How to Build a Better Monster

Horror Film: Rewarding Us For Opening Our Eyes

I’ve been reading American Horrors, and J.P. Telotte’s “Through a Pumpkin’s Eye: The Reflexive Nature of Horror” has offered a new way for me to think about the “gaze” in horror film. Although I’ve seen numerous critics focus on the male gaze as a primary concern for horror film, Telotte questions the different “modes of vision” that viewers encounter in film.

I have little background on film structure and conventions, which often means that I’m left to interpret film through literary theory and analysis. Because I’m not a film expert, my basic understanding of mise en scene and editing tends to slip from my mind when I’m reading a film. Of course, I try to make a conscious effort to look for certain clues and signals told through deliberate camera moves and edits, but I ultimately feel that my lack of knowledge (my inability to see things in a film) prevents me from making valuable insights.

I like Telotte’s essay because it focuses on perspective in John Carpenter’s Halloween, illustrating how decisions on how to shoot a scene and from whose perspective it is shown can alter our interpretation of a story. This is probably obvious to film experts, but I was grateful for the reminder that Telotte’s detailed essay provided.

When I watch films, I would say that I am like most moviegoers who are oblivious to film conventions. I tend to focus instead on characters and their actions, interpreting symbols and arriving at ideas about what the film means and how it relays messages. But what Telotte’s essay shows is how a film interacts with the viewer. By manipulating the perspective and vision on screen, a film can have an incredible amount of power over the viewer, thus turning the viewer into an active participant (which in some cases almost makes him or her a character).

By detailing the beginning scene of Halloween, Telotte describes how viewers come to align themselves with the character of Michael. By using a tracking shot, the camera moves toward the house and to one window, through which can be seen Judy Meyers and her boyfriend. The tracking shot allows us to identify with the character of Michael Meyers, Judy’s six-year-old brother, who is outside of the house and looking in.

The use of the tracking shot is useful in leading the viewer to identify with a character. When compared to Psycho, one can see how affective Carpenter’s decision was. In Psycho, the camera pans through a window from an omniscient vantagepoint. The benefit to Hitchcock’s use of perspective is that it is all knowing and is not limited in what information it can “access” for the viewer. However, Carpenter’s shot is through the eyes of Michael. While this shot is limiting because it prevents the viewer from seeing the entire scene, it also makes for great horror film. Because the viewer is limited to one perspective, he or she instantly becomes involved with the character. We become Michael Meyers, a six-year-old who is limited in what he can see through the window. We might get a better feeling for his frustration, and might better understand his fury at his sister, because we have shared in the viewing experience with him.

I’m not saying that we will necessarily learn to commiserate with a serial killer. We do, however, get a better understanding of his world because we have seen it through his eyes.

I now wonder if seeing through the eyes of the killer is actually some kind of lesson. Robin Wood pioneered the theory that horror films represent “our collective nightmares,” and offered that watching them might actually teach us to cope with subconscious feelings. Telotte explains that by watching horror films, “we drive home lessons regarding our resolution of those personal and cultural problems that we are often reluctant to face outside the theater.” In some ways, horror film is a crash course in psychology and the criminal mind. Viewers might take pleasure in watching the horror film because it allows them a glimpse at the bad guy’s inner thoughts. By allowing themselves to share in the killer’s perspective, they might learn a thing or to about how to outsmart him. These moments of exposed thought processes might give viewers the same “thrill” as that received by fans of mystery novels. There is an enjoyment to be had in knowing and understanding the criminal’s mind. After all, the best detectives (the ones who solve the case), are those who can envision what the criminal can do next. Thus, someone can increase his chance for survival if he can predict the next move in the killer’s mind. Survival relies on one’s ability to foresee.

Throughout Halloween, death comes to those who are unable to see it approaching. Judy and her boyfriend become victims to Michael because they do not see him spying on them from outside the window. Then, Judy is preoccupied with her own image as reflected in a mirror; this narcissistic moment prevents her from seeing Michael as he approaches with the knife. Years later, when Michael escapes from the asylum, he claims victims who are unable to see him as an impending threat. He easily kills Lynda, who mistakes him for her own boyfriend, Bob. Michael places a sheet over himself and places Bob’s glasses over the sheet. Because Lynda is unable to see beneath the sheet, Michael tricks and kills her. And then, Annie meets her death because of her inability to perceive danger. While babysitting, she unknowingly places herself at risk when she locks herself in the laundry room where Michael is hiding. Annie is so caught up in her attempt to escape the room that she fails to notice Michael lurking behind her. Annie escapes the laundry room without confrontation, but when she goes to her car and notices steam on the inside of the window, it is too late. She didn’t “see” Michael soon enough.

In slasher films like Halloween, those who survive are those who are aware of their surroundings and are able to see impending danger. By watching horror films, we participate in a hunt for knowledge; we watch how the killer sets up his victims and then how he attacks them, and by the end of the movie, we arrive at a better understanding of how the killer thinks. The end of the film rewards us for participating, because the knowledge we receive by watching could save us from our own collective nightmares.

Posted by Kate Cielinski at November 21, 2004 2:45 PM