"Hollywood Gothic: The American Horror Film"

Session 2004-2005 FS40CB Credits / 6 Weeks Hollywood Gothic: The American Horror Film Seminars: Monday 11-1, Taylor A19 Thursday 11-1, Taylor A19 Screenings: Tuesday 12-3, Taylor A19 Friday 12-3, Taylor A19 Course Tutor: Dr. Martin Fradley Old Brewery F02 Office Hours: Wednesday 10-12 Email: m.fradley@abdn.ac.uk Telephone: 01224-272638 Course Moderator: Professor Paul Coates This course guide must be read in conjunction with the following School of English & Film Studies booklets: ‘Guide to Written Work’, ‘Guidance on Avoiding Plagiarism’, Guide to Honours and Level 3 Film Studies. Course Description From its origins in Gothic literature and the nightmarish visions of German Expressionism, the American horror film has been both spectacular and controversial during its prolonged and popular history. Loved and loathed in equal measure, both marginal to and inextricabl y bound within the fabric of everyday life, the horror genre repeatedly holds up an allegorical mirror to the fears, desires and anxieties of American culture through the decades. With the potential l for both progressive and reactionary agendas at play within its generic formulae, the horror film sometimes affirms social categories; at others blurring or even deconstructing the ideological foundations of western culture(s). Working through the genre’s evolution from the 1930s onwards, the course will examine the often sophisticated – and even subversive – trajectories of the American horror film, from the classical output of Universal Studios and RKO in the 1930s and 40s, through the Cold War terrors of the 1950s, onto the genre’s apocalyptic revival in the 1960s and 70s, moving towards the blockbuster r excesses of the 1980s and 90s. Looking in detail at key generic figures, the course will also undertake detailed analysis of sub-genres such as the ‘slasher’ film and ‘body horror’. Mobilising critical frameworks including psychoanalysis, feminist theory, postmodernism, gender theory, auteurism and ideological analysis, Hollywood Gothic offers a serious look at the playful politics of horrific (un)pleasure. Learning Outcomes The boxes below outline the learning outcomes of this course. They are broken down into the intended learning outcomes, how these outcomes will be achieved, and how they will be assessed. 1. The following is a statement of what it is intended the student will learn from this course: A: Knowledge and Understanding of:- Recent agendas of American cinema. The implications of white male representation in Hollywood cinema and more broadly. Theories of gender, ideology and cultural politics. C: Practical Skills – able to:- Think and speak cogently about gender both in relation to film and more broadly. Write critically about a cross-genre range of films and individual stars’ gendered image and personae in relation to wider social, cultural, historical and economic contexts. B: Intellectual Skills – able to:- Think in an informed and advanced way about Hollywood representation. Comprehend the relationship between Hollywood representation and cultural discourses more broadly. Assess the value of conceptual and ideological readings of American films. Critically assess the political investments in narratives of white male suffering and paranoia. D: Transferable Skills – able to:- Discuss and evaluate complex ideas both orally and in writing. Write clearly, with grammatical and idiomatic accuracy. Organise study time effectively. 2. The following is a statement of how the learning outcomes will be achieved: A: Knowledge and Understanding Seminars will contextualise issues pertaining to gender and film narratives/visual representations. Use of directed seminar discussions on discourses of white male ‘crisis’, focusing on films and relevant readings. Use of directed reading of selected critical works; discussion of these in seminars in relation to the films on the course. C: Practical Skills Seminar discussions will develop students’ ability to discuss complex issues relating to gender, representation and film; essay writing develops these skills in writing. Seminar discussions and the written assignment will develop students’ ability to apply critical approaches to film texts and assess their relevance. B: Intellectual Skills Film extracts will be analysed in seminars. Seminar discussion and written work will help students to comprehend the relationship between a wide range of films and the contexts in which they are produced. Use of directed reading of selected critical works; students will be asked to discuss them in seminars, and apply them to analysing film texts. D: Transferable Skills The School’s ‘Guide to Written Work’ formulates the basic rules of correct writing. Feedback on the essay includes comments on writing skills and ability to communicate effectively in writing. Seminar assessment mark encourages effective oral communication skills, which will be further enhanced by structured seminar activities. Written assignments will help students develop writing skills. Clearly specified submission date for written assignment helps students organise study time effectively. 3. The following is a statement of how the learning outcomes will be assessed. A: Knowledge and Understanding Formal assessment of knowledge and understanding of the topics and concepts addressed by the course will occur through the convenor’s monitoring of seminar discussions and written comments on essays. Final assessment in essay and assessment of students participation in seminar discussions. C: Practical Skills Oral skills assessed through effectiveness and cogency of contributions to seminar discussions; ability to speak critically about film texts and critical material. Written skills assessed for clarity of expression, relevance of argument and neatness of presentation. B: Intellectual Skills Assessed formally through essay and seminar assessment mark. Essay assessed for coherent and effective presentation of argument, knowledge of critical approaches of film texts, ability to use filmic evidence and critical works to support arguments. Seminar participation assessed for frequency and quality of contributions to seminar discussions. D: Transferable Skills Assessed for evidence of ability to speak and write coherently about abstract and complex ideas concerning gender and genre. Punctuality of meeting deadlines will be an element of assessment. Course Organisation and Assessment Teaching will take place in two 2-hour seminars per week. Attendance at all classes for Honours students is compulsory. Students who miss more than five classes will have their Class Certificate refused unless the absence is covered by a valid medical certificate, or there are other exceptional circumstances. Students should also refer to the ‘Attendance Requirements’ section of the ‘Guide to Honours and Level 3 Film Studies’. You are also expected to attend two screening sessions per week: Screenings: Wednesday 10-1, Taylor A19. Friday 2-5, Taylor A19. Seminars: Monday 1-3, Taylor A19. Thursday 1-3, Taylor A19. Course Assessment: The course is assessed by an essay (80%) and SAM (20%). Information on Essays: Deadline for Submission: 13.00, Friday 14th May 2004. See end of Course guide for Essay Assignments. Essays should be 2000 – 2500 words long, including quotations and footnotes; you should note that you will be penalised for work which is either too long or too short. Essays should be word-processed wherever possible. You should use the conventions of reference as set out in the ‘Guide to Written Work’. Please take note of the following statement: Good essays will be identified by the quality of argument, use of evidence, relevance to topic and quality of expression. Inaccuracies in punctuation, spelling, grammar, idiom, referencing and bibliography, and sloppiness in presentation (numerous insertions, deletions, coffee stains, etc.) will be penalised by the deduction of up to 4 marks. You should refer to the ‘Guide to Written Work’ for further advice. Students who are referred by the tutor to the Academic Writing Support Programme are strongly advised to make use of this service so as to improve their essay writing skills. There will be no meetings of the course in week 12. Instead, this week will be devoted to essay writing. Essays must be submitted to the School Office by 13.00 of Friday of week 12. Late Submission of Work: 3 marks will be deducted for late submission (up to a week late) without supportive medical evidence. Essays submitted after this date will receive a NIL mark. For further information, refer to the late submission guidelines contained within the ‘Guide to Honours and Level 3 Film Studies’ section on ‘Written Work and Assessment’. Please note: “The University Regulations state that students who believe that illness and/or other personal circumstances may have affected their performance in an element of assessment must submit written details to the Head of Department no later than one week after the due date of the assessment.” Please Also Note: You will be required to familiarise yourselves with the contents of the department’s handout ‘Guidance on Avoiding Plagiarism’, which is available from the Department Office. Level 3 and 4 students should also refer to the plagiarism guidelines contained within the ‘Guide to Honours Guide to Honours and Level 3 Film Studies,’ section on ‘Written Work and Assessment’. Information on Seminars: Each student will be assessed on the basis of their attendance and participation in the class discussions. A high SAM will reflect regularity of attendance, frequency and the quality of participation in tutorials. Each student will be expected to give a formal presentation on at least on of the course films/topics. Reading and Viewing Materials Viewing: The films to be screened on this course will all be made available for additional viewings from Heavy Demand in QML. Please note that films listed under suggested further viewing are not necessarily available in QML, nor are the brief filmographies supposed to be definitive. Reading: The required reading for this course is collected as a Study Pack – FS38XX: Boys in Trouble - White Masculinity in Contemporary Hollywood Cinema. This is available from the Department of English office at a cost of £8. Please note that as this material has been copied in bulk, it is far cheaper for you to purchase the study pack than do the copying yourself. In addition to the study pack, you are also expected to buy and read Susan Faludi’s Stiffed: The Betrayal of Modern Man (London: Vintage, 2000), £8.99. While not dealing with films per se, Faludi’s best-selling book is a keynote text in discussions of male ‘crisis’ in American culture, and as such serves as an influential source of contextual material for the course as a whole. At nearly 700 pages, it is a relatively weighty tome, but it is extremely readable and highly entertaining. Copies have been ordered at the campus branch of Blackwell’s. Additional recommended reading materials are listed both after specific film texts and at the end of this guide; the books will mostly be restricted to heavy demand or a 3-day loan period. The additional reading is sometimes quite extensive: you are not expected to read all of this supplementary material – it is provided as guidance only, though you should of course read as widely as possible on your chosen essay topic. Please also note that not all of this additional critical material is currently stocked in the library: please do not hesitate to contact me if you are having problems tracking down particular items. Introductory Readings: All of the following are useful, if relatively brief, introductions to the genre and critical approaches to it. It is essential that you consult the Robin Wood piece [handout at the first screening], as not only is this arguably the most important and influential single article written on the American horror genre, it is also a touchstone essay whose themes and issues we will return to on a regular basis. To this end, all articles listed below will be useful for future reference. All films will be screened on DVD, except where indicated by a *(= VHS video). Noel Carroll, The Philosophy of Horror (1990). Jeffrey Cohen, “Monster Culture: Seven Theses” in Monster Theory: Reading Culture (1996), pp.3-25. Pam Cook, ‘Genre: Horror and Science Fiction’ in The Cinema Book (1999). Judith Halberstam, “Parasites and Perverts: An Introduction to Gothic Monstrosity” in Skin Shows: Gothic Horror and the Technology of Monsters (1995), pp.1-27. Mark Jancovich, “The Horror Genre and Its Critics” in Horror, pp.7-17. Steve Neale, “Horror” in Genre and Hollywood (2000), pp.93-99. I.C. Pinedo, Recreational Terror: Women and the Pleasures of Horror Film Viewing (1997), esp. pp.9-50. David Punter, “Gothic in the Horror Film, 1930-1980”, The Literature of Terror: The Modern Gothic (1996), pp.96-118. David J. Russell, “Monster Roundup: Reintegrating the Horror Genre” in Nick Browne (ed.), Refiguring American Film Genres: Theory and History (2000), pp.234-254. Andrew Tudor, Monsters and Mad Scientists: A Cultural History of the Horror Movie (1989). Andrew Tudor, “Why Horror? The Peculiar Pleasures of a Popular Genre”, Cultural Studies, 11:3 (1997) [short loan photocopy] Gregory A. Waller, “Introduction to American Horrors” in Ken Gelder (ed.), The Horror Reader (2000), pp.256-264. Tony Williams, “Familial Assault in the American Horror Film”, Hearths of Darkness: The Family in the American Horror Film, pp.13-30. Robin Wood, “An Introduction to the American Horror Film” [handout] WEEK 1: Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde* (Rouben Mamoullian, 1932), Freaks (Tod Browning, 1932). Set Reading: Please consult Robin Wood’s “An Introduction to the American Horror Film” [handout]. Further Reading: Diane Arbus, Diane Arbus (1972) Diane Arbus, Magazine Work (1984). Leslie Fiedler, Freaks: Myths and Images of the Secret Self (1978). Tom Gunning, “The Cinema of Attractions” in Thomas Elsaesser (ed.), Early Cinema: Space, Frame, Narrative (1990), pp.56-62. Joan Hawkins, “’One of Us’: Tod Browning’s Freaks” in Rosemarie Garland Thompson (ed.), Freakery: Cultural Spectacles of the Extraordinary Body (1996), pp.265-276 [short loan photocopy] Joan Hawkins, ‘From Horror to Avante Garde: Tod Browning’s Freaks’ in Cutting Edge: Art Horror and the Horrific Avante Garde (2000). Jack Hunter, Inside Teradome (1995) Mark Jancovich, Horror (1992), pp.44-52. Mary Russo, “Freaks” in Ken Gelder (ed.), The Horror Reader (2000), pp.90-96. Mary Russo, The Female Grotesque (1995) Elaine Showalter, “Dr. Jekyll’s Closet” in Ken Gelder (ed.), The Horror Reader (pp.190-197). David J. Skal, The Monster Show, pp.14-79. Further Viewing: The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Wallace Worsley, 1925); The Phantom of the Opera (Rupert Julian, 1925); The Unknown (Tod Browning, 1927); Island of Lost Souls (Erle C. Kenton, 1932). WEEK 2: Frankenstein (James Whale, 1931), Bride of Frankenstein (James Whale, 1935). Set Reading: Mark Jancovich, Horror, pp.53-61. David Skal, The Monster Show, pp.80-209. Further Reading: Harry Benshoff, “Defining the monster queer in the classical horror film” in Monsters in the Closet: Homosexuality and the Horror Film (1997), p.31-76. Rhona J. Berenstein, Attack of the Leading Ladies: Gender, Sexuality and Spectatorship in Classic Horror Cinema (1996), esp. pp.120-159. Jonathon Lake Crane, Terror and Everyday Life (1994), esp. pp.71-99. Roger Dadoun, “Fetishism in the Horror Film” in James Donald (ed.), Fantasy and the Cinema, pp.39-62. Paul O’Flinn, “Production & Reproduction: The Case of Frankenstein”, in Ken Gelder (ed.), The Horror Reader (pp.114-127). Judith Halberstam, “Making Monsters: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein” in Skin Shows, pp.28-52. Alberto Manguel, Bride of Frankenstein (BFI Classics, 1997) Andrew Tudor, Monster and Mad Scientists (1989). Lyn Phelan, “Artificial Women and Male Subjectivity in 42nd Street and Bride of Frankenstein”, Screen (2000) J.P. Telotte, ‘A “Put Together” Thing: Human Artifice in the 1930s’, Replications (1995), pp.72-90. Tony Williams, “Classical Shapes of Rage: Universal and Beyond”, Hearths of Darkness, pp.31-50. Elizabeth Young, “Here Comes the Bride: Wedding Gender and Race in Bride of Frankenstein” in Barry Grant (ed.), The Dread of Difference (1996), pp.309-337. Elizabeth Young, “Bods and Monsters: The Return of The Bride of Frankenstein” in Jon Lewis (ed.), The End of Cinema as We Know It (2001), pp.225-236). Further Viewing Dracula (Tod Browning, 1931); The Mummy (Karl Freund, 1932); The Old Dark House (James Whale, 1932); White Zombie (Victor Halperin, 1932); The Black Cat (Edgar G. Ulmer, 1934); The Raven (Louis Friedlander, 1935); Son of Frankenstein (Rowland V. Lee, 1939); The Wolf Man (George Waggner, 1941); Gods and Monsters (Bill Condon, 1998); Universal Horror (1999, documentary narrated by Kenneth Brannagh, in audio-visual library collection). WEEK 3: Cat People* (Jacques Tourneur, 1942), Curse of the Cat People* (Robert Wise & Gunther von Fritsch, 1944). Set Reading: E. Ann Kaplan, ‘”The Dark Continent of Film Noir”: Race, Displacement and Metaphor in Tourneur’s Cat People (1942) and Welles’ The Lady from Shanghai (1948)’, in Kaplan (ed.), Women in Film Noir (London: BFI, 1998), pp.183-201. Mark Jancovich, Horror, pp.59-61 J.P. Telotte, “Seeing in the Dark” in Dreams of Darkness: Fantasy and the Films of Val Lewton, pp.1-20. Further Reading: Harry Benshoff, Monsters in the Closet (1996) Barbara Creed, The Monstrous-Feminine: Film, Feminism, Psychoanalysis (1993) James Donald (ed.), Fantasy and the Cinema, esp. pp.136-145. Lizzie Francke, “Seeing in the Dark”, Sight & Sound (June 1993), p.12. Cynthia Freeland, “Feminist Frameworks for Horror Films”, in Bordwell & Carroll (eds.), Post-Theory, pp.195-209. Karen Hollinger, “The Monster as Woman: Two Generations of Cat People”, in Barry Keith Grant (ed.), The Dread of Difference (1996), pp.296-308. Deborah Linderman, ‘Cinematic Abreaction: Tourneur’s Cat People’, in E. Ann Kaplan (ed.), Psychoanalysis and Cinema (London: Routledge, 1990), pp.73-97. Kim Newman, Cat People (BFI Classics, 1999). Kim Newman, “Bring back the cat: Curse of the Cat People”, Sight & Sound 9:11 (Nov. 1999) Linda Rohrer Paige, ‘The Transformation of Woman: The ‘Curse’ of the Cat Woman in Lewton/Tourneur’s Cat People, its Sequel and Remake’, Literature/Film Quarterly 25:4 (1997), pp.291-299. J.E. Siegel, Val Lewton: The Reality of Terror (extracts, 1972) [short loan photocopy] David Skal, The Monster Show, pp.210-227. J.P. Telotte, “Structures of Absence: Cat People” (pp.21-39) and “Fantasy as Reality, Reality as Fantasy: Curse of the Cat People” (pp.112-129) in Dreams of Darkness: Fantasy and the Films of Val Lewton (1985) Tzvetzan Todorov, “Definition of the Fantastic”, in Ken Gelder (ed.), The Horror Reader, pp.14-19. Andrea Weiss, Vampires and Violets: Lesbians in Film (1992) Tony Williams, “Lewton or ‘The Ambiguities’”, Hearths of Darkness, pp.51-71. Robin Wood, “An Introduction ….”, ibid. Robin Wood, “The Shadow Worlds of Jacques Tourneur” in Gordon Fraser (ed.), Personal Views: Explorations in Film (1976). Further Viewing: Leopard Man (Tourneur, 1943); I Walked With a Zombie (Tourneur, 1943); The Ghost Ship (Mark Robson, 1943); Body Snatchers (Robert Wise, 1945); The Seventh Victim (Mark Robson, 1943); Cat People (Paul Schrader, 1982). WEEK 4: Creature from the Black Lagoon (Jack Arnold, 1954), Invasion of the Body Snatchers (Don Siegel, 1955). Set Reading: Mark Jancovich, Horror, pp.62-73. Harry Benshoff, “Pods, Pederasts and Perverts: (Re)criminalizing the monster queer in cold war culture” in Monsters in the Closet, ppp.122-172. J. Hoberman, “Paranoia and the Pods”, Sight & Sound (May 1994), pp.28-31 [handout] Further Reading: Peter Biskind, Seeing is Believing: How Hollywood Taught us to Stop Worrying and Love the 50s (1983) Paul Coates, “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” in The Gorgon’s Gaze: German Cinema, Expressionism and the Image of Horror (1991), pp.87-90. Steve Cohan, Masked Men: Masculinity and the Movies in the 50s (1997) Cyndy Hendershot, “The Atomic Scientist, Science Fiction Films, and Paranoia”, Journal of American Culture 20 (1997), pp.31-41. Mark Jancovich, Rational Fears: American Horror in the 1950s (1996). Patrick Luciano, Them or Us: Archetypal Interpretations of Fifties Alien Invasion Narratives (1987) Timothy Melley, Empire of Conspiracy: The Culture of Paranoia in Postwar America (2000). Marty Roth, ‘Twice Two: The Fly and Invasion of the Body Snatchers in Jennnifer Forrest and Leonard Koos (eds.), Dead RingersL the Remake in Theory and Practice (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2002). David Seed, “Alien Invasions by Body Snatchers and Related Creatures”, in Sage/Lloyd Smith (eds.) The Modern Gothic, pp.152-170. David Seed, ‘American Science Fiction and the Cold War: Literature and Film (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999). David Skal, The Monster Show, pp.228-261. N. Steffen-Fluhr, “Women and the Inner Game of Don Siegel’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Science Fiction Studies 11 (July 1984), pp.139-151. J.P. Telotte, Science Fiction Cinema (2001). Further Viewing: The Day the Earth Stood Still (Robert Wise, 1951); The Thing from Another World (Christian Nyby, 1951); It Came From Outer Space (Jack Arnold, 1953); War of the Worlds (Byron Haskin, 1953); Them! (Gorden Douglas, 1954); It Came From Beneath the Sea (Robert Gordon, 1955); Revenge of the Creature (Jack Arnold, 1955); Tarantula (Jack Arnold, 1955); The Incredible Shrinking Man (Jack Arnold, 1957); Invasion of the Body Snatchers (Phillip Kaufman, 1978); Body Snatchers (Abel Ferrara, 1993). Week 5: Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock, 1960). Set Reading: Laura Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” [short loan photocopy] Linda Williams, “Discipline and Fun: Psycho and Postmodern Cinema”, in Gledhill & Williams (eds.) Reinventing Film Studies (2000), pp.351-378. Further Reading: Carol Clover, Men, Women and Chainsaws (1992). Robert Corber, In the Name of National Security: Hitchcock, Homophobia & the Political Construction of Gender in Postwar America (1993) Barbara Creed, “The Castrating Mother: Psycho” in The Monstrous-Feminine, pp.139-150 Barbara Creed, “Dark desires: Male masochism and the horror film”, in Cohan & Rae Hark, Screening the Male (1993), pp.118-133. Mark Jancovich, Horror, pp.79-82. Mark Jancovich, “Resituating Psycho: paranoid horror and the crisis of identity….”, Rational Fears: American Horror in the 1950s, pp.219-302. Allan Lloyd Smith, “Postmodernism/Gothicism” in Sage & Smith (eds) The Modern Gothic (1996), pp.6-19. Tania Modleski, The Women Who Knew Too Much (1988) Laura Mulvey, “Death Drives: Hitchcock’s Psycho”, Film Studies 2 (2002), pp.5-14. Stephen Rebello, Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho (1990) Mark Seltzer, “The serial killer as a type of person”, in Ken Gelder (ed.), The Horror Reader, pp.97-110. Kaja Silverman, The Subject of Semiotics (1983) Andrew Tudor, Monster and Mad Scientists (1989) Linda Williams, “When the woman looks”, in Doane et al (eds.), Re-visions: Essays in Feminist Film Criticism, pp.83-99. Tony Williams, “To Psycho and Beyond: The Hitchcock Connection”, Hearths of Darkness, pp.72-98. Robin Wood, Hitchcock’s Films Revisited (1989) Slajov Zizek, “In His Bold Gaze My Ruin is Writ Large”, in Ken Gelder (ed.), The Horror Reader, pp.71-77. Slajov Zizek, Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Hitchcock But Were Afraid to Ask Lacan (1989). Further Viewing: Peeping Tom (Michael Powell, 1960 [UK]); The Birds (Hitchcock, 1963). WEEK 6: Rosemary’s Baby (Roman Polanski, 1968). Set Reading: Jenny Diski, “Sitting Inside”, Sight & Sound (April 1995), pp.12-13 [handout] Lucy Fischer, “Birth Trauma: Parturition & Horror in Rosemary’s Baby”, in The Dread of Difference, pp.412-432. Further Reading: Herbert Eagle, ‘Polanski’ in Daniel Goulding (ed.), Five Filmmakers: Tarkovsky, Forman, Poalnski, Szabo, Makavejev (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994), pp.92-155. Mark Jancovich, Horror, pp.83-117 David Skal, The Monster Show, pp.287-306. Sharon Marcus, “Placing Rosemary’s Baby”, Differences 5 (1993), pp.121-153. Tony Williams, “Return of the Native: The Satanic Assaults”, Hearths of Darkness, pp.99-128. Virginia Wright Wexman, Roman Polanski (1985) Robin Wood, Hollywood From Vietnam to Reagan (1986) Further Viewing: Repulsion (Polanksi, 1965 (GB)); The Exorcist (William Friedkin, 1973); It’s Alive! (Larry Cohen, 1973); The Omen (Richard Donner, 1976). WEEK 7: Carrie (Brian DePalma, 1976). Set Reading: S.S. Lindsey, “Horror, Femininity and Carrie’s Monstrous Puberty”, in The Dread of Difference (ibid), pp.279-295. Further Reading: Bruce Babbington, “Twice a Victim: Carrie meets the BFI”, Screen 24:3 (1983), pp.4-18. Barbara Creed, “Woman as Witch: Carrie”, The Monstrous-Feminine, pp.73-86. Keith von Gunden, Postmodern Auteurs: Coppola, Lucas, De Palma, Spielberg and Scorsese (1991). Brian MacKinnon, Misogyny in the Movies: The Brian DePalma Question (1990). David Skal, The Monster Show, pp.353-380. Tony Williams, “The King Adaptations”, Hearths of Darkness, pp.238-249. Robin Wood, “An Introduction to the American Horror Film” Further Viewing: Sisters (DePalma, 1972); The Fury (DePalma, 1978); Ginger Snaps (2000). WEEK 8: Shivers (David Cronenberg, 1975), Rabid (David Cronenberg, 1976). Set Reading: Mark Jancovich, Horror, pp.112-117. Douglas Kellner, “David Cronenberg: Panic Horror and the Postmodern Body”, Canadian Journal of Social and Political Theory, 13:3 (1989), pp.89-101 [handout]. Further Reading: Pete Boss, “Vile Bodies and Bad Medicine”, Screen 27:1 (1983), pp.14-24. Philip Brophy, “Horrality: The textuality of contemporary horror films”, in Ken Gelder (ed.), The Horror Reader, pp.276-284. T.B. Byers, “Terminating the Postmodern: Masculinity and Pomophobia”, Modern Fiction Studies 41 (1994), pp.5-34. Wayne Drew (ed.), BFI Dossier 21: David Cronenberg (1984). Michael Grant, The Modern Fantastic: The Films of David Cronenberg (2000). Piers Handling (ed.), The Shape of Rage: The Films of David Cronenberg (1983) [extracts in short loan photocopy] Maggie Humm, “Cronenberg’s Films and Feminist Theory….”, in Feminism and Film (1997), pp.58-89. Kelly Hurley, “Reading Like an Alien: Posthuman Identity in Ridley Scott’s Alien and David Cronenberg’s Rabid” in Halberstam & Livingston (eds.), Posthuman Bodies (1995), pp.203-244. Linda S. Kauffman, “David Cronenberg’s Surreal Abjectiion” in Bad Girls and Sick Boys: Fantasies in Contemporary Art and Culture (1998), pp.115-145 [short loan photocopy] L.McLarty, “Beyond the Veil of the Flesh: Cronenberg and the Disembodiment of Horror”, in The Dread of Difference (ibid), pp.231-254. Tania Modleski, “The Terror of Pleasure: The Contemporary Horror Film and Postmodern Theory”, in Ken Gelder (ed.), The Horror Reader, pp.285-293. Michael O’Pray, “Fatal Knowledge”, Sight & Sound 1:11 (1992), pp.10-11. Andrew Parker, “Grafting David Cronenberg: Monstrosity, AIDS, Media, National/Sexual Difference” in Marjorie Garber et al (eds.) Media Spectacles (1993), pp.209-231. Christine Ramsay, “Male Horror: On David Cronenberg”, in Paul Smith (ed.), Boys: Masculinities in Contemporary Culture (1996), pp.81-96. William Paul, Laughing Screaming: Modern Hollywood Comedy and Horror (1994). I.C. Pinedo, Recreational Terrors, esp. pp.51-68. Stephen Prince, “Dread, Taboo and The Thing”, Wide Angle 10:3, pp.19-29. Chris Rodley (ed.), Cronenberg on Cronenberg (1997) David Sanjek, “Dr Hobbes’s Parasites: Victims, Victimisation and Gender in David Cronenberg’s Shivers”, Cinema Journal 36:1 (1996), pp.55-74 [short loan photocopy]. Steven Shaviro, “Bodies of Fear: David Cronenberg” in The Cinematic Body (1993). A. Stanbrook, “Cronenberg’s Creative Cancers”, Sight & Sound 58:1 (1989), pp.54-56. Linda Ruth Williams, “”A virus is only doing it’s job”, Sight & Sound (May 1993), pp.32-3. Linda Ruth Williams, “The Inside-Out of Masculinity: David Cronenberg’s Visceral Pleasures” in Michele Aaron (ed.), The Body’s Perilous Pleasures (1999), pp.30-48 [short loan photocopy]. Tony Williams, “Chain Saw Massacres: The Apocalyptic Dimension”, Hearths of Darkness, pp.183-210. Robin Wood, “An Introduction to the American Horror Film”. Further Viewing: The Brood (Cronenberg, 1979); Scanners (Cronenebrg, 1980); Videodrome (Cronenberg, 1982); The Dead Zone (Cronenberg, 1983); The Fly (Cronenberg, 1986); Dead Ringers Cronenberg, 1988); Naked Lunch (Cronenberg, 1991); M.Butterfly (Cronenberg, 1993); Crash (Cronenberg, 1996); eXistenZ (Cronenberg, 1999). “Body Horror”: The Evil Dead (Sam Raimi, 1982); The Thing (John Carpenter, 1982); Evil Dead 2 (Sam Raimi, 1987); Society (Brian Yuzna, 1989). WEEK 9: Halloween (John Carpenter, 1978). Set Reading: Carol Clover, “Her Body, Himself” in Men, Women and Chainsaws, pp.21-65. Further Reading: Brigid Cherry, “Refusing to Look: Female Viewers of the Horror Film”, in Stokes & Maltby (eds.), Identifying Hollywood’s Audiences (1999), pp.187-204. Jonathon Lake Crane, Terror and Everyday Life, esp. pp.132-158. Vera Dika, “The Stalker Film, 1978-81”, in Gregory Waller (ed.), American Horrors: Essays on the Modern American Horror Film (1987), pp.86-101. Judith Halberstam, “Bodies That Splatter: Queers and Chainsaws” in Skin Shows (ibid), pp.138-160. Peter Hutchings, “Masculinity and the Horror Film” in Pat Kirkham & Janet Thumin (eds.), You Tarzan (1993), pp.84-94. Peter Hutchings, “Tearing Your Soul Apart: Horror’s New Monsters” in The Modern Gothic (ibid), pp.89-103. Mikel J. Koven, ‘The Terror Tale: Urban Legends and the Slasher Film’, available online at www.nottingham.ac.uk/film/journal/articles/tale-of-terror.htm Jonathon Markovitz, “Female Paranoia as Survival Skill: Reason or Pathology….”, Quarterly Review of Film & Video, 17: 3 (2000), pp.211-220 Tania Modleski, “The Terror of Pleasure: the Contemporary Horror Film and Postmodern Theory” in Ken Gelder (ed.), The Horror Reader, pp.285-293. S. Neale, “Halloween: Suspense, Aggression and the Look” in B.K. Grant (ed.), Planks of Reason (1984), pp.331-345. David J. Russell, “Monster Roundup: Reintegrating the Horror Genre” in Nick Browne (ed.), Refiguring American Film Genres: Theory and History (2000), pp.234-254. Mark Seltzer, “The serial killer as a type of person” in Ken Gelder (ed.), The Horror Reader, pp.97-110. Jeffrey Sconce, “Spectacles of Death: Identification, Reflexivity, and Contemporary Horror” in Jim Collins et al (eds.), Film Theory Goes to the Movies (1993), pp.103-119. Timothy Shary, ‘The Youth Horror Film: Slashers and the Supernatural’ in Generation Multiplex: The Image of Youth in Contemporary American Cinema (2002), pp.137-179. I.C. Pinedo, Recreational Terror: Women and the Pleasures of Horror Films (1997), esp.9-50. J.P. Telotte, “Through a Pumpkin’s Eye: The Reflexive Nature of Horror” in American Horrors (ibid), pp.114-128. Tony Williams, “The Return of Kronos”, Hearths of Darkness, pp.211-214. Section in Lost Illusions on slashers…… Further Viewing: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Tobe Hooper, 1984); The Eyes of Laura Mars (Irvin Kershner, 1978); Friday the 13th (Sean S. Cunningham, 1980); Dressed To Kill (Brian DePalma, 1980); Halloween 2 (Rick Rosenthal, 1981); Nightmare on Elm Street (Wes Craven, 1984); The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (Tobe Hooper, 1986); Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (John McNaughton, 1986). WEEK 10: Aliens (James Cameron, 1986). Set Reading: Barbara Creed, “Horror and the Monstrous-Feminine: An Imaginary Abjection”, in Fantasy and the Cinema (ibid), pp.63-90. [This essay is also reprinted in abbreviated form in Ken Gelder's The Horror Reader (2000) and in elongated form in Creed's The Monstrous Feminine (1993). Amy Taubin, “Invading Bodies”, Sight & Sound (July 1992), pp.9-10 [handout] Further Reading: Lynda Bundtzen, ‘Monstrous Mothers: Medusa, Grendel and now Alien’ in Gill Kirkup et al (eds.), The Gendered Cyborg: A Reader (London: Routledge, 2000), pp.101-109. Barbara Creed, “Horror and the Archaic Mother: Alien”, in The Monstrous-Feminine, pp.16-30. Catherine Constable, “Becoming the Monster’s Mother: Morphologies of Identity in the Alien Series”, in Annette Kuhn (ed.), Alien Zone 2: The Spaces of Science Fiction Cinema (1999), pp.173-202. Thomas Doherty, “Genre, Gender and the Aliens Trilogy”, in The Dread of Difference, pp.181-199. Pamela Church Gibson, ‘”You’ve been in my life so long now I can’t remember anything else”: Into the labyrinth with Ripley and the Alien’ in Matthew Tinkcum & Amy Villarejo (eds.), Keyframes: Popular Cinema and Cultural Studies (London: Routledge, 2001), pp.35-51. Harvey Greenberg, “Re-imagining the Gargoyle: Psychoanalytic Notes on Alien”, in Constance Penley et al (eds.), Close Encounters: Film, Feminism, Science Fiction (1991), pp.83-106. James H. Kavanagh, “Feminism, Humanism and Science in Alien”, in Annette Kuhn (ed.), Alien Zone: Cultural Theory and Contemporary Science Fiction Cinema (1990), pp.73-81. Stephen Neale, “Issues of Difference: Alien and Blade Runner” in Fantasy and the Cinema, pp.213-23. Judith Newton, “Feminism and Anxiety in Alien” in Kuhn (ed.), Alien Zone (ibid), p.82-90. David Skal, The Monster Show, pp.307-332. Amy Taubin, “The Allure of Decay”, Sight & Sound (Jan 1996), pp.22-25. David Thomson, The Alien Quartet (2000) Robin Wood, “Horror in the 80s”, in Hollywood From Vietnam to Reagan, pp.190-201. Further Viewing: Alien (Ridley Scott, 1979); Alien3 (David Fincher, 1992); Alien Resurrection (Jean-Pierre Jeunet, 1997). WEEK 11: Bram Stoker’s Dracula (Francis Ford Coppola, 1992). Set Reading: Richard Dyer, “Dracula and Desire”, Sight & Sound 3:1 (Jan 1993), pp.8-12 [also in Vincendeau, Literature/Film/Heritage – for reading pack: bunch of other Dracula essays in here as well!!, as well as stuff on Cronenberg]. Vera Dika, “From Dracula – with Love”, in The Dread of Difference, pp.388-400. Further Reading: Nina Auerbach, Our Vampires, Ourselves (1995). Thomas Austin, “Bram Stoker’s Dracula: ‘Gone With the Wind plus fangs’” in Hollywood, Hype and Audiences: Selling and Watching Popular Film in the 1990s (2002), pp.114-151 (a shorter version of this essay can be found in Steve Neale (ed.), Genre and Contemporary Hollywood (2002)). Harry Benshoff, Monsters in the Closet (1996). Jonathon Bignell, Postmodern Media Culture (2000), pp.86-113. Joan Copjec, “Vampires, Breast-feeding and Anxiety” in Ken Gelder (ed.), The Horror Reader, pp.52-63. Francis Ford Coppola & James Hart, Bram Stoker’s Dracula: The Film and the Legend (1992). James Donald, “What’s at Stake in Vampire Films?”, in Fantasy and the Cinema (1989), pp.233-252. Thomas Elsaesser, “Specularity and Engulfment: Francis Ford Coppola and Bram Stoker’s Dracula”, in Neale/Smith, Contemporary Hollywood Cinema (1998), pp.191-208. Carol Fry & John Craig, “’Unfit for Earth, Undoomed for Heaven: The Genesis of Coppola’s Byronic Dracula”, Literature/Film Quarterly 30:4 (2002), pp.271-278. Ken Gelder, Reading the Vampire (1994), esp. pp.86-107. Judith Halberstam, “Technologies of Monstrosity”, in Skin Shows, pp.86-106. Jake Horsley, The Blood Poets: A Cinema of Savagery (1999), pp.407-413. Franco Moretti, “Dialectic of Fear”, in Ken Gelder (ed.), The Horror Reader, pp.148-160. Kim Newman, ‘Bloodlines’ in Ginnette Vincendeau (ed.), Film/Literature/Heritage (London: BFI, 2001), pp.97-101. Paul O’Flinn, ‘”Leaving the West and Entering the East”: Refiguring the Alien from Stoker to Coppolla’ inDeborah Cartmell et al (eds.), Alien Identities (1999), pp.66-86. David Punter, “Mutations of terror: theory and the Gothic” in The Literature of Terror: The Modern Gothic (1996), pp.181-217. David Sanjek, “Same As It Ever Was: Innovation and Exhaustion in the Horror and Science Fiction Films of the 1990s”, in W.W. Dixon (ed.), Film Genre 2000 (2000), pp.111-124. Christopher Sharret, “The Horror Film in Neoconservative Culture”, in The Dread of Difference, pp.253-276. Harry Sheehan, ‘Trust the teller’ in Ginnette Vincendeau (ed.), Film/Literature/Heritage (2001) pp.271-274. Iain Sinclair, ‘Invasion of the Blood’ in Ginnette Vincendeau (ed.), Film/Literature/Heritage (London: BFI, 2001), pp.101-104. David Skal, The Monster Show, pp.333-352. Robin Wood, “Burying the Undead: The Use and Obsolescence of Count Dracula”, in The Dread of Difference, pp.364-378. Slajov Zizek, For They Know Not What They Do: Enjoyment as a Political Factor (1991). Further Viewing: Dracula (Tod Browning, 1931); Martin (George Romero, 1976); The Hunger (Tony Scott, 1983); The Lost Boys (Joel Schumacher, 1987); Near Dark (Kathryn Bigelow, 1987); Interview with the Vampire (Neil Jordan, 1994); The Addiction (Abel Ferrara, 1994). DVDs will be available on a rotational 24-hour loan basis, BUT ONLY IN THE WEEKS THEY ARE NOT BEING SCREENED. Many of these discs contain valuable extras in the form of documentaries/interviews. Please note that the majority of the films on the course are available in the main library’s video collection. Plagiarism – new regulations for Level 3 & 4 students effective from January 2004. You are required to familiarise yourself with the contents of the School’s handout Guidance on Avoiding Plagiarism, which is available from the School Office. Plagiarism (from the Latin, plagiarus – a plunderer) is defined by the University as follows: “the use, without adequate acknowledgement, of the intellectual work of another person in work submitted for assessment. A student cannot be found to have committed plagiarism where it can be shown that the student has taken all reasonable care to avoid representing the work of others as his or her own” The mere inclusion of the source in a bibliography is not, in the view of the University, adequate acknowledgement. All quotations must be acknowledged by placing the words copied in quotation marks and by giving the source of the quotation in a footnote or endnote; similarly all paraphrases of other people’s words or ideas must be indicated by giving the source in a footnote or endnote; the source must also be listed in the bibliography. Plagiarism is a form of intellectual theft, whether the person stolen from is a critic or a fellow student. It is also a form of cheating, and therefore an offence under the University’s Code of Practice on Student Discipline. If a tutor finds evidence of plagiarism in a student’s work, it will be referred to the Head of School, who will interview the student about the matter. If he or she decides that there are good reasons for believing that plagiarism may have occurred, the matter will be referred to the Academic Registrar for investigation under the University’s Code of Practice on Student Discipline. If the allegation of plagiarism is upheld, the student is liable to be awarded a NIL mark for that element of assessment. When a student is judged to have cheated in any component of assessment for more than one course at levels 3 and 4, no degree shall be awarded, unless the Investigating Officer or the Disciplinary Committee chooses to impose a lesser penalty. This updates the information in paragraphs 44 & 45 of the Guide to Honours & Level 3 English, paragraphs 40 & 41 of the Guide to Honours Film Studies and paragraphs 35 & 36 of the Guide to Honours Language & Linguistics. 19 PAGE 17