Take a photo of a barcode or cover
sorkatani '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
informative
The title of this book is very misleading, and there is little to no science covered whatsoever. The same goes for special effects and stunts. As for 'true stories', there was only one or two brief mentions of real-life events that inspired movies.
On the surface, this is an interesting read about women in horror that looks at the archetypes and roles of women in horror and how societal views and beliefs have shaped them as well as the different ways horror has allowed for their subversion.
Using horror movies from across the decades, the authors look at the ways sexism, gender roles, and sexuality have affected the role of women in horror both in front and behind the camera.
On a deeper reading, though, the book only really touches on the role of BIPOC women and queer women in a superficial way.
There's a definite air of 'white feminism' to the book that can be seen in the way women are referred to as "women and women of colour" at one point, right after a chapter of how 'male' is seen as the universal standard, as though 'women' and 'women of colour' are two separate things. I would have understood if they were to say "women, especially women of colour" or something along those lines but instead they literally broke up women into '(white) women' and 'women of colour'.
It was also seen in the mention of Ruth Rose where her involvement with the screenplay for King Kong was praised, but no mention of the films problematic racist overtones was made.
Another issue I had was with Chapter 29, which took a superficial look at disability in horror. The authors not only used the term "differently abled" but constantly referred to "people with disabilities" instead of referring to disabled people as, well, disabled people.
They also implied that being deaf is a weakness that becomes a character's "strength" when she uses it to her advantage against an assailant.
Let's also not forget that bit of Joss Whedon love. I mean, that feels totally appropriate in a book that had just looked at the ways women in the industry had been negatively treated, albeit superficially. The book was written in 2019 so I'm willing to give them some benefit of the doubt, since much of the momentum and revelations regarding Whedon's treatment of female actors occurred after publication.
One thing that the book did look at, that I really appreciated, was the way older women, and the elderly in general, are treated in horror. It's a topic I rarely see mentioned that we need greater discussion and dialogue around.
On the surface, this is an interesting read about women in horror that looks at the archetypes and roles of women in horror and how societal views and beliefs have shaped them as well as the different ways horror has allowed for their subversion.
Using horror movies from across the decades, the authors look at the ways sexism, gender roles, and sexuality have affected the role of women in horror both in front and behind the camera.
On a deeper reading, though, the book only really touches on the role of BIPOC women and queer women in a superficial way.
There's a definite air of 'white feminism' to the book that can be seen in the way women are referred to as "women and women of colour" at one point, right after a chapter of how 'male' is seen as the universal standard, as though 'women' and 'women of colour' are two separate things. I would have understood if they were to say "women, especially women of colour" or something along those lines but instead they literally broke up women into '(white) women' and 'women of colour'.
It was also seen in the mention of Ruth Rose where her involvement with the screenplay for King Kong was praised, but no mention of the films problematic racist overtones was made.
Another issue I had was with Chapter 29, which took a superficial look at disability in horror. The authors not only used the term "differently abled" but constantly referred to "people with disabilities" instead of referring to disabled people as, well, disabled people.
They also implied that being deaf is a weakness that becomes a character's "strength" when she uses it to her advantage against an assailant.
Let's also not forget that bit of Joss Whedon love. I mean, that feels totally appropriate in a book that had just looked at the ways women in the industry had been negatively treated, albeit superficially. The book was written in 2019 so I'm willing to give them some benefit of the doubt, since much of the momentum and revelations regarding Whedon's treatment of female actors occurred after publication.
One thing that the book did look at, that I really appreciated, was the way older women, and the elderly in general, are treated in horror. It's a topic I rarely see mentioned that we need greater discussion and dialogue around.