“Never say, ‘I’ll be right back,’ because you won’t be back.” (The State of the Slasher in 2009, Part Two)
March 3, 2009 at 6:29pm | In film, pop culture, sociology | Leave a CommentTags: "the rules", everyone loves randy meeks, final girls, friday the 13th, likeminded blogs, omfg why did someone make those sneakers, scream, slasher film, state of the slasher in 2009
It seems (after Nadine’s epic, long-awaited analysis of “The Twilight Saga”) that we here at Tiny Gems are very interested in talking about teenage sexuality and its representation in popular, youth-focused media. Which means, of course, that I’m back to the slasher film. We all know the frequently re-hashed tropes of the sexual politics of the slasher – the carnage and chaos unleashed by any active teenage (female) sexuality, the killer as punisher of sexual activity, the “Final Girl” as “masculinized” virgin, the Freudian implications of knives and wounds. Been there, done that. At this point, these generic cliches have even become the founding principle/in-joke of an entire slasher franchise (the Scream series). But what I’m wondering is, do these tropes still hold up – and if they do, do they really impose any normative ideologies over slasher audiences?
In other words – do Randy’s “rules” from Scream (1996) really mean anything today? Did they ever really exist to begin with? Could all of the many, many academics and critics who have trashed the slasher sub-genre for years be wrong about its implications?
The Night “He” Came Home (The State of the Slasher in 2009, Part One)
February 10, 2009 at 5:35pm | In film, pop culture, sociology | Leave a CommentTags: friday the 13th, horror, jason voorhees, reaganomics, slasher film, state of the slasher in 2009, this really should've been my senior thesis
Michael Myers has already been there, Jason Voorhees gets in this week, and Freddy Krueger will be there soon – of course, I’m talking about your local multiplex. The classic slasher is back in a big way, as CHUD.com writer Devin Faraci notes in a recent article. Slasher films, such as the Friday the 13th remake opening this Friday, the 13th – make up a significant amount of recent mainstream horror film production, and are definitely making a killing (pun intended) at the box office. As mentioned in Faraci’s article, as well as in the New York Times, this new Friday the 13th remake (and series reboot) comes on the heels of a series of other slasher remakes, including new versions of three of the sub-genre’s founding films – Black Christmas (2006), Halloween (2007), and Prom Night (2008).
Trailer for Friday the 13th (2009)
While Faraci’s attempt to answer the most often-repeated question about the slasher sub-genre (“What is it that makes slasher films appealing?”) from a fan’s perspective is interesting, it leads him to away from a much more intriguing question – that is, “Why slashers now?” What is it about these mask-wearing, unstoppable killing machines of the Reagan era that resonates so well with horror film spectators in 2009? Why do audiences look to slasher remakes over original horror storylines? And why have these slasher movies so completely replaced the much maligned “torture porn” films – the Saws and Hostels – that ruled the horror universe earlier in the 2000s?
Stay tuned for a detailed investigation of these questions – and in the meantime, don’t go in the woods… alone!
(While you’re waiting for the next installment of this series – or just while you’re waiting for the new Friday the 13th movie – check out The 10 Days of 13 Redux on CHUD – Devin Faraci re-visits and reviews each film in the original Friday the 13th series.)
We’re in the money
January 9, 2009 at 12:36pm | In culture, film, sociology | Leave a CommentTags: 2009, awards, fashion, Hollywood, recession
An article in the New York Times film section asks an interesting question – in light of the deepening recession (today, the Times reported that unemployment has hit a 16-year-high at 7.2%), how should Hollywood present itself in the upcoming awards season? The article cites Hollywood’s “long if not proud history of tone-deaf behavior” in response to national crises – references to Marie Antoinette abound. Opinions (of network executives, fashion designers and pop-culture pundits) differ as to whether the glitz and glamour of the typical Hollywood awards show will soothe or enrage the cash-strapped viewing public. For the time being, at least, Hollywood certainly isn’t pulling out any stops, attempting to reinvigorate flagging awards-show ratings (and, yes – the swag is back, too).
What the article overlooks, however, is that the birth of Hollywood glamour came out of the Great Depression. The Roaring ’20s laid the groundwork, but the Golden Age of Hollywood filmmaking was born out of the worst economic conditions. The Depression marked the highest moment for the star and studio systems, the growth of sound and the birth of color. The 1930s gave us Marlene Dietrich, Claudette Colbert, Clark Gable, Greta Garbo and Katharine Hepburn – as well as the rise of the Western, the musical, the period piece and the horror film. Even Gone With the Wind and The Wizard of Oz – perhaps the two most iconic films of Hollywood spectacle – both came out in 1939, at the tail end of the Depression. With cinema well past the 100-year-mark, maybe this recession will give Hollywood an impetus to go back to the well-crafted spectacle on which it was built. Could the economic crisis take us all back to the era of Busby Berkeley?
Up next – Gold Diggers of 2009. It certainly wouldn’t be the first Hollywood remake this year, or the last. Bring on the good old days!
From the Department of Recent Obsessions
December 6, 2007 at 7:45pm | In culture, history, obsession, sociology | Leave a CommentTags: unabomber
Dr. Theodore John “Ted” Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber.
Most artists could only dream of creating an impression and image so long-lasting and instantly recognizable to the general public. And usually they don’t have a manifesto with a title like “Industrial Society and Its Future,” either.
The Good Dude
October 5, 2007 at 10:37am | In culture, sociology | Leave a CommentTags: 2007, 2008, drinking forties on the corner, subcultural phenomena, the good dude
About a year ago, MT and I discussed what we considered a sort of cultural phenomenon, and which we called, “the Good Dude.” I forget when the Good Dude first came into our consciousness/vocabulary, but I remember that it was either while walking home from the radio station or while drinking forties on a corner in South Philly. Whatever. The Good Dude sprang into being, somehow, and he is real.
The Good Dude is a subcultural phenomenon; maybe he crosses the boundaries of multiple subcultural spaces, but so far we have found him in punk/indie rock. He’s the guy who sets up the shows, who knows everybody, who’s always chill and doesn’t harsh your mellow or whatever. HE IS ALWAYS A DUDE. Everybody knows him and when you drop his name in conversation, they say, “oh yeah, ______, he’s a good dude.” The Good Dude is always a dude because it is essential that his sexuality not be involved with his good dudeness. The Good Dude is probably single, or even asexual. If he has a girlfriend (a boyfriend is possible, but less probable), she is really cute but not beautiful or whatever, and she wears cute dresses or whatever. We hypothesized that the Good Dude is always and exclusively a dude because a woman’s sexuality would become too involved/scrutinized if she was at the apex of a large social network. Gross, but probably true.
In terms of sociological network analysis, the Good Dude has DEGREE CENTRALITY: he is directly tied to many people, they KNOW HIM and they even all LIKE HIM. He might also have some BETWEENNESS CENTRALITY: he is such a good dude, that he is free to transcend his own subcultural existence. He is the kind of guy who is friends with everybody and “likes ALL kinds of music!” He doesn’t have structural autonomy because it is essential that many of the people he knows know each other. They must talk about what a good dude he is in order to reinforce his status as the Good Dude.
Let’s ALL be good dudes to each other in 2007/2008.
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
