The late Gene Siskel on slasher films and women's movement...

[bliss_eternal]

"...I'm convinced that these films are a primordial response to the women's movement." Gene Siskel, very early episode of Siskel and Ebert At the Movies.

I'm watching a documentary about slasher films. I'm hiding behind my laptop while it's on. :scared: I enjoy documentaries that discuss film genres, I find it interesting to hear filmmakers discuss what their intent was w/a film. But, I'm not a personal fan of the genre (so I'm hiding--as they are showing some of the gore--bleh).

Anyway, I was surprised to hear the voice of the late Gene Siskel and peeked out to see him on my screen.

I took the above quote from the documentary as I heard Siskel say it. Ebert was in agreement. It was a moment when the horror film makers were discussing the accusations that horror films are misogynistic(or at least at the time the genre seemed to become popular--mid 70's).

They spoke about the ways women were shown enjoying their sexuality, yet were consequently punished for it in slasher films(by being stalked and killed). They also discussed the way women were presented as terrified victims, cowering in corners, looking terrified with huge knives sticking in their faces for various film posters and ads. (Sound familiar? I seem to recall some current ads like this, too.)

Only one of the filmmakers seemed to see that as an accurate assertion, Wes Craven--which I found very interesting. Most of the others (even a female director and fan) said it was crap and they don't "hate women." They assert that it's just scary to show a frightened woman, the vulnerability aspect, etc.

I don't see many films like this so I can't speak from that perspective on this issue.
I understand there are a lot of women that are fans of this genre. I'm not sure how many would consider themselves feminists. But I did hear some rumblings of "empowerment" during the documentary from some women fans and found that and the discussion of women in these films interesting. As such, I wanted to open this for discussion here.

Was Siskel right in your opinion?
Were his comments appropriate only for films of that time?
Have they (horror films) changed? If so, how? If not, how?

:hi:

edited for clarity.

[Gormy Cuss]

1. I find it interesting that Ebert agreed with him.

It would be interesting to catalog the popular films for the post war period to about 1990 and chart the level of slasher films where victims were mostly or exclusively women, and then chart other elements of the films to see how frequently the slasher victims were "liberated" women vs. not.

"Psycho" (1960) is a slasher film of sorts and it predates the women's movement and the slasher film era. Contrast the way the woman is slashed while naked in the protracted shower scene and the PI is killed in a more typical short murder scene. Her nakedness and vulnerability is part of what makes the shower scene so powerful.

[wicket]

3. Janet Leigh said she was never able to take a shower again after shooting that scene

Her nakedness and vulnerability is part of what makes the shower scene so powerful.

So true, she was at the mercy of her killer.

[femrap]

13. Psycho was the first and last

'scarey' film I saw...I think I was about 12 or 13 when I saw it. Took me years to stop looking out of the shower curtain. I can remember that I was too afraid to put the speaker back on its stand at the drive-in. It really had an impact on me. That and 'Bambi' and all the other Disney movies that sadistically killed off the mothers.

And to this day, if I am in a hotel, I put a chair in front of the door before taking a shower. Life is scarey enough without adding more fear to my imagination.

Slasher films are IMHO an outgrowth of patriarchy...have there ever been any movies where the women violently kill men? 'The Burning Bed'....but IMHO that was justifiable homicide. Patriarchy makes these films so to make women more fearful and therefore more easily controlled and subdued.

Long live 'Thelma and Louise!'

[bliss_eternal]

4. Roger Ebert...

...frequently speaks out against films he finds misogynistic.

Example:

A "misogynist" is someone who hates women. I'm explaining that because most people who hate women don't know the word. I went to the Rotten Tomatoes roundup of critics not for tips for my own review, but hoping that someone somewhere simply said, "Made me want to vomit and cry at the same time."

---------------snip---------------
excerpted from:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051222/REVIEWS/51220004/1023

That's merely a current example. He has a long history of giving poor reviews to films based on misogyny.

[Gormy Cuss]

7. What I meant was that I always thought of Ebert as the real thinker of the two.

Siskel liked films, but seemed a bit fluffy and eager to please so I could imagine him saying something that was au courant with the political climate. That may be a wrong characterization but that's the way that I viewed him. Ebert on the other hand has always struck me as a cerebral type.

[bliss_eternal]

8. That's an interesting assessment....

...which I appreciate. :hi: Given that I was quite uninformed when I started watching their show, I didn't give much thought to the meanings behind their reviews.

I honestly wasn't aware of which of the two seemed more inclined to offer "fluff" reviews. So it's interesting to hear some of this from others.

I do credit their show with teaching me more about film, and helping me to seek out films I may not have otherwise. I do recall Siskel offering quite a few reviews that made me laugh aloud while watching, they weere absolutely scathing, but so funny in the way he worded them.

I've really come to appreciate Ebert for speaking up about women in film (given that so few seem to express concern over the representation of women in film).

Ebert was shown in Roseanna Arquette's documentary, Searching for Debra Winger--commenting on Hollywood's casting, writing and focus of women in film. It was refreshing to hear a man that seems to respect women have intelligent things to say on the issue. I wish I'd known about feminism sooner (in my life)and was aware of Siskel's views regarding women in film prior to his death.

On edit--I do apologize if my prior response seemed curt/short. That was not my intent. I was a tad distracted at the time, and should have taken the time to ask what you based your comments on. Sorry about that. :hug:

[Gormy Cuss]

10. I had a friend who referred to Siskel as "Mush Mouth"

and I thought that it was an apt description. Siskel was astute enough but he seemed to have a need to review for a lower common denominator. Ebert on the other hand seems to revel in slicing and dicing the worst of film culture in this country.

[bliss_eternal]

11. omg...

...lmao!

:rofl:

Quote:
I had a friend who referred to Siskel as "Mush Mouth"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. This is a very interesting topic.

I caught Quentin Tarantino's "Deathproof" last week and haven't stopped thinking about it.

It's basically an homage to seventies low budget grindhouse slasher flicks, I think the kind that Ebert, Siskel, and Ebert have on their minds, while most people think of the eighties teen horror movies like Nightmare on Elm St. which have interesting differences.

Gormy brought up Psycho, and that's what I was thinking of too, because it set up the basic outline. Lots of boring time killing dialogue, naked women getting killed, lots of boring dialogue, more naked women, maybe a cool car, pickup, or interesting musical number, boring dialogue, then naked women getting killed.

Psycho, of course, is intrinsically different, mostly because it was made by a master. It can be argued that it's misogynistic, I'd say it's more homophobic than misogynistic, although I think it can be defended against that too. It was based on a fairly good novel, based loosely on a true story. You've also got to take into an account the 1960 audience. If it were any other film, Janet Leigh would have been stalked in the shower by Mrs. Bates in the first act, stalked more in the second act, and then narrowly escaped certain death in a dramatic chase scene in the final act. Killing the protagonist in the first act was an absolutely huge surprise, scared the crap out of everybody.

But like I was saying, there were a lot of really bad imitators in the seventies. Really low budget films, amateurish directors, stuff that made Ed Wood look good. (actually, Wood made some of this stuff himself in his later days.) Some of it was deeply misogynistic. Some of it may have been made by people who were not themselves misogynists but catered to a misogynistic audience, after all if only perverts and freaks are going to watch slasher flicks, might as well make it really perverted, right? And I think some of it was a result of censors. You couldn't show this violence and sex and nudity in proper films, so it all ended up in a c-list catch basin of cinematic crap.

In the eighties you had Friday the 13th movies, and the Elm St. movies. But these were different. They were appealing to a more lucrative audience, teenagers, and so they cut down on the sex so they could get into more theaters. They were much more like the 50's black and white sci-fi movies. Monsters killing horny teenagers on lovers lane. It was influence, I think, by the grindhouse movies, but you've also got to remember that some of those 50's B&W monster movies which everybody remembers fondly and nostalgically as being innocent- those were some deeply misogynistic movies themselves, just without the gore. Watch Mystery Science Theater if you don't believe me.

Which brings me back to "Deathproof." I recommend it. It's certainly aware of the misogyny of the movies it imitates. It explores it without, I think, being misogynistic itself. Stick around for the ending, the disturbing first act is just setup for the second.

[bliss_eternal]

5. A reminder...

...this is the feminism form, not the "entertainment forum."

As such I'm not interested in "film recommendations." I saw Death Proof. Not Tarantino's best work as far as I'm concerned. But again, this is not what this discussion was about so I won't go into details of my opinion on it.

Your post does not address the issues within the op--which was impressions of Siskel's comments from a feminist perspective. You also seem to ignore the fact that I brought the topic HERE because I'm interested in the perspective of FEMINISTS--not merely "slasher film fans."

Had I sought the opinion of mere "fans of the genre", I probably would have placed this topic in the entertainment forum or the lounge. If I was seeking a debate on the issue I would have placed it in the women's rights forum where it surely would have garnered a great deal of spirited discussion of the finer points of slasher films.

I wasn't interested in any of that, so I brought the issue here.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Yes, it's the feminist forum.

And I'm a feminist, talking about feminist issues in slasher films.

:shrug:

[Lilith Velkor]

6. There is something to what Siskel said

Slasher films ( a subgenre of horror films, please do not confuse the two) are indeed a psychological response to the women's movement, but they don't tend to express feeling misogynistic as much as feeling conflicted.

At the beginning of these films, the point of entry for the audience is a psychopathic killer slaughtering victims of both sexes. The females are not so much being punished for sexuality, the sexual activity is simply an excuse to show the actress bare-breasted in order to sell tickets, because sometimes there are different reasons she is undressed, such as bathing or intoxication.

But around halfway through, the audience identification switches to the one who will survive, who is invariably female. She is the one who picks up the weapon, who opens the airlock that sucks the monster into space, who saves the day.

So I see this as a conflict between wanting to kill all those uppity wimmin demanding change, and viewing that change as a welcome relief. YMMV.

[bliss_eternal]

9. I'm glad you point out that there is a difference...

...between a slasher film and a horror film. I do apologize that I mention the two in the same context. After my editing period was complete I realized I did this (and shouldn't have). Thank you for pointing out the difference, I sincerely appreciate it!

Slasher is a distinct sub-genre of horror. I learned this while reading about "exploitation films." There are several types of sub-genres within that realm.

Quote:
So I see this as a conflict between wanting to kill all those uppity wimmin demanding change, and viewing that change as a welcome relief.

I like your thinking here. :thumbsup:

During the documentary, there was some discussion of how in most slasher films women that are victimized are killed off screen--though they may be actually "slashed" in some way on-screen. Usually the violent, gory deaths are reserved for the men. (Not sure if this is true consistently, it seemed to be the case in the few examples they showed).

This was used to argue that slashers aren't "anti-woman" because the "lone survivor" tends to be a woman. But then the argument could be made in regard to "why" this particular woman was the survivor.

I find it interesting how science fiction films consistently show us "warrior women." By contrast "slashers" show us women that "survive" in spite of their circumstances. What can we say about that? ;)


edited for typos.

[Lilith Velkor]

18. The "lone survivor" tends to be a smart person among idiots

Back in the '80s when I used to go see them, the audience would groan loudly whenever a character would do something incredibly stupid, and a few would applaud when that character met his or her demise.

"Alien" and "Aliens" are a remarkable contrast in this regard: the first movie is actually a slasher film in a sci-fi setting. Ripley wasn't a warrior to begin with, she just did what she had to do to survive. The sequel is more like an action film, but still a bit slasher-y: she has knowledge the others don't have.

[Chovexani]

12. And this is why I love Joss Whedon so much

Buffy was conceived as a direct response to this kind of thing. He'd watched one too many horror movies where the monster kills some helpless, tiny, blonde co-ed. So he wrote a film where the tiny blonde co-ed wasn't so helpless. :)

[wicket]

14. I miss Firefly

Killed off way too soon :(

[Chovexani]

15. I loved that show

And it was another one with some great feminist points of view. I really liked the dynamic between Mal and Zoe. It was so refreshing to see a man and a woman on tv that, while they have a great deal of affection and respect for each other, are platonic friends. They're war buddies and that's it.

[defendandprotect]

16. Thanks . . . didn't know he had made that comment . . . They have made every effort

to brutalize the nation since the coup on JFK ---
violence must remain --- war must remain --- and we have to have a violent society ---
people who feel threatened --- never peace.
We cannot spend our money on anything but war ---

And they must also recognize females as a threat !!!!
keep the patriarchal war on women going --- in fact, energize it --- reinstate its violence.

Women are absent in the media --- including the front pages of the NY Times ---
except on TV as they wash Johns and show their boobs --- !!!

At the same time, of course, we have a reenergized war on the African-American ---

and their war on homosexuals --- where I think their war is crumbling thanks to the heroic efforts of homosexuals --

The actual brutality against African-Americans is mind-boggling ---
from unbelievable unemployment to imprisonment ---
police brutality across the country, profiling --- beatings, torture
A renewal of KKK type policing ---

With women we see the same encouragment of disrespect --- and violence against women.

This is indeed a 45 year renewed war --- it's amazing it has taken them so long and so much money to change the nation ---

but I think they've almost succeeded ---

It has taken liberals and progressives too long to reorganize to fight back --- !!!