Films from the Horror Age: THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT

Something I’ve been thinking about a lot since posting on MS.45 is my dissatisfaction with the films ultimate approval of the philosophy of “redemption through revenge”. Thana’s transformation into clerically attired vigilante assassin represents her soul being cleansed through violence; passing on pain to those who have wronged her relieves her suffering. While I am drawn to the intensity of the narrative of redemption through revenge, I find it a morally dubious philosophy and dislike seeing it romanticized. The validity of revenge is generally embraced by our culture and at many levels of governance, especially so in the distribution of force needed for waging war and keeping the peace. How you view the ethics of revenge filters your view of retaliation and justice.

While it is rarely mentioned overtly, a central argument in favor of the death penalty is revenge. I’m against the death penalty for many reasons but part of it is that I don’t believe it really helps victim’s families by replacing one act of violence with another. They must face the truth that any justice served by execution only really helps in the abstract; it will not change what has happened to their loved ones. Victims must also suffer through another transgression, even if only by tragic association. Murder is murder, state sponsored or not.

I believe the soul is corroded by violence, not redeemed. I’m drawn to films that reflect this philosophy and paint a bleak and unrewarding picture of revenge. Even though I admit I enjoy sharing in the visceral thrill and fantasy of cinema violence, I abhor it in real life. A film that makes it impossible for me to reconcile these conflicting allegiances is Wes Craven’s 1971 directorial debut THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, A horror movie that attacks the idea of redemptive violence with a laser-like precision that transcends the films low-budget sleaze.

THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT follows very closely in plot to Ingmar Bergman’s 1960 film THE VIRGIN SPRING about a medieval Swedish family that avenges the rape and murder of their teenage daughter by taking justice into their own hands. In both films the families unknowingly invite criminals who defiled their daughter into their homes, discover their true identities, and then kill them in the night. While the surviving family of THE VIRGIN SPRING is blessed after their revenge by a divine miracle, the family in THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT truly becomes more monstrous than their prey and finds no salvation through their deeds. They’re left with nothing but themselves and the horrible memory of what they’ve done.

Craven continued this theme of middle-class revenge throughout his celebrated career, but would never again create a film that would challenge the audience as directly as THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT. In part a comment on the Vietnam War being brought home to suburbia through television and the draft, THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT displays violence as thoroughly repugnant and without virtue. This approach runs counter the tantalizing thrill of voyeuristic violence that horror films bank on (and whole-heartedly exploited in the marketing of the film). There is a subversive nature to horror films like THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT in that they peek the curiosity of the id and then scold the ego for indulging in such transgressions. To see a horror film that is so brutal and unromantic lays bare the pathetic reality of violence and forces us to re-examine our views of revenge and justice.

This is not a movie I would want to watch again, or even really enjoyed. I maintain, however, that watching the film was ultimately a therapeutic experience. While the common argument made is that these types of films only perpetuate further violence and perversion, I would argue they have the opposite effect and in fact humanize their audiences. I have no scientific or statistical evidence to back this hypothesis but I do plan on future posts utilizing theoretical analysis and image search to address the issue.


(The father in THE VIRGIN SPRING (Max von Sydow) post-murder but pre-divine miracle. This is the scene THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT ends on. The father in THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT is played by the guy holding a chainsaw in the poster at the top.)

Films from the Horror Age: Ms.45

Abell Ferrara’s Ms.45 (1981) presents a vivid and modern take on the theme of the horrific “phallic female”. The gothic image of the corrupt nun combined with the modern trope of the psycho killer closely allies Ms.45 with the characteristics of the horror film. A rarity for the genre, Ms.45 can be read as a having a feminist political philosophy even though its reliance on exploitation makes a contrary argument easy.

The men in Ms.45 are portrayed as unequivocal swine and the mute heroine, Thana, clearly symbolizes the voiceless woman victimized by chauvinism and the patriarchy. On her way home one day Thana is raped in an alley in an uncomfortably realistic rape scene that leaves little to the imagination. When she reaches home she is confronted with another potential rapist who she ends up killing and chopping to pieces. Literally unable to “find her voice”, Thana continues to fall deeper into depressed anger and insanity until the climactic finale. In this unforgettable scene, Thana goes to a Halloween party dressed as a nun and opens up with handgun on a room full of unwanted suitors. Though much of the film echoes Polanski's horror classic Repulsion (about a lonely woman who loses her mind and becomes homicidal) Ms.45 feels more like a feminist Dirty Harry or Death Wish.

In many ways the politics of Ms.45 reflects the 80’s backlash to the feminist movement. While we can sympathize with Thana’s plight, the film intends to create discomfort and fear from the idea of the phallic woman. While we are given the space to cheer Thana as she adopts the masculine traits of vengeance and violence we are meant to be shocked by her as well. Portraying Thana as a source of fear hints that there is nothing scarier than an empowered woman willing to deal death to her detractors. The film’s original poster further belies its feminist reading with its frankly exploitative nature, showing Thana in an up-skirt shot standing in front of a soon-to-be shot thug framed squarely between her legs. The film is marketed as a sexy revenge flick, not a feminist reading of the vigilante genre.

I find it hard, however, to dismiss the film outright as cheap exploitation not worthy of analytical consideration. When Thana makes her final violent statement dressed as a nun adds a theological element to the film’s complex social commentary. The Catholic (and more broadly Christian) doctrine that encourages the acceptance of suffering is directly assaulted by the stunning imagery of the film’s climax. The notion that wrongs against us are to be tolerated as God’s will and that our tormentors are to be forgiven is thrown out in place of a cathartic call for justice. Unable to express her trauma in any other way, Thana violently lashes out at the men who would seek to continue her subjugation and soundly rejects the societal pressures that would keep her a silent victim. By sharing in Thana’s experience the audience is invited to make their own rejection of oppression at a psychological level. In this light, Ms.45 is a prime example of a genre film that though conservative in nature, contains subversive content that confronts forces of control that stifle progress and perpetuates suffering.

**This post was inspired by my good friend and excellent artist Alex Holden’s take on Ms.45 (displayed on top). Check out his very cool site Salty Weepings (link under Friends to right).**

Fear of a Female Planet

I’m excited to be voting tomorrow. The choice is between two angels compared to what we’ve been forced to grow accustomed to, but I’m voting for Obama because I trust his judgment and character more. He’s the best choice to purge the crimes committed in our name over the past seven years from our system. With our current tyrannical executive branch and weak legislative branch, Obama’s tabula rasa message is an attractive approach to a system badly crippled by its own bad habits. I’d like to see a Democrat who can inspire and motivate people, who can rally the political will to take broad strokes that will uplift the national culture as well as the quality of its government. While Hillary may offer the safe bet of experience there’s a strong chance that not a whole lot will get done. Obama is the longshot that can bring about the sea change needed for the U.S. to improve its status with the world. Bill’s right, this election is a crap-shoot, I just think he got the odds wrong.

Out of respect to my mother (a national feminist leader in her own humble right) I can’t make the decision to vote against Hillary without a great deal of introspection. Is my aversion to Sen. Clinton really my own internalized chauvinism making me unable to accept a woman as Commander-in-Chief? Am I willing to choose over the more qualified candidate for the younger less experienced man simply because of gender? Do I have my own threshold, an internal glass ceiling I impose on the hierarchy of my political allegiance? The message that women are unfit to lead has been encouraged by Western culture, so it's conceivable that I am so brainwashed by fictional stories that portray women as evil and men as good, from the bible to Milton to my beloved horror films, that I am unconsciously unwilling to throw my support behind a Matriarchy. After all, I do have a hard time arguing that men as a whole have handled their time in history that well. The World Wars and the threat of nuclear devastation should be enough for a failing grade, isn’t it time to let the ladies take a try? In the LA debate last week Hillary played Kim Gordon to Barack’s Chuck D. “Hey, Kool Thing, Fear of a Female Planet?”

Maybe Senator Clinton is naturally a hawk on defiance, lot of Democrats are. I have a hard time believing, however, that she would not have voted for the war in Iraq if she had not thought it was the most politically useful move to make, especially if she is as experienced and qualified as she claims. Kerry voted for the bill and hurt his argument against W. in 2004, and why any of them didn’t demand more solid intelligence is unforgivable. Hillary’s tough stance shows she is able to wield masculine force and condone aggression as tool of intimidation and control. In her NYT Op-ed, Gloria Steinham wrote bluntly that the senator does not need to “prove her masculinity”, a blanket statement I find hard to swallow. I find it more likely that a President H. Clinton would have to constantly prove she is “hard” enough to make the tough decisions in the situation room to the point of overcompensation, causing an inability to successfully realign the priorities of our foreign policy. It makes sense that MoveOn would endorse Obama; on foreign affairs, Hillary often stakes out positions to the right of center. If elected, Hillary will have to give something to her base on foreign affairs, but her history says she’ll take their support for granted while trying to placate the right with saber rattling and big-stick diplomacy.

If she does win tomorrow, Hillary will continue to contend with a fear of female masculinity and the temptation to prove her legitimacy through forceful and possibly ill-conceived action. If she truly is to become the Phallic Mother, with one hand rocking the crib while the other lays on the button, she will need to navigate a minefield of complex gender issues no president has ever had to before. I think it would be a good for thing for our nation to join her on this journey, I just wish it was a woman I felt I could trust. I find it too bad Hillary is the only woman we can put forward, one who rose to power on her husband’s back, one who has failed to make sound moral choices when they mattered. Perhaps she really will lead the way to a new matriarchy based on empathy instead of self-interest, but I find it unlikely. Another Clinton administration will no doubt be better than W’s, but I’m afraid it would ultimately be more of the same old divisive and cynical politics, just dressed up differently. Why not take a chance on a leader who will demand we rise above? If I am to judge the sexes equally I must vote for whom I find to be the best candidate, despite the problem of his gender.

(For more on Hillary’s dubious record and campaign tactics check out Frank Rich’s NYT Op Eds from last month. (link in Horror Age News & Politics). Poster on top from Hammer’s The Gorgon (1964), a film that makes no bones about exploiting the fear of the archetypal phallic woman.

The Horror Age Manifesto

If we scrape past their surface its not hard to see that politics can be scary and scary films can be political. The boundary between real horror and fantasy horror is constantly blurred for the sake of diversion, with the desired end of amusement in one arena and political control in the other. Horror films often try to present their story as something that really did, or at least could, happen, while political strategies often exploit our fears sprung more from paranoid delusion than the reality of daily life. It often seems that the more blatantly horrific these political narratives are, the more potent they become at plucking the heartstrings of the masses and orchestrating unity. Threats of nuclear holocaust and terrorist attacks hang over us like dark clouds but rarely ever confront us in any tangible way. Horror films can provide an alternate outlet for this fear, one that we have some semblance of control over, leaving us feeling invigorated instead of dispirited. In this world of make-believe, we are in control, we can place our hands in front of our eyes, we know it will soon be over and the credits will roll.

This quality of horror films can be therapeutic; they provide a sense relief from the abstract terror of modern life. While there is no doubt that evil does exist and must be confronted, it is sensationalized and aggrandized by those in control to distract us from dealing with its effects in a rational and just manner. The bogeymen of the world are reliable scapegoats, tools for political players to draw our attention from the real causes of anxiety and oppression that keep us from happiness. When we study the monsters of fantasy in our films and fiction, we can also learn more about the monsters of the newscast and campaign speech.

I believe it is healthy for us to do this, to become better acquainted with our demons, to analyze why they elicit in us such strong reaction and irrational behavior. By examining the phenomena of fear at both the micro level of the horror genre and the macro level of political rhetoric and action, we gain the power of self-knowledge. The more we can understand our fears the harder it is for them to be manipulated for the benefit of others.

Please join me as we map the nightmare landscape of modern media in and effort to find the truth that peaks out through the heaping bails of fearful spin dumped onto us by those who mean to control our vote, money, and liberty. Let us have fun with what destroys us and destroy what we find fun, let us rise from the ashes. Welcome to The Horror Age.