I've just been reading a book about the horror genre - Horror Films (James Marriot, 2004).
It's a pretty interesting read. It's a discussion of the 20 most influential horror films of all time.
First, what I like about it: the lay out is very good, with twenty chapters (one per film), and several subheadings (Synopisis, Origins, Director, Casting, Critical Eye, Industry Impact, etc.).
The subheading Critical Eye has provoked the most interest and range of responses from me. I can be stubborn and close-minded but I can also be open-minded, too.
I'm well aware that movies can have themes and subtexts. For instance, any adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel Dracula (1897) is likely to have themes of sexuality. The Victorian Era was one of sexual repression so the sexuality of characters such as Jonathan Harker is going to be contrasted with the sexuality of Count Dracula. The book I've been reading makes these points and generally makes them well.
My favourite horror movie is A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984). In it Fred Krueger is described as a 'filthy child murderer'. Wes Craven originally intended for Krueger to be a child molester but kinda backed down because there were a number of child abuse cases in America when his movie was being filmed. That, plus the fact that an antagonist who is a child abuser just wouldn't work (see the 2010 remake of the movie). So, Krueger's child abuse was relegated to subtext: Krueger flicking his tongue at the main protagonist, Nancy, plus at one point he even growls at her "I'm gonna split you in two!" It worked well because it was unsaid.
Alien (1979) seems to have themes of disturbing sexual and reproductive images: the face-hugger alien implants an embryo in Gilbert Kane's throat (a weird kind of rape) and later we see a horrific 'birth' when the next stage of the xenomorph's life cycle erupts out of Kane's chest. The book makes these points and makes them well. But the author goes too far, IMO. He refers to when Ellen Ripley strips down to her underwear at the end of the movie as playing to a gender stereotype. This is absurd: the reason for this isn't titillation - Ripley has to strip to climb into the spacesuit.
Referring to Ripley stripping down to her underwear he says, quote: The sequence does humanise Ripley - throughout the film the alien appears to be more organic than most of the human characters - and there is a slight hint of the sexual attraction between Ripley and the alien that later in the series became a full-blown concern.
This last point refers to the ridiculous sequel Alien Resurrection (1997) where a Ripley clone is part xenomorph and does seem to be sexually attracted to an alien. But notice the ridiculous opinion that in Alien (1979) there is a hint of a sexual attraction between Ripley and the alien. I gotta say, this is bullshit. In the original classic, the alien is a nightmare antagonist - one of cinema's most frightening - and Ripley is scared shitless of it. In the final scene she actually starts singing a lullaby to stop herself caving in to her fear, before she blasts the creature out the airlock.
More comments and quotes from the book in a future post ...