Men, Women and Chainsaws

ReadingBook written by Carol Clover

In Clover’s book Men, Women and Chainsaw’s she describes the female victim-hero as a character “whose status in both roles has indeed been enabled by 'women's liberation'. Feminism, that is, has given a language to her victimization and a new force to the anger that subsidizes her own act of horrific revenge". This means that are aspects throughout the film, which demonstrate some concept of evil. There could be different forms of evil whether it be something that the character needs to defeat that is apart of her or it could be physically evil. This allows her to redeem her character with some heroic acts. Although, as an audience we are aware of her victimization which later causes her to be evil in some way. In the film Carrie she becomes the victim at the beginning of the film after she starts her menstrual cycle in the presence of the other girls in her class, causing them to bully her. But in the end she seeks revenge by performing evil and heroic acts making her the ‘female victim-hero’.

What does Clover mean by ‘female victim-hero’?

The reason why males relate to females in horror films, especially the ‘final girl’ is because they identify with the victimization of pranks and picking on each other. Clover describes it in her book as “Pulling gym shorts down and thumb-rubbing glasses are things boys do to each other… not things that girls do to each other”. So in Carrie, written by Stephen King, the boy who is threatened and humiliated is the boy who acknowledges himself in the ‘final girl’ who finds herself being tormented by classmates by having tampons thrown at her and pigs blood poured over her. Due to the men understanding these situations, they root for the female rather than the villain as they are familiar with the practical jokes that they play on each other.

Why does Clover say that males relate to the females in horror films, in particular, the ‘final

girl’?

Clover believes that “horror audiences are especially understudied” and are less analyzed then film audiences. Clover claims that productions don’t aim for a specific audience but instead focus on more mainstream genres and ideas aimed at a wider audience. In addition, the statistical surveys that are carried out are sponsored by major studios even though a large percentage of horror films are produced independently. Therefore, horror films are not made on the basis of statistical research but on the basis of a hunch or for high-budget films, on the basis of test audience results. To cause further problems, many horror films do not have a long theatrical run and some have none at all meaning that investments are returned on videocassette rentals, which is an audience that is hidden from research. Although, there was an investigation that took place, where 3 local outlets kept track for a period of 4 weeks on the rentals of two low budget rape and revenge films called I Spit on your Grave and Ms. 45. The results showed that I Spit on your Grave was rented by men 9/10 times and were under the age of 25 and that Ms.45 was rented by men 4/5 times and were also under the age of 25. Even though it can’t be determined whether the renter was the only viewer the results do imply that they square with the standard profile of theatre audiences for horror films.

Why does Clover suggest that the horror research is

problematic?

Even though horror audiences are highly understudied and the statistical surveys cannot be fully reliable, it does seem that there is a consistency of adolescent males hold the pride of place as presumed by Stephen King. Clover’s book depicts the typical break down of groups in horror audiences. These are: Young men, often in groups (but also solo) Male-Female couples of various ages Solo “rogue males” (older men) A group of adolescent girlsAlthough, the proportions do vary depending on the subgenre to the film, so the more mainstream the film, the more ‘normal’ the audience. However, it does seem apparent that numbers of young males remains consistent making them the obvious target audience of horror fanzines.

Who does Clover suggest make up the typical horror

audience?

From the research taken out on horror audiences it is obvious that young men are the predominant target audience for horror films at the theatre. When looking at Clover’s research regarding film rentals, it was apparent that mainly men rented out two horror films called I Spit on your Grave (9/10 were men) and Ms. 45 (4/5 were men). When comparing this women, both genders were usually under the age of twenty-five apart from the odd anomaly. Other research showed that men frequently go to the cinema, as do women, although women tend to mainly go in groups and very rarely on their own, whereas men are more likely to go on their own or in groups or couples suggesting that there is an equal result. Although, the subgenre would often determine the type of audience as men are more likely to go see gore and unpleasant films, unlike women who tend to prefer thrillers and slashers.

Was there parity between horror audiences in regards to those who watched horror films at the cinema and those who watched them at home

through rentals?

One way in which Clover thought audiences identify with

characters was by Primary Identification. This is when the camera moves the audiences attention to wherever it goes and whatever its up to. Clover describes how the camera is able to entertain different positions including character positions and also “omniscient ones and with different degrees of personality.

The second way Clover identifies is called Secondary Identification, meaning the character of empathetic choice. In her book Clover describes it as “competing figures resonate with competing parts of the viewer’s psyche”, for instance the masochistic victim and the sadistic monster.

What are the two ways identified by Clover in which audiences identify

with characters?