You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
octavia_cade 's review for:
The Science of Women in Horror: The Special Effects, Stunts, and True Stories Behind Your Favorite Fright Films
by Kelly Florence, Meg Hafdahl
This has no science in it whatsoever; I admit to feeling a little cheated. But it is about women in horror films, which is - apart from science in horror - my very favourite thing for horror to be about. The authors discuss the various ways in which women are presented in horror films (as the final girl, for instance, or as instruments of revenge) and in each section, several short chapters are dedicated to specific films illustrating that particular quality. It's a good structure, bite-sized and accessible. In fact, I think "accessible" is probably the word that best describes this book. The style is chatty and informal, and it reads as if the book is directed at beginners, basically. Sort of an introduction to horror analysis for non-academics, and when I say it's written at an entry level, I mean that the authors feel the need to explain what PTSD is so that readers can understand horror heroines might suffer from it.
Don't get me wrong. Basic, accessible texts are invaluable in attracting attention to any field, and this does that. I enjoyed reading it, but I'm forced to admit that it doesn't go much beyond the superficial. It's also very scattered. The chapter on The Babadook, for instance, starts with a vignette about Marie Curie's experience of widowhood, which is seemingly included on the grounds that Curie grieved her husband and the characters of the film also experience grief. Similarly, a box text on the Nobel prizes is included in the chapter on Let the Right One In, apparently thematically relevant because both film and prizes originate in Sweden. These odd, unfocused moments are just that, but the lack of focus becomes more serious when chapters are more substantially padded out with the barely relevant. A large section of the chapter on Ginger Snaps, for example, was taken up with an (admittedly interesting) interview with the emerging film director Gigi Saul Guerrero, who not only was not involved with Ginger Snaps, but doesn't talk about it or even about anything remotely associated with it, if you don't count the fact that both film and director are related to women in horror. Which, frankly, is not enough to justify the placement.
So, approachable but unfocused, and not particularly in-depth. Within those limitations, it's likeable enough.
Don't get me wrong. Basic, accessible texts are invaluable in attracting attention to any field, and this does that. I enjoyed reading it, but I'm forced to admit that it doesn't go much beyond the superficial. It's also very scattered. The chapter on The Babadook, for instance, starts with a vignette about Marie Curie's experience of widowhood, which is seemingly included on the grounds that Curie grieved her husband and the characters of the film also experience grief. Similarly, a box text on the Nobel prizes is included in the chapter on Let the Right One In, apparently thematically relevant because both film and prizes originate in Sweden. These odd, unfocused moments are just that, but the lack of focus becomes more serious when chapters are more substantially padded out with the barely relevant. A large section of the chapter on Ginger Snaps, for example, was taken up with an (admittedly interesting) interview with the emerging film director Gigi Saul Guerrero, who not only was not involved with Ginger Snaps, but doesn't talk about it or even about anything remotely associated with it, if you don't count the fact that both film and director are related to women in horror. Which, frankly, is not enough to justify the placement.
So, approachable but unfocused, and not particularly in-depth. Within those limitations, it's likeable enough.