A review by biblio_kel
The Science of Women in Horror: The Special Effects, Stunts, and True Stories Behind Your Favorite Fright Films by Kelly Florence, Meg Hafdahl
informative
medium-paced
3.25
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 rather 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 "woman, 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 that took a superficial look at disability in horror. The authors not only used the term "differently abled" but constantly refered 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.
Oh, and let's not forget that bit of Joss Whedon love. I mean, that feels completely appropriate in a book that had just looked at the ways women in the industry have been negatively treated, albeit superficially.
The book was written in 2019 so I'm willing to give the authors (and the relevant director they were interviewing) the benefit of doubt since much of the momentum and revelations regarding Whedan's treatment of female actors occured after publication.
Also, whilst it may be pedantic, it did annoy me how they stated that Daphne du Maurier's "The Birds" was made into a movie by Alfres Hitchcock but then failed to note how the movie is nothing at all like the book. The only similarity is people being attacked by birds - everything else is completely different.
One thing the book did look at, that I really appreciated, was the way older women, and the elderly in general, are portrayed in horror. It's a topic I rarely see mentioned that we need greater discussion and dialogue around.
I'm a big fan of accessible texts and I definitely think this book gives a reader enough information to pique their curiosity and interest on a range of topics relevant to women in horror but it's definitely just an initial stepping stone.
Anyone going into this book expecting in-depth analyses will be disappointed. So to will anyone expecting there to be a focus on science or more than a quick overview of the movies mentioned within the book.
I would still recommend this book to fans of the genre, however, I recommend doing further reading to gain a better understanding of the topics touched on.
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 rather 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 "woman, 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 that took a superficial look at disability in horror. The authors not only used the term "differently abled" but constantly refered 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.
Oh, and let's not forget that bit of Joss Whedon love. I mean, that feels completely appropriate in a book that had just looked at the ways women in the industry have been negatively treated, albeit superficially.
The book was written in 2019 so I'm willing to give the authors (and the relevant director they were interviewing) the benefit of doubt since much of the momentum and revelations regarding Whedan's treatment of female actors occured after publication.
Also, whilst it may be pedantic, it did annoy me how they stated that Daphne du Maurier's "The Birds" was made into a movie by Alfres Hitchcock but then failed to note how the movie is nothing at all like the book. The only similarity is people being attacked by birds - everything else is completely different.
One thing the book did look at, that I really appreciated, was the way older women, and the elderly in general, are portrayed in horror. It's a topic I rarely see mentioned that we need greater discussion and dialogue around.
I'm a big fan of accessible texts and I definitely think this book gives a reader enough information to pique their curiosity and interest on a range of topics relevant to women in horror but it's definitely just an initial stepping stone.
Anyone going into this book expecting in-depth analyses will be disappointed. So to will anyone expecting there to be a focus on science or more than a quick overview of the movies mentioned within the book.
I would still recommend this book to fans of the genre, however, I recommend doing further reading to gain a better understanding of the topics touched on.