Talking Giallo on CBC Radio

Click here to hear me talk about Giallo with Karen Mair on CBC Radio's Mainstreet.

This Image is Disgusting and Shouldn’t Be Posted - UPDATE

A couple of weeks back I posted this. I also posted a request on Facebook for comments from specific people, mostly women, involved one way or another in horror and cult films. This was the feedback I received:

BJ Colangelo
Horror Blogger; Website: Day of the Woman
It's a disgusting and horrible image made specifically to illicit that sort of response. You're supposed to find it disgusting. It's supposed to make you upset. That's the purpose of horror imagery. However, censoring it or refusing to post it will take away that power. Not everything in this world is supposed to be sunshines and lollipops. I would be more worried if someone DIDN'T find the image disgusting.

Amanda Reyes
Horror Blogger; Website: Made for TV Mayhem
I'm glad you tagged Jovanka, because I remember reading an editorial piece in Rue Morgue some time ago about a letter that I believe she received from a victim of rape who found I Spit on Your Grave cathartic (I'm sure she can expand on that better than me), but that goes into the actual content of the film and not so much the lurid poster imagery of a woman's rear that is now so infamous. But it's what I thought of. I hate I Spit on Your Grave, but I don't think it's necessarily my place to tell someone they shouldn't watch or like it. And certainly the writer of that letter got something extremely positive out of the film.

That said, I'm more sensitive now to this kind of art work than I used to be. Blame all of the gender and representation classes I take at school. However, when I see stuff like this, it's more like a personal discussion with myself as to what I dislike about what the image says. Some images are more offensive than others. And I don't think artwork for movies should be edited/censored/etc (of course, there will always be exceptions). Real images, well, those are different and we know the difference. Adults here, right?

I think I'm talking in circles though. It's an interesting question because horror has really opened itself up to females and has been attempting to do that for a while (read Nowell's Blood Money if you haven't), so it's a legitimate issue. Also, I agree that your friend should have maybe sent you a private message, or maybe opened it up to a discussion instead of a "This is disgusting, so feel bad about posting it" kind of response.

OK, and one more thing (sorry), as for the actual Corruption artwork, it's creepy and total exploitation. It's also kind of fantastic, and captures some of the old grindhouse day art. I'm more into it than not, I think.

BJ Colangelo (responding to Amanda)
I actually wrote a very, very similar article about ISOYG in that regard. Horror imagery will always have a different impact on others based on their personal experiences and beliefs.

Jovanka Vuckovic
Writer, Filmmaker; Website: Jovanka Vuckovic
Images like this are not the language of horror per se. Rather, it is the currency of exploitation cinema. The two are not mutually exclusive, yes, they have often frolicked in the same stained bed. But I'm tired of "horror" as genre taking the heat for all of the misogynistic imagery that exists in the movies. Horror is not inherently sexist. Exploitation films are. And as far as exploitation films go, this is pretty standard stuff. It's no worse than the poster for Maniac, which depicts a man with a hard-on holding a knife in one hand and a woman's scalp in the other. Or the poster for Jose Larraz's The Violation of the Bitch, and its incendiary tagline: "She asked for it." Lurid poster art and inflammatory taglines put asses in seats. While no one is particularly proud of the rampant misogyny that characterizes many exploitation films, it is a part of film history. And there will always be people that make sweeping personal judgements about you for watching these films. And that's okay, because that's their issue, not yours. As you were.

Stacie Ponder
Horror Blogger, Cartoonist; Websites: Final Girl, Stacie Ponder
Had your friend framed her issues as opening the door to discussion, I'd have no problem with her bringing it up. But making it into a personal attack is inappropriate and not particularly helpful. Then again, I'm sure everyone who's proclaimed him- or herself to be a horror fan has gotten the disapproving "How can you watch that stuff?" from someone, as if all films in the genre are exactly the same. You've got to choose your battles, I suppose.

Though I know it can often be misleading, cover art simply helps me decide if I want to go further and check out a movie or not. While this doesn't look like something I'd care to see (my relationship with exploitation cinema is a tenuous one), I find it far less offensive than the cover of I Spit on Your Grave and its sequel.

And again, while I think talking about these topics is good and healthy, context is important. Had you posted it with commentary like "aw yeah look at this bitch get it LOL" or something, that'd be one thing. But it's the cover art, and to post it within a review or discussion post is nothing to worry about. People are going to be "triggered" by all sorts of imagery, whether from horror movies or something else. Like I said, those become choose your battles scenarios. Whether or not you censor your site is up to you...here, I think you pulled the trigger too quickly.

Maitland McDonagh
Film Critic, Writer; Website: Flick Chick
Why not? Because some people might be offended? That seems ridiculous to me. I'm offended by real life violence against women... and men and children. But one of the purposes of art is to be confrontational and to generate discussion. Cinema is an art form, regardless of what particular people think about particular movies, and promotional imagery connected to movies is as much an art form as is vintage advertising poster imagery. My feeling is, if you don't like it, don't look at it, but don't assume that your opinions should extend to limiting other people's options. I hate Jeff Koons' work, but that doesn't give me the right to prevent other people from seeing in your timeline or the middle of Rockefeller Center.

Amanda -- I should have said earlier that I think we all become more sensitive to this kind of imagery as we grow older, just because we know more about so many things, whether because of books we've read or classes we've taken or things we've experienced. But I don't believe that kind of knowledge makes us inherently more or less intolerant... at best it makes us more capable of conducting dialogues with ourselves and others about certain images disturb us and what we can and can't learn from our reactions and those of others.

Donna Davies
Filmaker; Website: Ruby Tree Films
Hey Dave. I'm loving this discussion. Refreshing to see people I truly respect sharing their thoughts here. I tend to agree with Maitland. If you don't like it don't look. Personally I find the actual artwork for this cover unappealing in every regard.

Robin Bougie
Illustrator, Writer; Websites Bougie Man, Cinema Sewer
I also would classify myself as a feminist as one of the issues I am most passionate about is equality, and like you, I am also a horror fan. On top of that, I'm an artist who creates work that could easily be classified as being the same genre that makes up that CORRUPTION cover art. There is violent imagery, both sexualized and non-sexualized in my creative output, and I stand by the work very proudly. I believe that art is a reflection of our world -- of its problems, its beauty, its horror -- not an instigator. There is an old adage that I quite like, that only censors and psychopaths can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality. But more to the point... she's right. That image IS disgusting. It depicts disgusting behaviour. But I for one put a lot of value on a society where we are allowed to deal with these problems openly in this way. There is a lot to be said for exploitive imagery that may not be obvious to someone reacting to it on only an emotional level.

Leslie Taylor
Filmmaker
I have no problem with the image in the context of Grindhouse exploitation movie art. It also makes a difference (to me) that it is painted instead of a photograph. But your friend has a right to be disgusted; I can understand someone finding it upsetting, particularly someone who parses images of female representation through feminism rather than the history of horror cinema. But reactions to visual or thematic taboos are personal. I do not agree that there can be a unilateral judgment that the image is disgusting. There is no objective, agreed-upon boundary that you chose to cross. You write about horror and you post about your nightly viewing, which is often horror. You are a buff! A pundit! It should not be surprising to friends to find images like this on your FB page. And it is YOUR Facebook page.

My Favourite Horror Movies, Alphabetically: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Dir: Tobe Hooper. Starring Marilyn Burns, Jim Siedow, Edwin Neal, Gunnar Hansen, William Vail, Teri McMinn, Allen Danziger, and Paul A. Partain. 1974

When I finally got the opportunity to see The Texas Chainsaw Massacre on a murky VHS tape, surrounded by a group of friends, I admit I didn’t know what to think. As a nine-year-old when it was first released, I knew TCM by reputation and by the images its sensational title creates. I also knew about about it from my mother’s student admin assistant who told me too many details (which I’m sure is a form of child abuse; trust me, she succeeded in scaring me.), and from TV ads that were absolutely terrifying to me. During this first viewing as a teenager, however, I was at a loss. I remember being completely disturbed by the hitchhiker, stunned by Kirk’s demise, put on edge by Pam’s impalement, and repulsed by the dinner scene in general, and by Grandpa trying to sledgehammer Sally in particular. After many subsequent viewings, what I’ve come to believe about The Texas Chainsaw Massacre in all its ferocious horror beauty, is that it’s not a movie you watch, it’s a movie you process.

My Favourite Horror Movies, Alphabetically: Session 9

Session 9
Dir: Brad Anderson. Starring David Caruso, Stephen Gevedon, Paul Guilfoyle, and Josh Lucas. 2001

Interesting that the most contemporary movie on this list uses one of horror’s oldest standards – the spooky building – as an essential part of its eerie charm. It’s what this building is, or was, however, that adds strength to its power to scare. The Danvers State Hospital is a dilapidated mental hospital that is distressed through with the ghosts of its patients; not in the wandering spirit sense, but in the way the worn out building and abandoned furnishings offer glimpses of the suffering that undoubtedly took place there. A crew has been hired to remove asbestos from the property, each of these men contributing to a single unhealthy personality that is reflected by the building that houses them/it. As work progresses, one of the men discovers patient session tapes in the basement, and begins to listen to the case of a woman with multiple personalities, one of them a murderer. As tensions grow among the members of the crew, the session tapes also increase in intensity until the last message is delivered, warbling like something unearthly on the reel-to-reel session tape. Too subtle for some, Session 9 gives me the creeps by touching on things I sense I’ve only partly begun to understand. It's a very lonely-feeling movie.

This Image is Disgusting and Shouldn’t Be Posted

As a movie fanatic, and particularly as a cult movie fanatic, I post on Facebook every time I watch something so that I can get feedback from other cult movie fans. These posts always include either the movie poster or the DVD cover art.

Last night I re-watched Robert Hartford-Davis’ 1968 sleaze fest Corruption. The new cover art from Grindhouse Releasing accurately reflects the movie. It’s a toned down version of the art included inside the Blu-Ray package. The cover version, pictured here, features a deranged Peter Cushing with a straight razor at the throat of a female victim with the leering image of his (in-film) wife looming in the background. In a plot device that could only exist in the wild world of exploitation (or the rarified world of international arthouse sensations; see Georges Franju’s Les yeux sans visage), Cushing is in search of pituitary glands to ensure the success of his wife’s facial reconstruction surgery. The film is silly, sleazy, and extremely entertaining for fans of sleaze cinema.

So, the day after viewing Corruption, I posted the following:

Last night’s viewing: Robert Hartford-Davis’ CORRUPTION via Grindhouse Releasing’s perfect new Blu.

After a few positive comments from cult movies fans (all male), a friend who was formerly a key staff member of the provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, and a friend whose opinion I respect, commented, stating, “This image is disgusting and shouldn’t be posted”.

Reading the comment, it felt like the bottom of my stomach had dropped out. I knew my friend was commenting from a feminist perspective, and I consider myself feminist too. I responded by saying, and I’m paraphrasing here, that I respected my friend’s opinion, I’d delete the post (I did), but that I thought she was seeing only one thing here. Then, of course, I began to ponder the matter.

Was I only seeing one thing here? The answer is an unqualified yes. The fact of what was in the lower half of the cover art didn’t cross my mind. I was focused on the post and not the image which I’d sort of accepted as just an, I don’t know… accouterment.

I love horror movies, but I abhor real violence. I don’t believe that imaginary violence causes real violence, but I do believe that how we discuss and joke about groups and individuals that have any kind of difference from ourselves creates an overall belief system about others that can have a real life, negative effect.

As a horror fan, I accept the Blu-Ray cover art as part of the language of horror, and in this case, I didn’t spend much time considering the gender of the players involved. Admittedly, I don’t mind ruffling a few feathers. Sometimes I enjoy it. In fact, I like to be offended myself sometimes. Why is that? Because it forces me to take a step back and say, “Why do I find that offensive?” It’s a chance to understand myself better, and I make it a practice to do this every time I feel offended. To me, it’s something worth analyzing, even if the answer seems obvious; it isn’t always.

But I don’t believe in promoting hate. In all honestly, whether this means I’m a prime candidate for that dubious thing known as sensitivity training, or whether I’m right, I don’t believe that’s what I was doing by posting that image.

Perhaps its simply a question of venue, and Facebook may not be the place to post these kind of things, but I want to be able to connect with fellow horror fans from around the world there. And so that’s what I’m doing here. I’m posting a link to this piece on Facebook, and I’m tagging a few people specifically – most of them women - because I want to hear what they have to say about this issue in general, but not the Corruption cover in particular. You up for it? Let’s have a levelheaded, respectful dialogue about it.

My Favourite Horror Movies, Alphabetically: Rosemary's Baby

Rosemary's Baby
Dir: Roman Polanski. Starring Mia Farrow, John Cassavetes, Ruth Gordon, and Sidney Blackmer. 1968

Ira Levin’s novel Rosemary’s Baby was the first I read non-stop, staying up all night when I was a young teen to reach its end. Roman Polanski’s film adaptation is well documented as being incredibly faithful to its source, and happily for me, that translates into the film having the same power to fascinate as the book. A look at contemporary witchcraft and devil worship, the film is also a true feminist tale in that it clearly illustrates the way a woman can be used by men and even other women as a vessel, as well as demonstrating how society can perceive a pregnant woman as paranoid and unstable. A wholly engrossing experience, Rosemary’s Baby is the best kind of paranoid entertainment, the kind wherein everything that has come in earlier scenes gains new meaning as the plot reveals itself.

My Favourite Horror Movies, Alphabetically: Psycho

Psycho
Dir: Alfred Hitchcock. Starring Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh, Vera Miles and John Gavin. 1960

Where to start with Psycho? I suppose it make sense to start by stating that Alfred Hitchcock is my favourite director. He was a man who understood both fear and moviemaking. For me, his use of a camera to tell a story or to explore a theme is unmatched. Add these convictions to the fact that Hitchcock was at the peak of his ability as a director when he made Psycho, and we get a horror film that I believe is flawlessly made, save for the clunky explanation scene at the end. Much like the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers and its studio imposed opening and closing that softens the film's thrills, I like to think of Psycho without this scene. Luckily, the coda that follows it is immensely creepy. Over the years, however, Psycho’s ability to scare has lessened due to many factors including familiarity and conceptual appropriation, but we’re still left with an exquisitely made classic that explores desperation, paranoia, and a host of other truly dark subject matter like nothing that came before it.