Week 10:
“That auture criticism is at least partly beside the point is clear from figures such as John Carpenter (Halloween, The Fog) - interviews that would seem to suggest that, like the purveyors of folklore, the makers of film operate on instinct and formula than conscious understanding” (Clover, 5).
While reading this article, I realized there is a lot I want to challenge. Which is why I chose the quote I chose. I think a major glaring issue with a lot of these readings and perspectives lies in how they choose to interpret the artists (filmmakers) motives. Their inherent thoughts and conclusions about the specific subjects they come to aren’t wrong, all of these concepts come down to opinion and interpretation, opinions in their nature aren’t inherently wrong. Where the issue lies is in how there seems to be a belief that these filmmakers and artists are intentionally going about making they decisions they do out of ignorance or random thought. Or interpreting their motives to present their theory as if it had any grounding with the artists the day they were on set. Which might be true in a few cases, but doesn't apply across the board.
I would love to know if Carol J Clover has ever made a film before. I would love to know if Clover has ever been trying to make a work of art while being faced down by studio interference and low budgets. Have they ever blocked a shot? Have they ever held a camera for the purpose of shooting a narrative piece? Have they ever even been on a set? Of course, one doesn’t need to hold a brush to enjoy or critique paintings, but don’t claim that the genre and artist you’re analyzing is “low art” because it follows a formula. A completely original concept doesn’t exist, and this is something learned and accepted across the industry. Little shopgirls presents this idea, even if they fall into the same problem of faulty artist interpretation. All film follows a formula, some more obvious than others, slashers DO follow a typical formula. I can argue though, some slashers change the formula or use it for a deeper thematic meaning. Take Wes Craven’s Scream for example, many of the ideas within the film follow what Clover is speaking of. Although presenting the movie as a satirical love letter to the slasher genre.
The Town That Dreader Sundown was one of the first notable examples of the slasher as we know it today. It inspired Carpenter in the creation of Halloween a few years later. Inspiration is working off of instinct, yes, but to make the claim that there isn’t a conscious understanding is ridiculous. Do a lot of the same ideas arise between both films, yes, is this formula, yes. Yet, there is something that differentiates both, and that is Michael Meyers. Meyers is a complex character that delves deep into the human mind and psyche, even if it isn’t inherently there to be spoon fed to audiences this idea is true.
I even agree that formula can even be a bad thing. Like in modern Hollywood we are plagued by formula and it hinders the art form. This is a fine line though in trying to not follow or following a formula, which even if you aren’t trying you’re following a formula in some way.
Like I mentioned before, I think certain aspects to Clover’s analysis are valid and interesting. Such as their thoughts on gender and how the slasher genre depicts women in a negative way. Or how the Final Girl offers aspects of masculinity that are harmful. Same for authors of the other readings and their conclusions, no problem there. I think though, maybe their conclusions and interpretations would be a little more grounded in reality and honest if they were able to be apart of a film set and really understand how and more importantly WHY these films they are commenting on get made. Of course, thats just my thoughts and perspectives, maybe I’m completely wrong. Just a useless opinion.
