Friedman, Lester D. "The Edge of Knowledge: Jews as Monsters/Jews as Victims." MELUS 11.3 (1984): pp. 49-62.

Friedman argues that many of our deepest feelings about minorities are formed and cultivated by visual media, such as film or television. He borrows film critic Robin Wood’s simple formula for horror films: “normality is threatened by the monster.” (49) This postulate is then applied to the representation of Jews in film. Friedman argues that usually films tend to avoid including any sort of allusions to specifically ethnic characters as to make the film as universally appealing as possible. He argues that once a character is identified with a specific ethnicity or race, then that character takes on a wealth of political, social, and sexual connotations that increase the complexity of the film. However, these connotations also run the risk of offending certain audiences. He examines the role of the Jewish “monster” in Paul Wegener’s The Golem, a German Expressionist film from 1920.

This idea of the Jew as the “monster” is one that is repeated in several of the texts that I have selected for this project. Here, it is applied not to Jud Suss, but to The Golem, a German film created twenty years prior to the creation of Jud Suss. However, many of the stereotypes of Jews that are used in The Golem are seen again in Jud Suss, as well as other anti-Semitic films created in Germany. It is interesting to note how Jewish stereotypes are treated even before the rise of the Weimar Republic and to draw comparisons between the representations of Jews in The Golem and those in Nazi films.

Additionally, Friedman discusses a question similar to my thesis: “What demonic power could match Hitler’s feat of turning members of the most humane professions into murders and supporters of a totally immoral regime?” (56). According to the article, the answer lies in propaganda’s ability to depict the world as “vast and terrifying horror movie” where the lines between good and evil are very clear. German audiences internalized the depictions of good and evil that were fed to them through various cultural texts, one of which was the Jewish “monster.”

This is an in-depth look at horror and science fiction films involving a monster.  The article doesn’t focus on Jaws, however it gives an interesting interpretation about many ideas prevalent in Jaws and how they appeal.  Carrol says, “the horror and science fiction film poignantly expresses the sense of powerlessness and anxiety that correlates with times of depression, recession, Cold War strife, galloping inflation, and national confusion.”  The nemesis in Jaws is an uncontrollable creature, something out of the public’s hands.  The author rationalizes that these unmanageable situations were telling of the current situation of the country in the 1970’s and early 1980’s.  The helplessness that individuals were going through could be seen on-screen and as a result people were drawn to this.  Carrol refers to films such as Jaws as nightmares, something that one has no control over, yet is forced to watch.  He is providing a bleak interpretation of this time period, however this is his rationale for why a film such as Jaws was so successful during this time.  This can be interpreted to mean that people feared the current state of their country, for any number of reasons including the Watergate scandal, the oil problems, or the Cold War.  All of these situations were out of the publics control, similar to the way the audience had no way of controlling what would come next.  In this sense, the monstrous character in Jaws was very realistic, and as a result people took it so literally.  Perhaps this would be the reason so much action was taken against sharks going forward and the film was so moving to the general public. 

Chapter 4. Displaying Connoisseurship, Recognizing Craftmanship.

In this chapter Hills explores how the pleasures of horror are constructed and narrated through fan discourses. He analyzes horror fan discourses on a few different horror internet forums and concludes that connoisseurship is the master trope in fan struggles against "inauthentic" horror consumers (non-fans) and taste-making authorities who marginalize horror. Horror fans position themselves as "authentic" through knowledge of the genre and by privileging this intellectual engagement with horror over any affective, emotional engagement. That is, "nonfans" react to horror emotionally (they express fear), while "fans" are interact in a conscious, "knowing" (and at times "superior") way. Ironically, the ostensive purpose of horror films (to instill "horror") is marginalized in these fan communities to "non-fans"). However, it is also recuperated through personal narratives of first/childhood experiences with horror. These narratives admit the affective aspect of horror as experienced in childhood and this serves as a "discourse of affect." This discourse allows the horror fan to positions themselves as rational and literate ("serious") to gain cultural credibility pushing emotion to the past and turning affect into knowledge.

Hills considers online communities--following Pierre Levy and Henry Jenkins--as a 'cosmopedia.' In horror fan forums, fans establish their subcultural identities through appropriate performances within this collective, interactive, and contested "knowledge space." Horror fans also express connoisseurship through their recognition and celebration of horror "special effects" (SFX). Hills rightfully points out that while horror directors are celebrated as auteurs (George Romero, Dario Argento, etc.), SFX creates a network of author functions. The reading of horror films by "fans" often involves a "double attention" to both the experience of the horrific content and the content as special effect. While some fans may use the attention to SFX as a "masculine" reading strategy to deflect affective (i.e. "feminine) responses, Hills points out that a aignificant portion of the audience does so to generate and sustain a reading of "horror-as-art." These fan discourses, Hills argues, work contra to many theories of horror which privilege cognitive,literary, or psychoanalytic textual aspects as generating the (dis)pleasures of horror. Fans' constructed pleasures of horror revolve more around imagined version of their "generic community" or subculture and its particular distinctions from other cultures.

 

Berenstein analyzes film reviews and marketing ploys during the first cycle of classic Hollywood horror films (1931-1934) concluding that the horror film served as an ideal site for the "performance"of socially prescribed gender roles, behaviors, and heterosexual coupling rituals. Film studios, exhibitors,and reviewers relied upon gender assumptions, but in contradictory ways. Many film reviwers ignored questions of gender all together treating the horror film audience as an "ungendered" mass, while other reviews expressed surprise that horror films would be as popular with women as they were. The marketing and promotion of horror films, however, rarely took women for granted. Many horror films--such as Dracula (1931)--were promoted as frightening thrillers and romances hoping to appeal to both male and female audiences (assuming a gendered split in interest). Horror film promotional gimmicks took a variety of forms, but many revolved around personifying "fear" as feminine. Gender expectations were that women scream and shriek during horror films, while men displayed bravery (or, masked their own fear which was seen as feminine). If studios and exhibitors (and the films themselves) relied on these assumed gender roles, it's likely that audiences both played along with these assumptions (in a "performative" sense) as well as reactedin oppositional and contradictory ways. There are some issues with Berenstein work. She seemst o implicitly criticize 1930s film reviewers for speaking of the "horror fan" instead of the "female" (or "male") horror fan. While acknowledging that issues of gender are important, speaking of the "female" horror fan is itself not without problems. For one, it also assumes (and thereby reinforces) a gendered difference in audience reactions to horror. While this difference may be true (to some degree, in some ways) it is an empirical question. Although Berenstein acknowledges a space for male and female audience members to act and react outside of proscribed gender roles, she does so only grudgingly.

This edited collection of essays has the overarching goal of exploring the horror film genre by paying attention to the technical and industrial aspects of film that distinguish horror films from horror in other media (such as literature or comic books). The two general questions that the essays-to one degree or another-address are: what role does technology play in the production of horror films, and what role does technology play in the distribution, exhibition, and reception of horror films? ("technology" defined broadly to include production equipment, industrial mechanisms, ideological mechanisms, etc.). The first section of the book consists of essays that explore various technologies and formal innovations employed in the production of horror films. The second section of the book deals with issues surrounding horror films in the marketplace (advertising, distribution, and reception). Finally, the third section examines discursive and ideological aspects of the horror genre from censorship to fan discourse.

Philip Simpson's chapter entitled "The Horror 'Event' Movie: The Mummy, Hannibal, and Signs" explores horror films as they are positioned as Hollywood blockbusters. These marketing and promotion of these films often downplay or outright deny the film's association with the horror genre (still often seen as a marginal or low brow genre). Simpson argues that these horror 'event' movies reach a larger mainstream audience by using star actors and high profile directors, high production values, and genre mixing. Simpson distinguishes between major studio horror films and "second tier" cult audience films. While it is true that many of the films that Simpson discusses are marketed as something other than horror (either as thrillers, adventure films, or even supernatural thrillers), it is not clear where the division between A-list productions and "second tier" films lies. He cites the $100 million dollar domestic theatrical gross mark as certifying a blockbuster, but fails to cite many of the low budget, independent, or "second tier" horror films that crossed that barrier such as The Blair Witch Project (1999), The Ring (2002), and The Grudge (2004).

In this project I plan to explore the advertising, promotional, and publicity strategies used by studios and distributors to market horror films. I am particularly interested in the marketing strategies employed to market horror in the digital age and will look for both continuities and discontinuities in horror advertising practices across film history. The marketing of horror is, of course, intricately related to other industrial issues such as technology and economic needs, as well as issues related to genre conventions and aesthetics.

 Variety.com - MPAA tries to remove NC-17 stigma: Glickman takes a hard look at ratings

Sat., Mar. 10, 2007

 Variety.com - Fox Atomic brings new twists: Genre Label Adds to Conventional Tactics.

Tue., Feb. 20, 2007

 by Steven Zeitchick

The article discusses the creation of Fox Atomic--a division of Fox Film Entertainment dedicated to genre films and youth markets. However, Fox Atomic doesn't want to just create and market movies, rather "it wants to create entire worlds around those movies." The Fox Atomic website enlists current trends in digital culture to reach out to young, tech savy audiences. The studio has a presence in Second Life called "Fox Atomic Island, a virtual movie studio where citizens can pick up and play with avatars from all its leading pics." It also holds mashup and machinima contests, includes movie related video games on its website, as well as user forums and information on forthcoming releases. In addition, Fox Atomic has created a comics division that will release comics based on movie properties that are not adaptations of the films, but rather engage in "cross-media" storytelling. Current and upcoming film releases include The Hills Have Eyes 2, 28 Weeks Later, and Touristas.

Although other film studios and distributors have a web presence and engage with digital culture, few have ventured quite as far as Fox Atomic. The article remains skeptical as to the success of this strategy as it is still unproven in its ability to generate ticket sales, but this sort of "web 2.0" interactivity and media convergence may be something that film studios can ill afford to ignore.

 

Hawkins builds off of Jeffrey Sconce’s discussion of “paracinema” and “trash aesthetics” to explore the historical relationship between “high-end” avant-garde or art cinema and “low brow” horror and exploitation films. Hawkins seeks to break down the boundaries erected between “high” and “low” by demonstrating the shared stake that both horror and the avant-garde have in challenging mainstream notions of good taste and dominant Hollywood productions. The most interesting aspect of the book is her exploration of mail-order video companies such as Sinister Cinema and Something Weird Video whose photocopied “DIY” catalogs in the 1980s served as a collective space of horror and cult fandom long before the Internet. These catalogs tended to mix cheap exploitation and European art fare often with little distinguishing between the two. The second chapter of the book (“Medium Cool”) explores the culture of collecting inherent in both paracinema video culture and the niche market for Criterion Collection laser discs. Hawkins’s work is important as it captures a particular historical moment, but it also feels woefully out of date. This is not a critique of the book as much as a call for a revised edition that explores paracinema in the digital age (e.g., blogs, fan forums, web mail-order sites, etc.). In addition to patterns of consumption which blur the boundaries between “high” and “low” art, Hawkins explores a number of films which form a sort of hybrid category by combining aspects of art cinema with the horror genre. Her prime example is Georges Franju’s Eyes Without a Face (1959) which combines the formal aesthetics of French “poetic realism” with an exploitation story—and graphic gore—many consider as ushering in (along with Hitchcock’s Psycho [1960]) the slasher subgenre. Ironically, when the U.S. imported Franju’s film to play in the “grindhouse” circuit with the sensational new title of The Horror Chamber of Dr. Faustus, they excised the graphic “face removal” surgical scene which most qualified the film as horror in the first place.

Hawkins’s book provides a useful exploration of how genres circulate within culture often in ways that defy “officially” sanctioned categories and counter to the wishes and intentions of institutions, gatekeepers, and other “taste-makers.”

Heffernan’s book seeks to investigate the economic and industrial aspects of the horror film genre that many scholarly accounts (which typically focus on cultural and/or aesthetic issues) fail to adequately consider. The book focuses on the postwar period (1953-1968); a period comprised of drastic changes in the film industry (i.e., Paramount decree, TV, technological innovation), and charts some of the functions or positions that horror genre pictures filled during this time period. He argues that this period—which is book-ended by 3D technology and the adoption of the MPAA rating system—saw a major cultural and economic shift in the production and reception of horror movies. This was partially due to the Supreme Court’s Paramount decision in 1948 which required the break-up of Hollywood’s vertically integrated system of production, distribution, and exhibition. As Hollywood studios began producing fewer films, independent distributors and exhibitors needed more product to fill out their schedules including B-pictures for the bottom half of popular double-feature bills. Heffernan argues that “low” genres like horror and sci-fi played an important part in the testing and development of new technologies and methods of production, distribution, and advertising to accommodate various changes including suburbanization, the growth of television, new youth markets, and the new economic and business structures of the film industry. Although written as a “corrective” to scholarship which focuses solely on culture and aesthetics, Heffernan avoids “economic determinism” by deftly intertwining the exploration of various aesthetic and formal changes of the horror genre during this period including greater psychological realism and, of course, graphic gore.

Using Philadelphia as his test market, Heffernan chronologically traces the distribution and exhibition patterns of various horror films across both theatrical and television venues. He begins with the early 1950s cycle of 3D horror films arguing that the narrative and stylistic norms of the horror genre could best negotiate the conflicting demands of “attraction” (the gimmick shots) and narrative integration of the classical Hollywood model, and also detailing the challenges faced by small theater owners to equip theaters to show 3D. Heffernan continues through the 50s and 60s exploring the impact of Hammer’s color saturated and bloody Gothic updates of the classic Universal monsters, how shortages in production from majors caused independent distributors and exhibitors to get into the production business, how the rise in art theaters utilized both exploitation/genre films and art cinema (i.e., “paracinema”), and the rise of “adult” horror in the late 60s. Overall, Heffernan’s book is well-researched, clearly written, and provides a wealth of knowledge for film scholars interested in the economic side of the industry—especially those interested in genre film. The only quibble is with the brief conclusion “The Horror Film in the New Hollywood.” It feels not only tacked on, but somewhat dismissive of the horror film post-1968. He also makes some broad—and I believe incorrect—claims such as that in the 1980s horror film spectacle overwhelms narrative. This comment flies in the face of the convincing arguments he lays out in discussing the intricate relation between technology and genre film of the 50s and 60s (such as horror’s ability to navigate 3D and narrative).

An advertisement for Stanley Theatre’s (located at 19^th and Market) showing of Island of Lost Souls that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the city’s premiere newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer. It also appears that the Stanley Theatre along with the Stanton Theatre were the major venues for horror films in Philadelphia during this time. By Conor Fitzpatrick

Example of a film review of Island of Lost Souls that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the city’s premiere newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer. It must be noted that this article is contained within the “What’s Playing in the Theaters This Week” section and the article is best described as a hybrid of a film review and an advertisement. With that said, the title of the article, “STANLEY,” refers to the movie theater located on 19th and Market in which the movie was exhibited. By Conor Fitzpatrick

An advertisement for Stanton Theatre’s (located at 16^th and Market) showing of The Invisible Man that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the city’s premiere newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer. It also appears that the Stanton Theatre along with the Stanley Theatre were the major venues for horror films in Philadelphia during this time. By Conor Fitzpatrick

Example of a film review of The Invisible Man that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the city’s premiere newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer. It must be noted that this article is contained within the “What’s Playing in the Theaters This Week” section and the article is best described as a hybrid of a film review and an advertisement. With that said, the title of the article, “STANTON,” refers to the movie theater located on 16th and Market in which the movie was exhibited. By Conor Fitzpatrick

Horror poster art / edited by Tony Nourmand and Graham Marsh ; foreword by Christopher Frayling. [1845130103 (pbk.) ] London : Aurum, 2004.

Island of Lost Souls Film Poster

This is a film poster that may have appeared in the city of Philadelphia. By Conor Fitzpatrick

An advertisement for Stanley Theatre’s (located at 19^th and Market) showing of King Kong that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the one of the city’s newspapers, the Philadelphia Public Ledger. It also appears that the Stanley Theatre along with the Stanton Theatre were the major venues for horror films in Philadelphia during this time.  By Conor Fitzpatrick

An advertisement for Stanley Theatre’s (located at 19^th and Market) showing of Frankenstein that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the one of the city’s newspapers, the Philadelphia Public Ledger.  It appears that the Stanley Theatre along with the Stanton Theatre were the major venues for horror films in Philadelphia during this time. Also, it is very important to point out that the advertisement includes a warning that advises parents not to send their children to the film, unless accompanied by an adult. This “warning” may be a clever publicity stunt or a genuine advisory note.  By Conor Fitzpatrick

An advertisement for Stanley Theatre’s (located at 19^th and Market) showing of Dracula that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the one of the city’s newspapers, the Philadelphia Public Ledger. It also appears that the Stanley Theatre along with the Stanton Theatre were the major venues for horror films in Philadelphia during this time. The ad contains no specific information of when or where the film will premiere, but instead simply states that “Dracula is Coming.” The purpose of this ad is simply to create a kind of mystery/word of mouth “buzz.”  By Conor Fitzpatrick

An advertisement for Stanley Theatre’s (located at 19^th and Market) showing of King Kong that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in one of the city’s newspapers, the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin. It also appears that the Stanley Theatre along with the Stanton Theatre were the major venues for horror films in Philadelphia during this time.  By Conor Fitzpatrick

An advertisement for Stanley Theatre’s (located at 19^th and Market) showing of Frankenstein that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in one of the city’s newspapers, the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin.  It appears that the Stanley Theatre along with the Stanton Theatre were the major venues for horror films in Philadelphia during this time. Also, it is very important to point out that the advertisement includes a warning that advises parents not to send their children to the film, unless accompanied by an adult. This “warning” may be a clever publicity stunt or a genuine advisory note. The ad, released on the film’s opening day, highlights the midnight showing of the film.  By Conor Fitzpatrick

Example of a film review of Dracula that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the one of the city’s newspapers, the Philadelphia Public Ledger. It must be noted that this article is contained within the “Screen Features Now Showing” section and the article is best described as a hybrid of a film review and an advertisement. With that said, the title of the article, “‘Dracula’ – Stanley,” refers to the movie theater located on 19^th and Market in which the movie was exhibited.  By Conor Fitzpatrick

An advertisement for Stanley Theatre’s (located at 19^th and Market) showing of Dracula that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the one of the city’s newspapers, the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin.  It appears that the Stanley Theatre along with the Stanton Theatre were the major venues for horror films in Philadelphia during this time.  By Conor Fitzpatrick

Example of a film review of Frankenstein that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in one of the city’s newspaper, the Philadelphia Public Ledger. It must be noted that this article is contained within the “What Theatres Headline” section and the article is best described as a hybrid of a film review and an advertisement. With that said, the title of the article, “‘Frankenstein’ – Stanley,” refers to the movie theater located on 19^th and Market in which the film was exhibited. By Conor Fitzpatrick

An article published in the Philadelphia Public Ledger that discusses the various themes raised in the movie and how producer Carl Laemmle Jr. tried to insure that the film’s medical practices/methods were accurate.  By Conor Fitzpatrick

Example of a film review of Murders in the Rue Morgue that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the one of the city’s newspapers, the Philadelphia Public Ledger. It must be noted that this article is contained within the “What the Theatres Headline” section and the article is best described as a hybrid of a film review and an advertisement. With that said, the title of the article, “Mad Doctor and Ape – Stanton,” refers to the movie theater located on 16^th and Market in which the film was exhibited. By Conor Fitzpatrick

An advertisement for Stanton Theatre’s (located at 16^th and Market) showing of Murders in the Rue Morgue that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the one of the city’s newspapers, the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin.  It appears that the Stanton Theatre along with the Stanley Theatre were the major venues for horror films in Philadelphia during this time.  By Conor Fitzpatrick

Example of a film review of King Kong that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the one of the city’s newspapers, the Philadelphia Public Ledger. It must be noted that this article is contained within the “What the Theatres Headline” section and the article is best described as a hybrid of a film review and an advertisement. With that said, the title of the article, “Prehistoric Ape – Stanley,” refers to the movie theater located on 19th and Market in which the movie was exhibited.  By Conor Fitzpatrick

An advertisement for Stanley Theatre’s (located at 19^th and Market) showing of King Kong that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in one of the city’s newspapers, the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin. It also appears that the Stanley Theatre along with the Stanton Theatre were the major venues for horror films in Philadelphia during this time.  By Conor Fitzpatrick

Still Images of Stanton and Stanley Theatres. Glazer, Irvin R., 1922-. Philadelphia theaters : a pictorial architectural history / Irvin R. Glazer. [0486278336 :] Philadelphia : Athenaeum of Philadelphia ; New York : Dover Publications, c1994.

Pictures of Stanley and Stanton theatres, the two premiere venues for exhibiting horror films in Philadelphia.  By Conor Fitzpatrick

The Mummy Film Poster. Art by Karoly Grosz. Horror poster art / edited by Tony Nourmand and Graham Marsh ; foreword by Christopher Frayling. [1845130103 (pbk.) ] London : Aurum, 2004.

This is a film poster that may have appeared in the city of Philadelphia. By Conor Fitzpatrick

Horror poster art / edited by Tony Nourmand and Graham Marsh ; foreword by Christopher Frayling. [1845130103 (pbk.) ] London : Aurum, 2004.

Murders in the Rue Morgue Film Poster

This is a film poster that may have appeared in the city of Philadelphia. By Conor Fitzpatrick

Horror poster art / edited by Tony Nourmand and Graham Marsh ; foreword by Christopher Frayling. [1845130103 (pbk.) ] London : Aurum, 2004.

King Kong Film Poster. Art by S. Barret McCormick & Bob Sisk.

This is a film poster that may have appeared in the city of Philadelphia. By Conor Fitzpatrick

Horror poster art / edited by Tony Nourmand and Graham Marsh ; foreword by Christopher Frayling. [1845130103 (pbk.) ] London : Aurum, 2004.

White Zombie Film Poster

This is a film poster that may have appeared in the city of Philadelphia. By Conor Fitzpatrick

Horror poster art / edited by Tony Nourmand and Graham Marsh ; foreword by Christopher Frayling. [1845130103 (pbk.) ] London : Aurum, 2004.

Freaks Film Poster

This is a film poster that may have appeared in the city of Philadelphia. By Conor Fitzpatrick

Horror poster art / edited by Tony Nourmand and Graham Marsh ; foreword by Christopher Frayling. [1845130103 (pbk.) ] London : Aurum, 2004.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Film Poster

This is a film poster that may have appeared in the city of Philadelphia.  By Conor Fitzpatrick

“Stanley Theatre” and “Stanton Theatre” from Glazer, Irvin R., 1922-. Philadelphia theatres, A-Z : a comprehensive, descriptive record of 813 theatres constructed since 1724 / Irvin R. Glazer. [031324054X (lib. bdg. : alk. paper)] Westport, Conn. : Greenwood Press, c1986. (Pg. 214-6)

This excerpt gives a brief history of the Stanley and Stanton theatres, both of which were primary outlets for the exhibition of horror films in Philadelphia. By Conor Fitzpatrick

The article details the author’s opinions on several films he does not consider “art.” Also, the author includes more realistic/psychological horror films such as Fritz Lang’s M that he believe to me more shocking/scary than fantastical horror films.  By Conor Fitzpatrick

The article details how many of the special effects/creatures were created for King Kong.  By Conor Fitzpatrick

The article details the public rejection of Freaks and helps explain why the film was not shown in any mainstream theaters in Philadelphia.  By Conor Fitzpatrick

The article details an author’s reading of the poorly received and widely rejected horror film, Freaks. Also, the article reveals that Freaks was shown in a North Broad St. theater, which did not advertise in the Inquirer. This seems to suggest that Freaks was not exhibited at any mainstream theaters in Philadelphia (It was shown in New York, San Diego, and other major cities where it was severely rejected). It also describes several other horror films such as Island of Lost Souls.  By Conor Fitzpatrick

Example of a film review of King Kong that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the city’s premiere newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer. It must be noted that this article is contained within the “What’s Playing in the Theaters This Week” section and the article is best described as a hybrid of a film review and an advertisement. With that said, the title of the article, “STANLEY,” refers to the movie theater located on 19th and Market in which the movie was exhibited.  By Conor Fitzpatrick

The article details how Wills O’Brien created certain special effects/creatures featured in King Kong. By Conor Fitzpatrick

A still image of the film, King Kong, which appears in the “What’s Playing in the Theaters This Week” section of the Philadelphia Inquirer.  By Conor Fitzpatrick

An advertisement for Stanley Theatre’s (located at 19^th and Market) showing of King Kong that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the city’s premiere newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer. It also appears that the Stanley Theatre along with the Stanton Theatre were the major venues for horror films in Philadelphia during this time.  By Conor Fitzpatrick

An advertisement for Stanley Theatre’s (located at 19^th and Market) showing of Dracula that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the city’s premiere newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer. It also appears that the Stanley Theatre along with the Stanton Theatre were the major venues for horror films in Philadelphia during this time. The ad contains no specific information of when or where the film will premiere, but instead simply states that “Dracula is Coming.” The purpose of this ad is simply to create a kind of mystery/word of mouth “buzz.” By Conor Fitzpatrick

Example of a film review of White Zombie that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the city’s premiere newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer. It must be noted that this article is contained within the “What’s Playing in the Theaters This Week” section and the article is best described as a hybrid of a film review and an advertisement. With that said, the title of the article, “STANTON,” refers to the movie theater located on 16th and Market in which the film was exhibited. The review calls White Zombie the “eeriest and most fantastic story ever pictured for the screen.” By Conor Fitzpatrick

Example of a film review of Frankenstein that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the city’s premiere newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer. It must be noted that this article is contained within the “What’s Playing in the Theaters This Week” section and the article is best described as a hybrid of a film review and an advertisement. With that said, the title of the article, “STANLEY,” refers to the movie theater located on 19th and Market in which the film was exhibited. By Conor Fitzpatrick

Example of a film review of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the city’s premiere newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer. It must be noted that this article is contained within the “What’s Playing in the Theaters This Week” section and the article is best described as a hybrid of a film review and an advertisement. With that said, the title of the article, “STANLEY,” refers to the movie theater located on 19th and Market in which the film was exhibited. The review highlights the genius of the book and how many actors have attempted the role of Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde. By Conor Fitzpatrick

Example of a film review of The Mummy that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the city’s premiere newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer. It must be noted that this article is contained within the “What’s Playing in the Theaters This Week” section and the article is best described as a hybrid of a film review and an advertisement. With that said, the title of the article, “STANTON,” refers to the movie theater located on 16th and Market in which the film was exhibited. The review mentions that the writer of the film, John L. Balderson, was once a “Philadelphia newspaperman.” By Conor Fitzpatrick

Example of a film review of Dracula that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the city’s premiere newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer. It must be noted that this article is contained within the “What’s Playing in the Theaters This Week” section and the article is best described as a hybrid of a film review and an advertisement. With that said, the title of the article, “STANLEY,” refers to the movie theater located on 19^th and Market in which the movie was exhibited. By Conor Fitzpatrick

An advertisement for Stanton Theatre’s (located at 16^th and Market) showing of The Mystery of the Wax  Museum that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the city’s premiere newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer. It also appears that the Stanton Theatre along with the Stanley Theatre were the major venues for horror films in Philadelphia during this time. The ad contains no specific information of when or where the film will premiere, but instead simply states that “What is the Amazing Mystery of the Wax Museum?” The purpose of this ad is simply to create a kind of mystery/word of mouth “buzz.”  By Conor Fitzpatrick

An advertisement for Stanton Theatre’s (located at 16^th and Market) showing of The Mummy that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the city’s premiere newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer.  It appears that the Stanton Theatre along with the Stanley Theatre were the major venues for horror films in Philadelphia during this time.  By Conor Fitzpatrick

An advertisement for Stanton Theatre’s (located at 16^th and Market) showing of White Zombie that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the city’s premiere newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer.  It appears that the Stanton Theatre along with the Stanley Theatre were the major venues for horror films in Philadelphia during this time.  By Conor Fitzpatrick

An advertisement for Stanley Theatre’s (located at 19^th and Market) showing of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde  that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the city’s premiere newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer.  It appears that the Stanley Theatre along with the Stanton Theatre were the major venues for horror films in Philadelphia during this time. Also, the ad states that the film is “more terrifying that Frankenstein!”  By Conor Fitzpatrick

An article published in the Philadelphia Inquirer that details how the filmmakers decided on and created the look of the Frankenstein make-up/costume.  By Conor Fitzpatrick

An article published in the Philadelphia Inquirer that explores whether producer Carl Laemmle’s “no children, unless accompanied adult warning” issued for Frankenstein was an elaborate publicity stunt or a genuine advisory note.  By Conor Fitzpatrick

A still image of the film, Dracula, that appears in the “What’s Playing in the Theaters This Week” section of the Philadelphia Inquirer. By Conor Fitzpatrick

An advertisement for Stanley Theatre’s (located at 19^th and Market) showing of Dracula that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the city’s premiere newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer. It appears that the Stanley Theatre along with the Stanton Theatre were the major venues for horror films in Philadelphia during this time. This advertisement was released on the day of Dracula’s Philadelphia premiere and includes the location and name of the theater playing the film. By Conor Fitzpatrick

An advertisement for Stanley Theatre’s (located at 19^th and Market) showing of Dracula that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the city’s premiere newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer. It appears that the Stanley Theatre along with the Stanton Theatre were the major venues for horror films in Philadelphia during this time. Also, the ad highlights the midnight showing of the film. By Conor Fitzpatrick

An advertisement for Stanley Theatre’s (located at 19^th and Market) showing of Frankenstein that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the city’s premiere newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer. It appears that the Stanley Theatre along with the Stanton Theatre were the major venues for horror films in Philadelphia during this time. Also, it is very important to point out that the advertisement includes a warning that advises parents not to send their children to the film, unless accompanied by an adult. This “warning” may be a clever publicity stunt or a genuine advisory note. By Conor Fitzpatrick

An advertisement for Stanley Theatre’s (located at 19^th and Market) showing of Dracula that was circulated throughout Philadelphia as it was placed in the city’s premiere newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer. It appears that the Stanley Theatre along with the Stanton Theatre were the major venues for horror films in Philadelphia during this time. Also, it is of worth to note that the ad highlights that the film was “held over,” meaning that the film continued to be shown in the theaters in lieu of a new film. By Conor Fitzpatrick

Baird, Robert. "The Startle Effect: Implications for Spectator Cognition and Media Theory." Film Quarterly. 53.3 (Spring 2000): pp. 12-24.

Humans (and animals for that matter) possess a startle reflex. Objects abruptly entering our visual space or loud noises can cause us to recoil. At the most basic level this is likely a hard-wired evolutionary adaptive mechanism which helps protect us from potential dangers in our environment. But this reflex has also benefited filmmakers, stage directors, and other entertainers as it is used to shock and thrill audiences. The "startle effect" has become such an ingrained part of horror and suspense films that we take it for granted. Baird very aptly explores both the formal conventions of the startle effect in film and what implications this may have for theories of spectatorship. Although "startles" have often been dismissed as being juvenile and representing crude sensationalism, Baird shows through formal breakdown of famous "startle" scenes such as in Alien (1979) the skill and craft required to create effective startles.

Noel Carroll is trained as both a philosopher (aesthetics, philosophy of art) and a film scholar. Carroll's book seeks to provide a definition of fictional horror (novels, film, tv shows, etc.) and to explore our emotional and cognitive engagement with horror, or to put it another way, why are we afraid of fictional horror and why do we like it? First, Carroll introduces the term "art-horror" to describe fictional horror and distinguish it from real life horrors. Carroll's definition of "art-horror" is primarily object-based, that a work of art is part of the horror genre if it includes an impure entity which violates cognitive and cultural categories (i.e., a monster) and is threatening. Carroll then explores the "paradox" of the subtitle, which is why are people afraid of fiction? The more general question addressed is how does fiction generate emotions in its audience. This section is the most philosophical as Carroll explores various theories such as the "illusion theory" of fiction and the "pretend theory" of fiction. Carroll also spends considerable time exporing characteristic horror plots and the relation between suspense and horror. The main criticism of the book which many have pointed out is that Carroll's definition of horror is too narrowly circumscribed as it excludes from horror those fictions which present humans as the agents of horror and threat including, for example, a large percentage of the modern horror film (from Psycho to Texas Chainsaw Massacre to Hostel) and also many of the stories by Edgar Allan Poe. This seems wrong both intuitively and categorically. However, I think there are ways to reconcile Carroll's theory with these types of "non-monster" horrors (Carroll even alludes to this possibility himself) and either way Carroll's book is still extremely valuable and useful for anyone studying the horror genre. It is a must read.

Excellent collection of essays on the history of the horror film, the aesthetics of horror, and audience reception of the horror film. Many of the essays presented here can be seen as useful companion pieces to Noel Carroll's seminal book The Philosophy of Horror or Paradoxes of the Heart (1990) as they continue to explore the question of horror affect and why people like to be scared by movies. Also of particular interest are two essays which discuss the under-explored silent-era horror film (see below).

"Shadow-Souls and Strange Adventures: Horror and the Supernatural in European Silent Film" by Casper Tybjerg

Tybjerg argues that despite the fact that most histories of the horror film begin their story with the first Hollywood sound horror films, Tod Browning's Dracula and James Whale's Frankenstein (both 1931), while paying only passing attention to such "precursors" as Murnau's Nosferatu (1922), there are a substantial number of European silent films (especially from Germany, but also from Denmark, Sweden and Russia) that should arguably be considered a part of the horror genre proper due to their common features of the supernatural and depictions of nightmarish situations. Tybjerg also usefully explores the relation between "fantastic" literature of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and the development of the horror film in Germany in the 1910s and 1920s which, of course, served as an influence for the "golden age" of the Hollywood sound horror film of the 1930s.

"Before Sound: Universal, Silent Cinema, and the Last of the Horror-Spectaculars" by Ian Conrich.

Conrich performs a service similar to Tybjerg's but this time concentrates on the cycle of "horror-spectaculars" produced by Universal before the advent of sound: The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923), The Phantom of the Opera (1925) and The Man Who Laughs (1928). Conrich does not insist that these pre-sound horror films represented a fully developed genre, but rather that the periodization that tends to be inforced using sync sound as the demarcation can efface continuities and create somewhat false divisions. By tracing certain continuities of technical staff, themes, and film style across this divide, he shows that silent and sound horror films have more in common than often asserted.

Hutchinson, Tom. Horror & Fantasy in the Movies.  New York: Crescent Books, 1974: 13-36.

Hutchinson goes beyond merely mapping out the history of horror cinema, and dedicates the first chapter of his book to revealing the deeper meanings beyond certain horror films.  Behind the blood and monsters, Hutchinson sees social commentary and much more, which the average viewer is completely unaware of.  He events of The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) and concludes that its underlying message is, “that we ought to co-operate or else” (23).  Hutchinson writes that Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), another 1950s sci-fi film, “carries a warning about loss of identity, an all-too-grim idea in a world where individuality is ironed out into uniform characteristics of thought and yes-saying” (23).
Hutchinson begins his analysis with the birth of cinema and the fantasy shorts of George Meliès.  He moves into German Expressionist films, such as Robert Weine’s The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1919) and Fritz Lang’s Metropolis (1926) (19-21).  He also refers to Hitchcock’s The Birds (1963) and Jacques Tourneur’s Cat People (1942) as further examples of horror films with social messages (23).  Hutchinson argues though, that one cannot simply voice these messages, or warnings, to the audience directly.  As he says, they must be “wrapped up in trappings of tinsel before they will be accepted” (28).
Don’t Look Now (1972) is one of those films whose meaning is “wrapped in trappings of tinsel” (28).  Hutchinson explains that, “[Donald] Sutherland here carries the seeds of his own destruction within himself, but will never know it” (29).  Reflexively, we are placed in the same position as Sutherland, because we are also unable to interpret the signs to recognize the future (e.g. our doom).  Hutchinson’s argument is that, “[Sutherland] is time-trapped in the way that we all are, unable to move beyond his three-dimensional context” (29).  Hutchinson ties into a theme explored in other sources I have encountered, that of time and space (in Don’t Look Now).  He, unfortunately, does not give the theme an adequate explication (quickly moving to the next film), but he does place the film in relation to other horror films that do more than just scare.  One is easier able to understand Don’t Look Now, when placed in the context of other horror films...