The fairy tale is controlled by a mythic order and a ritual narrative script. By embodying the child’s anxieties, fairy tales help him or her to understand and overcome ... difficulties. Most horror films share the positive, pragmatic function of the fairy tale in that–when they do allow unconscious material to come to awareness and work itself through in our imaginations–its potential for causing harm is greatly reduced. As with the fairy tale, the traditional horror film generally works to serve positive acculturating purposes.
Tobe Hooper’s classic piece of cinĂ©ma vomitif inverts this mythic order and upsets the ritual narrative script–and on a cosmic level. The inverted fairy tale narrative is not simply a tale of personal tragedy; rather, like all fairy tales, it works to universal dimensions. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is compelled to repeat a fixation on a nonregenerative apocalypse, an end to history, a cosmic destruction ultimately denied by the film’s ending. Sally’s escape, however, is not a forestalling of the apocalypse, but simply a postponement of the end of the ritual violence. Her escape signifies a return to the cycle of horror, never to be redeemed by any sense of an ending.
Mikita Brottman, Offensive Films: Toward an Anthropology of Cinema Vomitif
Much has been written about how 1969 marked the end of an era as Woodstock and the Tate-LaBianca murders signified a death of the facade of innocence that had dominated popular imagination for the past century, and the past 70 years of cinema. For middle class, white America it was considered no longer safe to leave your doors unlocked, to hitch a ride, to neck at Lovers' Lane, or even exist. With this death of "innocence," a facade people of color had rarely been under given the everyday terrorism of being a person of color in Western society, fell from white America's eyes and life took on a different hue. Previously relegated to cinematic ghettos, at least in its more blatant depictions, sex and violence exploded onto the silver screen like never before at the end of the 1960s and early 1970s. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the horror film. Though Europe's output was exponential and amazing during this time, here I choose to focus on the American psyche as reflected in both independent and often Hollywood-produced horror of this decade.
The most obvious example, and the one referenced in the quote above, is
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, a film that marked both the beginning and the end of an era. While there were certainly films before it (some I'll examine later),
Texas Chainsaw provided a glimpse into the public needs and fascinations that would bring the slasher to screens regularly nearly 5 years later. Representing a clash of the old (Leatherface and his rural, fledgling family) and the new (Sally Hardesty and her counterculture generational friends),
TCM was part of a cinematic break from a world whose values were slowly losing out to those of the "Me" generation. Sally as fairy tale heroine (the child) and Leatherface as giant (the adult), she survives her fissure with the past but not without significant psychological trauma. Much like her real-life counterparts who were dealing with the reality of senseless war, colonialism, and the trauma both inflicted on everyone who experienced them even tangentially. For Sally there was no option but to lose your mind at the madness of society up to that point and the rapid, violent shift taken at the end of the '60s. When you wake up and realize you live in a whole new, dramatically freer, world, the afterglow is interrupted by the reality that those who've lived in the old one are still with us and very eager to hold on to theirs. Like a character in an HP Lovecraft story who stares into the void, the unanswerable, the incoherent, one cannot reconcile both realities. Antonioni said the real tragedy of
Red Desert wasn't the fact that the world was changing, but the fact that his heroine couldn't adapt. This struggle was prophetic of the horror cinema to come.
An earlier foray into regenerative apocalypse is 1972's
Last House on the Left, an independent shocker about two girls' experiment with counter-culture, the cruel reality of it, and bourgeoisie display of violence. It seems too easy to say the girls are punished for their pursuit of "experience", in fact the only ambivalence shown in the film is from the cops and from the parents, whose eventual revenge for the girls' rape and murder is portrayed as morally ambiguous in its execution. The question of force is dangled in front of us as the parents avenge their daughter's death in an equally graphic fashion as that of the two girls' rape and murder. Of course, we the audience know they're justified but there's a perverse element of fascism implied in the tactics a former generation uses on those somewhere in-between in retaliation for the defilement of the new -- whose generation said parents don't fully understand. At the risk of injecting my own prejudices -- what's great about this movie and why I want to avoid saying too much is the levels of analysis it begs. Are Krug & Co. indicative of the new generation's lack of security in a world without morals or are the parents fascistic vigilantes? In typical '70s fashion, there are no winners -- like
Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the meeting of the old with the new ends with everyone covered in blood.
Another Wes Craven film, 1977's
The Hills Have Eyes, grapples with the American middle class and its fear of the other. Xenophobia has always colored American horror, and this time it's made manifest through a family's fight for survival against a cannibalistic, incestuous clan in the American Southwest. Film mythology has long solidified the image of the inbred or deformed as deviant, continuing and informed by a fear of those who are different which is as "American as apple pie". The nuclear family vs. those society tries to ignore (and, in the remake, the nuclear family vs. nuclear fallout), the American public explores their boundaries and own prejudices through the horror film, while the films themselves both confirm and question them.
While it's common knowledge that the horror film is how society works out their anxieties through a controlled experience, not all films work through the same anxieties, even if they have the same genre. Take zombie films -- widely recognized as survivalist melodramas now, the zombie as we know it today was born of social allegory in
Night of the Living Dead and crystallized nearly 10 years later in
Dawn of the Dead. While George Romero would deny it, its very telling that a film about zombies, mindless creatures driven by impulse, takes place in a mall -- the new emblem of economic prosperity in encroaching Reagan America. Consumerism and capitalism itself are the real enemy in this film -- not the undead. Its not a fantasy about a select band of Exceptionals and there's no one person you root for -- you're invited to share the experience of society's collapse being not that different from society as it is. And while I have personal aversion to shopping, and the shopping mall, being portrayed as the Epitome of capitalist excess, which is always gendered, the overall message can't be ignored.
In both these films, there is no end to the violence. Zombies are taking over the world and those society tries to ignore will always exist. One is a never-ending apocalypse in a literal sense, the other a universal reminder that xenophobia has and continues to shape us as a culture -- and both victim and aggressor can often be one and the same.
My final film is the first to show a hint of redemption or closure: often reviled, often for good reason, Meir Zarchi's
I Spit On Your Grave is the perfect hotbed of Grindhouse politic. Allegedly concieved as a feminist film (the original title is
Day of the Woman and was changed by distributors to better market it in exploitation circuits), it gained instant notoriety for its graphic rape scene which makes up the bulk of the film. Initially shown in grindhouses and denied a screening for journalists, the first exposure American critics had of the film was amongst the typically male, typically seedy regulars who frequented these theaters known for cheap thrills and excesses of sex and violence. As can be expected, much of the audience cheered on the rape and many critics walked out before any of the revenge sequences, automatically condemning it as the cheapest exploitation. While it's feminism is debatable (and really a gratuitous rape scene by a male director, no matter how good his intentions, usually means he's failed),
I Spit On Your Grave effectively embodies the truism "Men Don't Protect You Anymore" -- a fit comparison given the fact that Jenny Holzer's series was poetically displayed in 42nd street grindhouse marquees. Tellingly, Jennifer is not raped by her hypothetical college educated boyfriend, but uneducated backwoods "hicks". While it's usually the case that most rapists are likely to be someone the victim already knows, the "stranger rapist" is both the common mythological figure and the template used most often in paracinema to explore female fear of sexual assault. And while here our heroine Jennifer gets her vengeance over the old-guard rapists, we know the trauma of sexual assault lives on and takes more than quick justice to process through. If
I Spit On Your Grave can be considered horror, a label which its most commonly marketed under -- whose horror is it? The male viewer who recognizes misogynistic impulses within himself and is frightened by the rapists' comeuppance, or the female or female-identified viewer who recognizes the all too familiar, all too possible situation? Like the rest of these films, this movie makes us question two-fold what messages we're supposed to be delivered. If the goal of political filmmaking is to spur the viewer into critical action, by showing divergent points of view of both our victims and aggressors, '70s independent horror does just that. Our regenerative apocalypse is not one where answers are easy or our hero always wins, or we even know who the hero and villain is, and why. The regenerative apocalypse is one we're living in as a post-modern society.
And it's not just independents or cult favorites that delivered on this concept of an apocalypse that never ends.
The Exorcist has no real happy ending -- Pazuzu leaves Regan's body but where does he go to next? In
Alien, the creature is ejected but there's more where he came from. In
Halloween, Laurie survives but Michael Myers vanishes -- and besides, isn't he a stand-in for societally enabled white male sociopathy like the majority of slasher killers anyway? In each film there is no end to the terror, but a promise of renewed horror -- just think of all the horror sequels produced. If these films can be considered exemplary, the
entire crux of the post-modern horror film lies in a "regenerative apocalypse". Even when the terror is "over", it leaves its scars, and then is it really even over?