn..

Central argument: -

Women in slasher / horror genre films are said to be seen very appealing to the 'Male Gaze'? However, i have chosen a text which does not conform to this. The protagonist in Creep does not conform to being sexy, attractive and appealing to the male audiences. The actress in Creep also has blonde hair. this is stereo-typically something most men like. Kate is conforming to the 'Male Gaze' however as she is not wearing a short skirt and is seen to be very loose when it comes to holding herself together, whilst being drunk. therefore she is portraying British women to be this way (as she is playing the role of a British young girl) - Really she is German.

Women are seen as objects of the 'Male Gaze' in..

1. Charlie Angels.

2. The Descent. - 4 women.

3. Thome Raider.

4. Kill Bill

Second Paragraph: (Second point)

is 'Male Motivation' an issue with slasher films? -

All these films also show their motivation has come from a man through one way or another. none are out of indevidual will. this shows the dominance over women that men have. most the directors are men. also most characters are men too.

Creep - going to meet Tom Cruise is the whole reason she ended up in a train alone at night. her motiv to get on that train was Tom Cruis. she nearly got raped by her work colegue. who has liked her. he followed her. showing his dominance over her. the 'monster' saved her.

Charlies Angels - Charlie is a man. Women taking orders from a man. shows power of men in Society. however that is American. British, we have Decent. one of the characters are going through the cave because of a man. also they all die. shows that a women is not capable of doing something like this alone. clever choice of choosing all women. showing their weaknesses.

Thome Raider - showing fetished body parts, for example, legs, stomach etc. conforming to the 'Male Gaze'. the body itself is also fetishised with tight low cut tops.

Kill Bill - Bill is a man. the protagonist's aim is to kill bill. her movtivation is a man.

Representated to be inferior to the man. less impotant. not in control. and incapable.

Third Paragraph: (3rd point)