From the Mind of Mikel

A University of Worcester Film Studies Blog

Archive for the category “Folklore”

Found-Footage Films & the Visual Rhetoric of the Legend Film

This was a paper I delivered at the annual International Society of Contemporary Legend Research (ISCLR) conference held in Lexington, KY in May 2013.

In “Legendry and the Rhetoric of Truth”, Elliott Oring (2008) proposes legend scholars need to address various rhetorical devices legend storytellers and audiences avail themselves to in performance. In many respects, Oring’s article is perhaps too essentialist and proscriptive to be useful to legend scholars themselves. What I am doing in this paper is to use Oring to develop a framework for a discussion of the legend-films, to look at the rhetorical devices film-storytellers use to convince us of the veracity of their narrative. The film text itself, rather than seeing it as a definitive artistic product, needs to be considered as a variant text; with sequels, remakes, and derivative films displaying both conservative trends within the filmmaking tradition it is self-consciously situated and dynamic variation in creating a ‘new spin’ on this tradition.

paranormal-activity-4-01The films I am discussing here are known as “found-footage” films; a term which is used to describe both artistic installations which use archival film & video footage as a montage and to a contemporary horror movie tradition which purports to be video footage of actual quasi-legendary occurrences. This latter tradition of mockumentary film making is currently very popular with four films in the Paranormal 0Activity series (2007-2012), two Grave Encounters films (2011-2012), and a whole slew of variations on this model. Nor is this tradition limited to American filmmakers: the Spanish [REC] series (2007-2012) and the British Zombie Diaries series (2006-2011) also follow this tradition. Of course, this kind of horror movie goes at least as far back as The Blair Witch Project (1999) if not further back to Cannibal Holocaust (1980).  Legendary topics explored in these films fall into two main camps: documents of the zombie apocalypse and of paranormal hauntings. Although some other variations include aliens (The Fourth Kind [2009] & Cloverfield [2008]), monsters (Evidence [2011]) and demonic possession (The Devil Inside [2012] & The Last Exorcism [2010]).  In discussing these films, my interest lies in how the film constructs its own claims to veracity; in other words, I’m looking at the films’ visual rhetoric, on how it presents its legend materials to convince us of its truth.

In Oring’s article, he divides his schemata into three parts: what he calls “Ethos” (131-138), “Logos” (138-157) and “Pathos” (157-158) [and significantly, not D’Artagnan], but which can be simplified (and made less pretentious) as the Teller, the Tale and the Affect. Each of these parts I shall be discussing in turn. While some of Oring’s discussion is less relevant to films than oral or written variants, I am adapting these ideas as relevant.

Rhetoric of the Legend-Film

The Fourth KindOring begins his schemata by discussing the legend teller, what Oring characterizes as “Ethos”, the “authority of the source”.  For this application to popular films, the question is modified slightly to ask where is the film coming from? The mockumentary style of most of these films opts for an immediacy of experience, of raw footage caught at the point of encounter, rather than having the narrative retold after the fact or second hand. We are dealing with a form of legend-telling that is presentation of the event/experience rather than a representation of that narrative. In The Fourth Kind, recreated docudrama footage starring Milla Jovovich and Will Patton is self-consciously intercut with purported ‘documentary’ evidence, to tell this story of alien abductions.

Historical docudramas, despite their recreation of historical events, often go out of their way to demonstrate the veracity of their production by evoking the historians or other experts who advised them. Sometimes this authority goes so far as to be witnesses to the events portrayed within the film. The case of The Fourth Kind is extreme: having the actors play their roles self-consciously intercut with faux-archival footage is uncommon. Mostly the authority of these films is ascertained by being the footage of the encounter itself. It (whatever ‘it’ is) happens in front of us, as it happened to the person holding the camcorder. We experience the legend narrative almost first hand; the distance to the event is minimalized as much as it can be (Oring, 2008, pp. 133-135). The distance of the narrator to the event is key in ascertaining the veracity of the encounter. In the Paranormal Activity films, for example, the film is a construction of primary video footage of a series of hauntings. When the camera is knocked over by ‘the ghost’, we receive, as experience, that physical assault; because the camera keeps rolling (and the inclusion of that footage in the final film), we have been knocked over too. The distance between tale teller and tale is minimized as much as possible; the technological equipment (the video camera) is the only mediation between us and the encounter.

Grave EncountersIn Grave  Encounters, the film opens with Jerry Hartfield (Ben Wilkinson), a reality TV producer who has the rights to the “Grave Encounters” video footage. Not only does Hartfield’s mediation of the narrative, as someone who is an expert in reality TV, authorize the showing of the footage, he fully admits that the viewers need to make up their own minds as to the veracity of the story. We are positioned as complicit with Hartfield in this narrative we are about to witness. Consider how many of these films presuppose the actual videographers deaths: Cannibal Holocaust, The Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity [all of them], Grave Encounters and even Troll Hunter all work within the rhetorical strategy that the footage was captured at great personal risk to the camera-operator.  Risks which resulted in the deaths of whomever was holding the camera.


The bulk of Oring’s schemata justifiably pertain to the narrative itself; what rhetorical tools do the storyteller use to convince us that their narrative is true. Following suit, I want to look at some of the rhetorical tools filmmakers use to tell their stories. While Oring’s “Logos” is about the belief and commentary of the legend’s core, he also suggests (appropriately, I think) that these narratives are discursive; that they function to facilitate larger discussions about their accuracy than to offer essentialist acceptance or disbelief.

Grave EncountersTo begin with, these films are presented in a linear fashion; that is, the narrative progresses, prosaically, from event A to B and onwards. These films mostly avoid flashbacks, although the later Paranormal Activity films do include a few sequences out of order to connect the current film within the series. More significantly are the films’ lengthy introductions; these movies take a while to get going and are often filled with banal young people being horrid. However, as Oring noted, the extraneous details often included in legend narratives work towards grounding the story in our own worlds. These sequences within the film are therefore rhetorical strategies to link the film narrative within the lived experiences of the intended audience. These films are almost all R-rated, yet are focused on “younger” adults (late teens/early twenties). In Grave Encounters 2, the film opens with Alex’s experiences as a film student at university; presumably, this is the intended audience of the film – university-aged kids. Grave Encounters, focusing on the pilot episode of a fictional ghost-hunting show, is rooted within the cheesy posturing of actual ghost-hunting shows which, presumably, the filmmakers anticipate their audience will be familiar with.  In both of these examples, the “slow build” to anything paranormal happening are to give the narrative details that Oring identified in legend-telling rhetoric.

Troll HunterThe tone of the film is often crucial to the rhetoric of the truth claims. These films are almost always presented earnestly. The encounters chosen tend to be serious, rather than flippant – ghosts, aliens, zombies, etc. Micah, for example in Paranormal Activity, is largely incredulous to the haunting and exacerbates the events by openly challenging the presence for proof (including bringing in a Ouija board). In Paranormal Activity 3, Randy and Katie play “Bloody Mary” together and hope to meet Toby, the presence haunting this family across way too many sequels. Micah’s incredulity costs him his life, and Randy is so frightened by the encounter he quits his job and never visits again, much like the babysitter earlier in the film. Even in the almost parodic Troll Hunter, wherein fairy-tale trolls are discovered to live in the Norwegian north, the laughter in the film is of surprise and excitement, not mocking or dismissive of the discovery.  The cheesy ghost-hunting show “Grave Encounters” effectively turns the tables on these frauds by encountering actual ghosts in an abandoned insane asylum.  And the experience ends in all their deaths.

Paranormal ActivityOring identifies narrative framing particular to legends; he distinguishes between “words-as-words” and “words-as-worlds” (Oring, 2008, p. 140). When the narrative is explicitly told as a narrative, that is, its story-telling-ness is foregrounded, the account has less veracity than if the narrative attempts to present the world itself. Regardless of the accuracy of the account or the authority of the source material, a film’s veracity is diminished when its artifice is considered. In a docudrama, wherein actors are playing roles and sets are built (and in particular when special effects are used) there is a level of artificiality involved. When the film is presented as unmediated footage, the veracity increases. The Amityville Horror may be based on a true story (even if ultimately that story was discounted), but the 1979 film starring James Brolin, Margot Kidder and Rod Steiger, is a representation (rather than presentation) of the narrative. To demonstrate the opposite, despite Paranormal Activity being completely fictional, it’s apparent presentation of actual occurrences – including the absence of opening or closing credits – was sufficiently persuasive for my barber to assure me the first Paranormal Activity film was a ‘true story’.

Apartment 143Oring suggests that the apparent lack of artistry in legend telling, supports the narrative’s truthfulness; the story’s own logic and prosaic events resists aesthetic embellishments (Oring, 2008, p. 154). Certainly in the found-footage films, the cinematography is meant to convey prosaic truthfulness, not pretty pictures. These are ugly films because the aesthetics of composition are designed to only convey visual information. “Realism”, as an aesthetic concern, is received as inauthentic; the visual element in these films is imperfect to therefore increase believability. Probably half the shots in the entire film Apartment 143 are from overhead surveillance camera angles designed to show as much of the room as possible.

/ In The Devil Within, the opening few minutes of the film does several of these moves one after the other.

First of all, the Vatican denies the legitimacy of exorcism and the evidence presented in the film. Dates are given which specifies when the events documented took place. 911 audio, with on-screen transcription, is presented which seems to be authentic. The evidence of the 911 call is supported by what is reputed to be authentic police documentation of the murder scene, presented in unemotional distanced evidentiary manner.  Archival news footage of the events corroborates the police account. And finally, interview footage with Isabella Rossi, Maria’s daughter, further corroborating what happened, but offering an alternative interpretation on the events and including home video footage. Six different types of evidence are presented, each of which supports the previous one in some way. Even commentary from consulting neurologist Dr. Jeff Victoroff, apparently playing himself, suggesting that Maria’s case is one of mental illness not demonic possession works to uphold this discursive aspect to the legend-film. The Devil InsideThe Devil Within went so far to not only corroborate its own (fictional) narrative, but also, as part of that strategy, also to potentially debunk it. The first-person videography of the film counters any attempt at debunking by presenting raw footage of exorcisms; so we are either to believe the scientists who have only passingly diagnosed Maria Rossi as mentally ill or our own eyes. At the end of the film, viewers are encouraged to go to the film’s webpage ( for more information on how the investigation is progressing, combining fake pages about the film with actual links to discussions and documentation about possession and exorcism. Alas, at the time of writing, this webpage seems to have been taken down, probably by the Vatican in a conspiracy of silence against the truth.


The Rossi FilesFinally, we come to “Pathos”, by which Oring means the rhetorical devices used to evoke certain emotions and responses from the audience. Affect is of course different from effect; the former is the intended response while the latter is the actual response; so in this case, we are looking for what the filmmaker anticipates our reaction to be by the construction of the narrative. With the inclusion of the “Rossi Files” webpage at the end of The Devil Inside, the filmmakers not only intend for the film’s audience to go to the webpage when they get home, there is also a suggestion that the audience will be scrambling for a pen and paper in the dark of the cinema. There’s also the suggestion, as it happened with me, that seeing the film on DVD, particularly a DVD watched on one’s laptop, that one will instantly go and check out that page. The inclusion of that Internet address then suggests activity post-screening, regardless of the actuality of that activity.

Of course, with all these films, the intention is to frighten us. Oring notes that legends are “more likely to be regarded as true if it conforms to the … emotional … expectations of the audience” (Oring, 2008, p. 157; emphasis in original). The emotional expectation of these films is fear. Jump-scares and the build up of tension work to have this emotional affect on us. We judge the success of any of these films on whether or not it succeeds in creating those emotions; a good Paranormal Activity film is one which is scary. We can conclude from the number of films like these produced every year that they are sufficiently emotionally satisfying to warrant further production. To date, the fifth Paranormal Activity film is schedule for release in late (probably around Halloween) 2013. Last Exorcism 2A second Last Exorcism film is also scheduled for a late 2013 release. But there are other expectations suggested here too.

Oring notes that these narratives must meet the “cognitive … expectations of its audience” (Oring, 2008, p. 157); applied here reveals the logic of the film franchise. Broadening this idea out, understanding a specific “Robin Hood” story does not require previous knowledge of all the possible “Robin Hood” stories. Each legend-film must be able to stand on its own without reference to anything else. While a bifurcated audience, between those who have followed a series and those for whom this is their first encounter, is suggested, each delivering related but different rewards, these films must simultaneously stand alone and work in the series. Unlike other film franchises, where appreciation requires a full understanding of the narrative progression across several films, these films do both. This cognitive dimension to these films poses some problems for the folklorist studying these films: namely they violate their own belief traditions. Too much veracity is sacrificed for sensationalism in the films. For example, across the Paranormal Activity films, rather than simply a ghost haunting the house, Toby is a demon who can fling people spectacularly across the room. In The Devil Inside, rather than maintaining the ambivalence towards belief, the exorcism sequences feature the possessed able to crawl, spider-like, up walls and to pull out almost every possession-movie cliché since The Exorcist. Perhaps the most absurd moment occurs in Paranormal Activity 3, where the babysitter (and assumedly the audience) is freaked out by an actual sheet-wearing ghost.

[REC]The final rhetorical aspect suggested by Oring is regarding the “moral expectations of its audience” (Oring, 2008, p. 157); and it is here that these films apparently succeed for most of its audience, but fail for me. The zombie epidemic in the [REC] films is caused, not by chemical or biological weapons, but by demonic possession. In the American remake of the [REC], Quarantine, the demonic possession element is dropped in favour of a biological agent. There appears to be shift in the moral centre of these narratives; demons in one cultural context will sell, but not in another. In the Spanish Atrocious, a found-footage haunted house movie, ghosts mix with mental illness, but in the American Paranormal Activity films, a ghost isn’t as scary as a demon. AtrociousThe moral centre of these films, like in legend telling itself, is context dependent both geographically and temporally.  These films need their moral-centres to reflect what is anticipated the moral centre of the audience is going to be. But surprisingly, if that is true, then the moral centres of these films is not warning against playing with the supernatural, because you’re damned if  you do and damned if you don’t. The demon Toby in the Paranormal Activity films follows Katie specifically, whether Micah antagonizes him or not. The demonic presence in The Devil Within moves from Maria to Isabella Rossi, in what the filmmakers call “demonic transference”. In all these cases, including the Spanish films, the “kids” pay for their parents moral debts. The moral centres of these films seems to be, taken as an aggregate, the resentment of one generation for what the previous generation left behind; and are powerless to escape from it.


The found-footage films are an extreme example of legend-films, due to their mockumentary style of presentation. Currently, they are fashionable, particularly for horror movies (although there’s no reason why a romantic comedy couldn’t also use this style). However, I’d like to conclude by suggesting that the central question we need to ask of any legend-film is regarding what rhetorical devices are the filmmakers utilizing in order to convince us of the veracity of their narrative? We may ultimately discount the story as a fabrication – that’s not the point. What matters is that these filmmakers try in the first place to convince us that their tales are true.

Diary of the Dead

Works Cited

[Rec]. 2007. [Film] Directed by Jaume Balaguero, Paco Plaza. Spain: Filmax.

[Rec]². 2009. [Film] Directed by Jaume Balaguero, Paco Plaza. Spain: Filmax.

[REC]³ Génesis. 2012. [Film] Directed by Paco Plaza. Spain: Filmax.

Blair Witch Project, The. 1999. [Film] Directed by Daniel Myrick, Eduardo Sánchez. USA: Haxan Films.

Cannibal Holocaust. 1980. [Film] Directed by Ruggero Deodato. Italy: F.D. Cinematografica.

Grave Encounters 2. 2012. [Film] Directed by John Poliquin. USA: Twin Engine Films.

Grave Encounters. 2011. [Film] Directed by The Vicious Brothers. USA: Twin Engine Films.

Oring, E., 2008. Legendry and the Rhetoric of Truth. Journal of American Folklore, Volume 121, pp. 127-166.

Paranormal Activity 2. 2010. [Film] Directed by Tod Williams. USA: Paramount Pictures.

Paranormal Activity 3. 2011. [Film] Directed by Henry Joost, Ariel Schulman. USA: Paramount Pictures.

Paranormal Activity 4. 2012. [Film] Directed by Henry Joost, Ariel Schulman. USA: Paramount Pictures.

Paranormal Activity. 2007. [Film] Directed by Oren Peli. USA : Paramount Pictures.

Zombie Diaries 2. 2011. [Film] Directed by Michael Bartlett, Kevin Gates. UK: Bleeding Edge Films.

Zombie Diaries, The. 2006. [Film] Directed by Michael Bartlett, Kevin Gates. UK: Bleeding Edge Films.


‘Once Upon a Time in Nazi Occupied France’: History as Fairy Tale in Inglourious Basterds


‘Once Upon a Time in Nazi Occupied France’: History as Fairy Tale in Inglourious Basterds

I’d like to suggest, at the outset, that there are three key viewing positions for any “history film”; three positions a viewer may take in relationship to this kind of film.

Firstly, there is (let’s be blunt) The Naive Audience: the “Naive Audience” is entirely credulous. They see the information onscreen as absolute truth of what that historical period was like. Because they’ve seen, for example, Schindler’s List, they feel they know everything about the Holocaust.  This kind of viewing position receives all the historical information without any question about its veracity. After all, this person would argue, the filmmakers can’t say this is “Based on a True Story” unless it was, right?

Secondly, there is The Critical Audience. The “Critical Audience” views all films about any historical topic as suspect. Single errors (for whatever reason) will result in the entire films’ dismissal. The posts in the Coliseum in Gladiator were actually from the Circus Maximus and therefore the filmmakers didn’t know what they were doing. [I reviewed a collection of essays on Gladiator written mostly by Classicists and each chapter pointed that out to me!] In particular, the “Critical Audience” is worried about the “Naive Audience” response; they are concerned that there are people out there with “wrong information”. The “Critical Audience” congratulate themselves on their intellect and are concerned that those people who aren’t as smart as they are might believe the errors.

The third position is The Curious Audience. The “Curious Audience” is inspired by a film to know more about the topic. Maybe they’ll take university history classes. Or read a book by a historian. If their interest is peaked, they’ll read more. Engage in the topic. They will not let the film’s inaccuracies and dramatic licence deter them from their enjoyment of both the “actual” history and the films. Even if the “Curious Audience” doesn’t follow up on the history, they remain sufficiently sceptical to not “believe everything in the film is 100% accurate”; but still lack the overall cynicism to throw the film-baby out with the historical bathwater. Unfortunately, the “Curious Audience” tends to also be silent; or at least quieter than the “Critical Audience” who tend to be “shouters”.

The History Film  Audience

Thinking about Quentin Tarantino’s 2009 film, Inglourious  Basterds we can situate much of the film’s criticism: the “Naive Audience,” who believes everything they see without question, will conclude that Hitler was killed in 1944 in a French cinema and that he was shot at close range repeatedly by a Jewish American commando. The “Critical Audience” responses are fury at such a crass fabrication of historical details and dismiss the film outright. They point to the “Naive Audience” wandering around like village idiots content in their “wrong beliefs”. The “Curious Audience” enjoy Tarantino’s fiction for what it is, and perhaps contemplate why Tarantino tells his story in the way he does.

The sad fact is, I don’t believe the “Naive Audience” actually exists. At least, I’ve never met “that guy”; “that guy” who is so incredulous as to believe any historical drama is a definitive and final word on a historical moment. “That guy” is an illusion, a chimera invented by the “Critical Audience” to justify their own self-congratulatory and sanctimonious superiority. I’m willing to suggest that most people fall into the “Curious” category, but we all know people who are members of the “Critical Audience,” and they’re usually pretty full of themselves. “Well, if you’ve read about the subject like I have…” The “Critical Audience” exists only to ensure that they are thought to be the smartest people in the room.

vlcsnap-2013-06-14-20h10m39s54I’m assuming we all fall into the “Curious” category; we shouldn’t be bothered by Inglourious Basterds historical inaccuracies, because Tarantino did not make a “historical film”. We know the film isn’t going to be historically accurate because of the title of the film’s first chapter: “Once Upon a Time … in Nazi-occupied France”.  By using the traditional opening of a fairy tale, “Once upon a time…” Tarantino outlines immediately the correct key in which to situate the film.

Back in 1997, Roberto Benigni attracted a lot of criticism for his Holocaust “fairy-tale” La Vita e bella; while Benigni’s film occupies a strange place between historically situated events and the elements of his fantasy, Tarantino allows no such ambiguity. Part of the criticism levelled against Benigni was that the fairy-tale mode was completely inappropriate for a film detailing an Italian perspective on the Holocaust. And in fairness to Tarantino, while the Holocaust remains perpetually in the background of the film, the industrialized extermination of European Jewry is never given centre stage.


The thing about fairy-tales is that everyone assumes they know what they are. Myths, legends and fairy-tales are all used mostly interchangeably with one another, despite actually being very different things with different functions. In order to understand how Inglourious Basterds works as a fairy-tale, we need to understand what fairy-tales are.

The American anthropologist William Bascom, back in 1965, published a simplified schema distinguishing the key three forms of “oral prose narrative” (as he called them): myth, legend and fairy-tale or folktale. Myths were a culture’s sacred stories, stories which defined the culture and explained the universe for them. Legends, on the other hand, could be sacred or secular, but unlike myths, took place in our recognizable world; there is a historical anchor to a legend that myths do not have. Myths, in contrast, take place in some kind of “otherworld”, before the world is as we’ve inherited it. Legends we can plot on a map. Rabbi Loew, for example, is the subject of legend because Prague exists and we can travel there to see it with our own eyes. In Prague is the Altneu Synagogue where, in the attic, the Golem is said to remain. The Garden of Eden, on the other hand, is a myth because there is no historical or archaeological corroboration for that story; it has been suggested that it probably referred to the land between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, but there is no hard evidence to verify the story in Genesis.   With both legend and myth there is a degree of belief involved; however this is not to suggest belief in the literal truth of the Golem or the Eden stories. Stories embody ideas and it is the cultural ideas that these stories embody which are important, not their literal truth or fictionality. Both legends and myths suggest a figurative truth: what does it mean to say that G-d lead the Israelites from Egypt? Did the Exodus ‘actually’ happen? The question is moot. What does it mean to say the Israelites are G-d’s ‘Chosen People’ and the discursive possibilities which open up with that question are what is actually more important.

Fairy-tales, on the other hand, are self-consciously fictional narratives; they are ahistorical and “a-geographic” – that is, they occur in a fictional time period in fictional places. The “Nazi-occupied France” of Inglourious Basterds is not the historical France during the Nazi occupation during World War II, but a fictionalized and idealized time and place. The magic words, “once upon a time”, like the Fairy godmother in Disney’s Cinderella and her ‘Bippity-boppity-boo”, magically transform a real place and time into a self-consciously fictional world.  Tarantino’s script effectively re-works the central story (in folklore, we’d call it a tale type) of Robert Aldrich’s The Dirty Dozen, and I’m unaware of much serious criticism of the earlier film for being fictional. Had Inglourious Basterds advertised itself as “Based on a True Story”, there would be grounds for dissent; but quite the opposite, Tarantino uses “once upon a time”. Parenthetically, it’s worth noting few films use “based on a true story” anymore and tend to use the woollier “inspired by true events” to allow greater creative freedom with the facts. So, it is worth repeating, it is not just that fairy tales are fictional narratives, but that they are self-consciously fictional narratives; that is, the tale teller and the listener agree what follows in the account will not be “true”.  How that signal is given is a fascinating study in its own right.

Before moving on to how one recognizes a fairy-tale film, it is probably worth noting that “fairy-tale” is problematic word, particularly in its colloquial usage. To anyone who has studied folk narratives (academically or as a fan) can attest to, very few of the so-called “fairy tales” contain any fairies at all; the term is a bit of a misnomer. The “fairy tale” is a 19th century invention where traditional and orally circulated fictional narratives were deemed only appropriate for bourgeois children; they lacked the sophistication of modern literature, but seemed to amuse the children and the child-like (i.e. the ‘peasants’ who told the stories).  Furthermore, folktales (i.e. the real ones collected orally from the “folk” and fill up archives around the world) were never intended exclusively for children. Fairy-tales for children is likewise a 19th century invention; mostly these stories told of adult concerns and adult fears. Scarcity of food, poverty, oppression, rebellion are not the topics of “children’s” stories, although they’ve become them due to Victorian bowdlerization and sanitizing the originals.

So “fairy tale” is seen by folklorists as a pejorative term. Bascom uses folktale, but recognizes that both myth and legends are also folktales, so the term doesn’t sufficiently denote this class of fictional narratives. Within Folklore Studies, the agreed upon term is the German Märchen, after the Brothers Grimm’s use in their Kinder- und Hausmarchen. Mostly I use “fairy tale”, simply because it is more commonly understood, even though problematic.

In theory, any fictional film could be considered a “fairy tale”, but indiscriminate labelling would lead to more confusion than clarity. At the level of fiction though, we can begin by exploring how and in what ways does a particular film recognize its own fictional mode? Ultimately, this is a function of visual rhetoric. Should a film try to convince us of its narrative veracity, then we are probably looking at a legend-film. If key images in the film convince us of larger, symbolic resonances, then the film may be trying to convince us of its mythic nature. So how does a third class of film narrative try to convince us of its fictionality? What, visually, does a film do to reassure us that what is being shown is not real?

Once the fictional nature of the “fairy tale” film has been identified, we next need to consider the purposes of that kind of narration. Most stories can be retold in different modes, in different genres. Why was this particular mode or genre chosen to convey those particular ideas? In other words, why tell a particular story as a fairy-tale? The psychoanalytic approach as espoused by Bruno Bettelheim, for example, posits that fairy-tales enable the child to become socialized. The horrific journeys fairy tale characters travel are psychological negotiations that children must make in order to grow into healthy and functional adults. Fairy-tales reflect children’s deepest darkest fears and Bettelheim warned that to deny children these fears risks potentially making them more susceptible in their adult years. Bettelheim notes,

In order not to be at the mercy of the vagaries of life, one must develop one’s inner resources so that one’s emotions, imagination and intellect mutually support and enrich one another. Our positive feelings give us the strength to develop our rationality; only hope for the future can sustain us in the adversities we unavoidably encounter” (Bettelheim  1999:269)

The theory, which is equally applicable to adults as it is to children, is that the violence and horror in vernacular fictions underlines and reinforces the idea that life itself, to quote Thomas Hobbes, is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. And children shouldn’t be protected from this awareness, but, through the mediation of children’s fairy-tales, where often it is the littlest that defeats the ogre and saves the day. For adults, although Bettelheim doesn’t go there, we can extend this approach to consider how horror movies (for example) condition and recondition adults in much the same way. Adults too need the ritualistic dramas of grown-up fairy tales to progress through the daily charnel house that is modernity.   But this is something that the folk have known for hundreds of years.

The psychoanalytic approach to fairy-tale analysis has been heavily criticised by social historian Robert Darnton in his The Great Cat Massacre. For example, Erich Fromm interprets “Little Red Riding Hood” as being about adolescent sexuality based on analysis of the story’s key symbols. For Darnton, the problem with this analysis is that none of the symbols Fromm states as particularly salient occur in the orally collected narratives, they appear only in their literary and reified forms (Darnton 1999:281). Bettelheim comes across even worse: Darnton criticizes Bettelheim for treating fairy-tales as if they were patients on the analyst’s couch, ignoring the realities of oral collections as consisting of variant texts, not literary products (1999: 283).

Whilst Darnton recognizes the fairy-tale is a fictional genre, he notes that this does not preclude it discussing real issues facing the cultures which tell those tales. Eugen Weber also noted that folktales “can tell us a great deal about real conditions in the world of those who told and those who heard the tales” (Weber 1981, 96).  Weber continues, suggesting that the human emotions of the folktale should be read as real emotions of the folk themselves. “A careful reading of the [Grimm’s] collection reveals a number of recurrent themes: hunger, poverty, death, danger, fear, chance …” (Weber 1981, 96).

So, to summarize then, fairy-tales are self-consiously fictional narratives, which announce their own fiction textually (in the actual text itself).  They are not the same thing as myths or legends. These were never intended exclusively for children’s consumption and originally spoke of adult concerns and fears. While we may be tempted to read these stories psychoanalytically, such analysis often makes unsubstantiated claims about meaning which need to be taken with a grain of salt. That being said, it wouldn’t be inappropriate to interpret these narratives as ritualistic dramas which put the world to right by its conclusion.Finally, despite the genre’s fictional mode of presentation, fairy-tales often discuss real (adult) emotions and fears.


inglourious-basterds9Inglourious Basterds

I remember sitting in my office, sometime around January 2009, when I first saw the trailer for Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds and my initial reaction to the trailer was that if Tarantino achieves even half of what he promised in the trailer, this was going to be one of the greatest films of all time. When I finally saw the film in August later that year (after 8 months of anticipation), the results far surpassed my hopes. And I do consider this to be a remarkable piece of contemporary cinema.

I also recall that around that time I read a criticism of Tarantino’s work which accused him of “grindhouse elitism”; that his films were only for that minority of people who were as “cool as he was” and could understand all of his exploitation movie references. I don’t have a problem with this, because apparently I am as cool as Tarantino; and I can live with that. I was thinking about that criticism when Inglourious Bastserds started. vlcsnap-2013-06-14-20h11m11s119This title card came up on screen: “Chapter One: Once Upon a Time … in Nazi-occupied France”.  The next image was the one on the left of the screen. I immediately had a bizarre connection in my mind with the image on the right, from Sergio Leone’s The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. vlcsnap-2013-06-14-20h15m41s25Somehow my brain went from “Once Upon a Time” to Leone’s Once Upon a Time in the West, but the image echoed Good, the Bad and the Ugly. The shot on the right isn’t even the first shot of that film; it’s the first shot of the second section of the film, where we are introduced to Lee Van Cleef’s Angel Eyes (“the Bad” of the title). vlcsnap-2013-06-14-20h32m20s11That initial connection was further suggested by the next few shots; both Landa and Angel Eyes are seen arriving from a distance in similarly composed shots. vlcsnap-2013-06-14-20h14m52s28The heart in both sequences is also echoed in that both are tense interrogation sequences: vlcsnap-2013-06-28-12h01m50s156Landa talking to LaPadite and Angel Eyes with the Mexican farmer.vlcsnap-2013-06-28-11h54m27s34 This opening sequence of Inglourious Basterds has a very strong Spaghetti Western vibe to it; [play clip] like the Italian westerns, there is very little dialogue (which is odd for a Tarantino movie, and which he more than makes up for once we’re introduced to Landa) and the music is quite evocative. The music in question comes from another Italian western, The Big Gundown by Sergio Sollima, also starring Lee Van Cleef. The Ennio Morricone score also samples Beethoven’s “Fur Elise” giving this sequence not only a Spaghetti Western quality, but a German on too.

While the Western genre is often associated with myth, at least from an American perspective, the Spaghetti Westerns, in their appropriation of this American mythos, becomes much less ‘authentic’. For it to be considered myth, these films must embody the most significant of a culture’s beliefs. A similar dynamic of mythic appropriation can be seen in the work of the German author Karl May’s 19th century Western novels. And like May, the Spaghetti Western filmmakers, in appropriating these narratives, transform them into fairy-tale-like fictions.  Sergio Leone’s use of “Once Upon a Time” in the title of his 1968 western reflects this fairy-tale quality.

This fairy-tale quality of “Once upon a time” adds a texture to the film wherein Tarantino is free to refashion Europe in the 1940s anyway he likes. By opening the film like this he creates a discursive resonance for the film; we need to understand what the Spaghetti Western did to American mythology in order for Tarantino to translate it back to Europe. Without understanding that flow of transnational cinematic histories, the film would become nonsensical (which for many it was). Tarantino avoids suturing us into a historical recreation of Nazi-occupied France with his magic fairy-tale words. Effectively, Inglourious Basterds does to the “War in Europe” what the Spaghetti Westerns did to “the Old West”. And like any good storyteller, Tarantino’s game of references winks to the knowing cineastes in the audience.

Echoes of The Searchers?

Echoes of The Searchers?

Inglourious Basterds has two key storylines, both of which connect up at the end. In one, Shoshanna Dreyfus, a French Jewish girl, narrowly escapes being massacred along with her family hiding in the cellar of a local farmer, Pierre LaPadite. Shoshanna reinvents herself as “Emmanuelle Mimieux” (a double wink, referencing both the erotic Emmanuelle film series and American B-movie actress, Yvette Mimieux) who owns a Parisian cinema and is, as they say, hiding in plain sight. The second storyline takes its inspiration from the Robert Aldrich 1967 war movie, The Dirty Dozen.  In case any of you are unfamiliar with Aldrich’s film, here is the original 1967 trailer.

Clearly, Tarantino has based his “Basterds” on Aldrich’s Dozen

Picture1Inglourious Basterds is meant to play like the guys-on-a-mission World War 2 adventure movies, not as a recreation of a specific historical event. While the fairy-tale allusions in the first chapter may be, I’ll grant you, obtuse – you need to know your Spaghetti Westerns to see the connections – the second chapter is classic Hollywood fiction. While the actors in “Chapter One” may be largely unknown to American audiences, and the Jewish-American soldiers in “Chapter Two” might not be household names, I would imagine that most people would recognize Brad Pitt as Lt. Aldo Raine. Some might even recognize Hostel director, Eli Roth, as Sgt. Donnie Donowitz. The casting of movie stars in movie star-type roles creates a fictional frame; while Pitt is an excellent actor (and very good in this film), we are always aware we’re watching Brad Pitt. He is too famous now to disappear in a role. Because we are watching Pitt chewing up the scenery in a self-consciously over-the-top performance, we are aware of the fictional mode of the story.

Picture2More traditional fairy-tales permeate the film as a whole. Shoshanna catches the eye of a handsome young German sharpshooter, Fredrick Zoller, who, for his valiant actions against the Allies, has become a hero of the Third Reich. The film based on his exploits (and in which he stars, playing himself) has just been made and Joseph Goebbels is in Paris to organize the film’s premiere.  Zoller insists that the film’s premiere be moved to Shoshanna’s cinema in order to attempt to woo her. With the highest ranks of the Reich due to be in attendance, Shoshanna conspires with her lover and projectionist, Marcel, to take full advantage of this opportunity and to burn the cinema down with all the Nazi brass inside. Tarantino reworks the traditional fairy-tale, so that the charming Prince has the ball at Cinderella’s place, and she uses the opportunity to extract her revenge for the enslavement of her people.

Picture6Col. Hans Landa (Christopher Waltz, in an Oscar-winning performance) takes on the role of the film’s Big Bad Wolf. Nicknamed “The Jew Hunter”, Landa has made his reputation on being able to root out hidden Jews throughout France, including being responsible for the massacre of Shoshanna’s family at the beginning of the film. Shoshanna is as much Little Red Riding Hood as she is Cinderella; always trying to keep one step ahead of this Wolf. For her big night, the night she destroys the entire Nazi high command, she dons a vibrant red dress to underline this connection. Tarantino, with seeming incongruity, has David Bowie’s title song from the Paul Schrader remake of Cat People playing on the soundtrack; a song conspicuously of the early 1980s, despite the faux-40s setting, further avoiding any chance of mistaking his intention for historical accuracy. Picture3Somehow, the Bowie/Cat People connection works: If Landa is the Big Bad Wolf and Cinderella is going to burn the ball down, who better than a Red Riding Hood Panther Lady to stop him?

Shoshanna’s story merges with the Basterds’ on this prestigious night; they too have infiltrated the premiere and also plan on taking out the Nazi big-wigs, including the Furher, who is in attendance. Neither knows of each other’s plot; neither knows the other at all. The Basterds were able to infiltrate the screening with the help of German movie star and spy for the Allies, Brigit von Hammersmark. Picture4In an earlier sequence, where VonHammersmark first meets the Basterds in a cellar bar in a small French town, what should be a quiet rendezvous turns into a massacre. In the melee, she loses a shoe. Just as Shoshanna is able to play both Little Red and Cinderella, Landa is able to play both the Big Bad Wolf and a (not so charming) Prince Charming, when he ascertains that the Allies’ spy he is looking for is the actress. In a scene right out the classic fairy-tale, Landa discovers the lady he’s been looking for by the shoe fitting (literally) the spy’s foot.


So What’s It All Mean?

I’m going to show a rather long clip – and warning, it’s incredibly violent. This is the Basterds in action, doing what they do.

Within the fairy-tale nature of the film, by setting this sequence in the woods, near an old bridge or aqueduct, the Basterds are like a vengeful seven dwarves. The music is, again, Morricone’s score for The Big Gundown. But in the middle of the sequence, intercut to fill us in, is a strange narrative segue into the story of Hugo Stiglitz. Picture7Hugo Stiglitz is the name of a Mexican born star of exploitation movies throughout the 1970s & 80s; who Tarantino honoured by naming this character after. The segue is made further strange by having it narrated by an uncredited Samuel L. Jackson, the font Stiglitz’s name is written in evokes a 1970s exploitation quality, and even the music segues into Billy Preston’s score for the Blaxploitation movie, Slaughter (starring Jim Brown, who was also in The Dirty Dozen).

Because we are never encouraged to read the film as historical reconstruction, we need to read it allegorically. By virtue of any fictional representation involving some degree of fantasy, understanding the unreality of the film requires consideration of that fantasy as an extension of what cannot be said effectively any other way. Fantasy gives voice to what cannot be stated otherwise. Inglourious Basterds makes manifest a re-empowering of historical Jewish victimization. It is hard to resist psychoanalytic interpretations sometimes – of seeing the scalping of the dead Nazis as symbolic castration in the name of revenge – but such an interpretation is hardly hidden, it is hardly subconscious. Tarantino’s film gives us World War 2 as we would have liked to have seen it; a revenge fantasy that recognizes Nazi anti-Semitism, but with no mention of the death camps.kucharski_a_poster

The French fairy-tales Darnton discusses, where in this fictional world, peasants win against wealthy landlords through guile and intelligence, where the smallest of children can bring down the mightiest of giants, are consciously inverted fantasies of their daily experiences. The problem with psychoanalysis (as grand theory) is that what is ascribed to be unconscious is usually very conscious. The folk were never fools, despite the number of fools in their stories. Contrary to Freud’s bourgeoisie, these peasant storytellers knew exactly what they were saying and why they were saying it. Any element in an orally transmitted story (folklorists would refer to it as a motif) could not persist across time and space unless it served a definite purpose. Otherwise, it would have been forgotten. What persists is what is important. So, as Darnton argues, to find out what a story means, often all one needs to do is ask the storyteller; they probably have a pretty good idea. If the storyteller is unavailable, because the story in question is from an archive, one needs to identify those aspects in the text itself which gives evidence to what the storyteller felt the story meant.

the_bear_jew_by_walkington-d36hf45In the same way that Tarantino constructs his World War 2 ahistorically and anachronistically, specifically through his use of music and other non-diegetic elements of the film, the horrors of the Nazi death camps, despite no specific references to them, is always in the background. The Basterds themselves, as a commando unit of Jewish-American soldiers, is recognition of this. When Donnie Donowitz, the Bear Jew, bludgeons to death Sgt Rachtman, he first asks of the sergeant whether or not he received his Iron Cross for killing Jews. The image of the Bear Jew in particular, in his muscle shirt carrying a baseball bat, is an image of Jewish physical strength and brutality to rival any Israeli Sabra. The carving of the swastika on the foreheads of those few the Basterds leave alive is a direct reference to, historically, how easily, after the war, Nazis were able to disappear or were even welcomed with open arms by the governments of the United States, Canada and many other Allied countries. If there really was an Aldo the Apache and Bear Jew carving swastikas onto the heads of all enemy soldiers they encountered, denying what one did during the war would have been much more difficult. As with all fairy tales, Inglourious Basterds puts the world to right.

This is the Face of Jewish Vengeance

The dénouement of the film is possibly the most controversial aspect of Inglourious Basterds. Shoshanna has locked all the doors to her cinema and taken her collection of nitrate prints behind the screen to be set alight. She has filmed a short insert which she edits into “Nation’s Pride,” the Fredrick Zoller film. Meanwhile two of the Bastserds, including Donowitz, are still in the cinema, with dynamite bombs strapped to their legs, trying to finish off their mission, even if it costs them their lives.  Warning again- this sequence is pretty violent

Having Hitler killed in this sequence, rather than the suicide in his bunker the following year,  while entirely ahistorical (and some critics have accused Inglourious Basterds of being “irresponsible” because of this), works within the film’s fairy-tale logic. History, in this case, is much less satisfying; this is how Hitler should have died, Tarantino seems to be saying. Donowitz not only shoots the Fuhrer at close range with a machine gun, we cut back to him, lying dead on the floor as Donowitz liquefies his face with bullets. Tarantino is not trying to rewrite history (another frequent criticism of this film), because the true magic of the film is its dialogue with history. Inglourious Basterds is not a replacement for history, and trying to dupe the “Naïve Audience” as such. The film only works if the historical record is equally known.

Shoshanna is able to have the last word, despite her actually dying in the projection booth after having been shot by Zoller. In many respects, with so much metacommentary on the part of Tarantino, one could posit the argument that cinema creates a kind of immortality. Much like the criticism of killing Hitler in this sequence, the true horror of Shoshanna’s vengeance is that she kills the Nazis in a Nazi-like method: by locking them in a closed building and setting it on fire. Shoshanna’s actions have an Old Testament aura of justice to them. Her vengeance isn’t just for killing her family, but in the ahistorical awareness of what the Nazis actually did to the Jews. Her face fills the screen-within-the-screen as it burns, literally sacrificed by fire: Holocaust. And as the smoke billows through the cinema, with the projector still running, Shoshanna’s projected face becomes three-dimensional and almost like the Great and Powerful Oz in the 1939 film.



Inglourious Basterds is a film which has been heavily pilloried for its historical inaccuracies, specifically killing off Hitler in 1944 in a Parisian cinema. But chastising the film for that is unnecessary; films like The Dirty Dozen, which Tarantino’s film is indebted to, were never made to be seen as anything other than fictions. As a fiction film, however, Basterds has many similarities with fairy-tales – not just fairy-tale motifs within the film, but fulfilling a function akin to fairy-tales. Namely, to offer vernacular entertainment which wears its anachronistic fantasy on its sleeve.

Perhaps the controversy is based on a cultural discomfort of publically expressing some of our violent fantasies at how we wished World War Two had happened. Like being caught playing soldier with oneself and then vehemently denying you were doing anything of the sort. I’m sure I’m not alone at having fantasied about what we’d have done if we had a time machine, or a machine gun, or a time machine with a machine gun. And the skills to use both of them. Playing Inglourious Basterds is a fantasy that partially expresses our own cultural frustration at feeling powerless to do anything in light of what we now know happened to European Jewry under the Nazis.  And is part of the frustration some people have with the film that a non-Jew so thoroughly realized our fantasy, almost as if he’d read our childhood diaries.

Finally, we also have to trust, and this is perhaps my most important point, that just as we know a particular film might be fictional, or only part of the story, or a poor interpretation of history, that we’re not the only ones with that information. We don’t have to be the “Critical Audience”; if we’re the “Curious Audience”, we facilitate discussion, not end it.


Works Cited

Bascom, William. 1965.The Forms of Folklore: Prose Narratives. Journal of American Folklore 78: 3-20.

Bettelheim, Bruno. 1999. The Struggle for Meaning. In M. Tartar (ed). The Classic Fairy Tales. London: W. W. Norton, 269-273.

Darnton, Robert. 1999. Peasants Tell Tales: the Meaning of Mother Goose. In M. Tartar (ed). The Classic Fairy Tales. London: W. W. Norton, 273-280.

Weber, Eugen. 1981. Fairies and Hard Facts: The Reality of Folktales. Journal of the History of Ideas,  42.1: 93-113.

Golems, Dybbuks and other Movie Monsters: The Search for a Jewish Horror Film

I am currently in Krakow, Poland as the guest of the Jewish Culture Festival who have brought me in to give a series of four lectures on Cool Jewz topics. I’ll put these lectures online here for folk to read at their leisure.

night-of-the-living-jews-horror-movie-posterGolems, Dybbuks and other Movie Monsters: The Search for a Jewish Horror Film

I’ve had this idea floating about my head for pretty much for the last 20 years. So I’m very excited to finally get around to playing with the topic for the Jewish Culture Festival. This lecture is going to be more ‘informal’ than my other three; that is, I want to take you on a personal journey through my favourite genre.

I’m a horror movie fan. And I have been for longer than I can remember. As a child, I saw every monster movie I was legally allowed to see – this was before home video changed the way we consume movies – whether on TV or at the cinema, if it was a monster movie, I was there. But as a Jewish horror movie fan, I became highly conscious of just how Christian-centric the monster movie world was. The metaphysical worlds depicted excluded me from believing in them. Even when the movies were directed by Jews, or written by Jews, or Jewish producers, studio heads, etc. all monsters challenged (and therefore frightened) the Gentile world. If I were to be scared by these films, then I would have to think like a Gentile, to believe like a Gentile. So what was a poor Jewish horror fan to do?
First of all, we need to look for Jewish, or quasi-Jewish, representations in horror movies. The history of Jewish representation in horror movies more or less parallels the representation of Jews across Hollywood films – to wit, that throughout the classical Hollywood period (roughly from the birth of sound in 1927 to the emergence of ethnic characters in the 1960s & 70s, or from The Jazz Singer to Funny Girl) was one of invisibility. Jewish characters were often in hiding, ethnicity erased to a bland American melting pot homogeneity. Recognition of Jewish representation in Hollywood movies often results in what Daniel Boyarin calls “Jewissance”; a play-on-words of the French jouissance, to denote intense pleasure (to the point of orgasm, really) – “Jewgasm” if you will. Within a Jewish context, Boyarin refers to the kind of intense pride Jews experience when a film or TV show allows Jewish images, characters or ideas to be expressed. Jewish viewers discover what Nathan Abrams refers to as “Jewish moments” in a film; moments when some kind of wink or nod to the Jewish audience creates this kind of connection. Within critical theory, the idea of jouissance has been suggested by the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan to refer to those moments of intense pleasure that goes beyond the pleasure to the point of pain. Returning to the Jewish context of Jewissance, the pleasure of discovering a Jewish presence in a horror film is not only the pleasure of recognition, but also the painful awareness of this presence’s rarity. Although I guess that’s only painful if you’re a horror fan in the first place.

Picture1So, where do we see Jews in horror movies? I want to start with Roman Polanski’s 1967 comedy The Fearless Vampire Killers. In this film, a professor of the Occult and his schlemiel assistant travel though Eastern Europe (intentionally undefined) looking for vampires to stake. They stop in a small village which appears to be under the thrall of the local aristocratic vampire Count von Krolock. The movie as a whole is a parody of the British Hammer Horror films which were then sufficiently popular as to warrant parody. In particular interest for me, however, is the character of Shagal, the Innkeeper; a stereotypical Ostjuden, with payez, lusts after the busty wench Magda, and is the first of Count von Krolock’s victims we encounter. In probably the film’s most famous sequence, Shagal’s Jewishness is made explicit.

As Patricia Erens noted, in reference to John Landis’s 1981 An American Werewolf in London but is equally applicable to Fearless Vampire Killers, that “when ethnic additives appear in classic genres, the result is comedy” (Erens 1984, 375). Simply by including Jewish specificity into a horror film (or a Western, or an action-adventure movie) means that the film is automatically comic, so incongruous is any kind of ethnic specificity in these genres. The implication, to read backwards, is that Hollywood genre production is traditionally (normally) ethnically bland. Any alternative flavour added disrupts the genre irrevocably. I don’t necessarily agree with this, but wanted to throw it out there anyway.

american_werewolf_in_london_poster_04Now I want to turn to one of my favourite films of all time: An American Werewolf in London. The question for me is: is David Kessler, the films titular hero, Jewish? The actor who portrayed him, David Naughton, isn’t. And yet, for anyone who has seen the film, there is a very strong “Jewish vibe” to his performance. We also get this scene:


Most commentators, specifically Jewish commentators like Lester Friedman & Patricia Erens, make note of this exchange as some kind of evidence of David Kessler’s Jewishness, despite the refutation of the evidence’s conclusiveness: that being circumcised is no automatic sign of Jewishness. And yet, these commentators make no mention of this next clip – a dream sequence – where the Kessler family’s Jewishness is made explicit:

Did anyone see it? On the bookshelves in the back of the shot, there is a menorah on the mantel. That’s it.

American Werewolf in Lonodn
But now, consider the demons that attack David’s family. They’re wearing SS uniforms and helmets. Despite no visible swastikas, the sequence has very strong echoes of a Nazi attack on a bourgeois Jewish family’s home – the indiscriminate and meaningless of the violence, the massacre of the entire family, the consumption of the room in fire. There is particular irony in the sequence in that on the television, in an episode of The Muppet Show, Kermit and Miss Piggy are discussing on stage violence as theatrical tradition – in the guise of Punch and Judy – just prior to our witnessing ‘movie violence’ with Rick Baker’s Oscar winning special effects. But there is another level to the irony too: namely, that the SS-like monsters who attack the Kesslers are firing Uzis, the standard weapon of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) since the mid-1950s.

American Werewolf in London 2
Patricia Erens notes “[American Werewolf] plays upon the traditional role of the Jewish Victim. And what could be more appropriate than a Jewish monster, the ultimate outcast, who must die to preserve society” (Erens 1984, 375)? While I’m not sure David Kessler ‘died for our sins’, what American Werewolf does particularly well, or at least one of the reasons I respond to this film with such Jewissance is Kessler’s monster-as-tragic-hero motif. But Erens is correct in seeing Kessler as ‘ultimate outsider’, someone who will never be accepted by mainstream (that is, Gentile) society. Kessler’s monstrosity is his status as victim: because he didn’t die in the werewolf attack, he continues the curse. He’s blamed for simply surviving. And other than on a night of the full moon, he is a charming, nice and well-liked fellow, not a dangerous and bloodthirsty monster. His victims, who return as revenants to torment him into suicide, see only his monstrousness. An American Werewolf in London is a remarkable testimony to how it feels to be secularly Jewish in a Gentile world; how we can feel blamed and punished for circumstances beyond our control. This is not to say that secular Jews existing in the Gentile world are monstrous, but sometimes the Gentile world can make us feel that way.
imagesThinking about American Werewolf in London in this way brings me to consider another, more metaphysical point: what is the cosmology we inhabit within a particular horror film? Is the universe a Christian one wherein Jews function as Eternal Other for the righteous to compare themselves to? Or does a film’s narrative construction posit a Jewish metaphysics? One recent film which is very Jewish in this metaphysical way is the Coen Brothers’ A Serious Man (2009) – but doesn’t really fit into my discussion here. Instead, consider the two iterations of Lt. Kinderman, the Georgetown detective who appears in both William Friedkin’s The Exorcist (1973) and William Peter Blatty’s Exorcist III: Legion (1990). Kinderman is the same character in each, but played by different actors – Lee J. Cobb and George C. Scott, respectively. While Blatty wrote the screenplay to the 1973 film (an adaptation of his own novel), Friedkin’s Jewishness and the casting of Cobb give Kinderman a different Jewish vibe to the character. When Blatty wrote and directed the 1990 sequel to the film, as an observant Roman Catholic, the performance of the character is different. Two clips – one from each of the films – first Lee J. Cobb in The Exorcist.

Firstly, the crucifix Chris finds under Regan’s pillow becomes menacing – a sign of unwanted oppression rather than spiritual redemption (reflected, in part, by the music in the clip). But it is the tone of rationalism and ratiocination which Cobb brings to the sequence that strikes me as implicitly Jewish. Kinderman is cool, logical, and scientific in his investigation into the mysterious death of Burke Dennings. And Kinderman’s calmness juxtaposes the supernatural hysteria which permeates the rest of the film.

Now consider George C. Scott in the same role: Kinderman here is given the opportunity to express his skepticism towards the Christian metaphysical world in his litany of secular evils he believes exist. But at the conclusion of that speech, he admits, almost against his will, that he also believes in (the Christian perception of) the Devil. Add to that, Blatty has Kinderman pinned against and up the opposite wall in a crucifixion position in a display of supernatural power. And at the sequence’s end, somehow the Devil is able to conjure up lightning inside the asylum cell which zaps the floor away which reveals either a portal to Hell, or the lighting fixture shop downstairs.

220px-The_seventh_signThe Jew-in-the-Christian-Metaphysics motif is also present in the 1988 film by Carl Schultz, The Seventh Sign, wherein a heavily pregnant Demi Moore tries to prevent the Christian Apocalypse. In this film, Moore’s character, Abby, is positive that her new and mysterious tenant David Bannon is breaking the Holy Seals outlined in the Book of Revelations bringing about the end of the world. In this first clip, Abby steals one of David’s strange parchments and looks to a Rabbi to help her translate it. 

It’s worth noting, at least parenthetically, that Rabbi Ornstein is played by Rabbi William Kramer, giving a touch of ‘authenticity’ to the film by association. Abby and Avi team up together to try and decipher the prophecies and prevent the world from ending. .

The Seventh Sign is problematic from a Jewish perspective because the metaphysical universe is clearly predicated on Christian belief, particularly in the truth revealed by the Book of Revelations. “The Jew” functions merely as an aid to assist Christianity. The literal truth of Christianity is presented on-screen within the film’s narrative; it is not an interpretation or a code of ethics. Like in The Exorcist III: Legion, the Christian mythology is literally true.

The script by Clifford and Ellen Green, writing under the pseudonyms “George Kaplan” and “W. W. Wicket” respectively, are difficult to track down. They appear to have only a few film credits to their name (according the Internet Movie Database). What they have worked on tends to be strongly religious oriented light-genre movies like The Seventh Sign (they also worked on Bless the Child and Three Wishes). In The Seventh Sign the story centres on the Jewish idea of “the Guf” – the well of souls in Jewish mysticism which will eventually be empty and thereby bring about the Apocalypse. Through Abby’s sacrifice of herself for her baby’s life, the Guf is refilled by the Messiah; Christ has returned and was actually her creepy tenant David all along. At the end of the film, Yeshiva boy Avi and David/Jesus pass one another in the hospital corridor and Avi is commended by Christ to be this story’s chronicler.


Despite the Jewish trappings, including the Guf, The Seventh Sign is a strongly Christian film which occasionally wears Jewish drag for legitimacy and authenticity. By recognizing the Jewish role within Christian mythology, films like The Seventh Sign use elements of Judaism to justify its own (and self-serving) “Judeo-Christianity”.

images (1)My initial intention with this presentation was to take a wander through Jewish folklore and look at some of the narratives and motifs which horror filmmakers have drawn on to explore Judaic monsters. As the research on this topic progressed, and as my own thinking on the subject developed, I began to see some more intriguing patterns than simply adaptations of Jewish lore. The commentary on Paul Wegener’s Der Golem, as a classic of German Expressionist cinema, is vast. Some of you might also be aware that the film we call Der Golem is but the third and final Golem film Wegener made (as it is the only film to have survived). In 1916, Wegener made, with his co-director Henrik Galeen, Der Golem; and it is only recently that a few meters of this film was discovered in someone’s attic.

The following year, he made the comedy Der Golem und die Tänzerin and the film we’ve inherited as Der Golem is his Der Golem: wie er indie Welt kam, made in 1920; and it is this film which tells the more traditional tale of Rabbi Loew and his monstrous creation.
MV5BNzA4MjAzMzQ0N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTMxMDAyMQ@@._V1_SY317_CR3,0,214,317_Lester Friedman, in an article on Jewish horror movies, spends a fair amount of time discussing Wegener’s Der Golem as a proto-Nazi Anti-Semitic film. Friedman notes that “horror films may contain powerful social attacks that ‘serious’ films cannot hope to duplicate and deliver their message to an audience not usually inclined to watch … social dramas” (50). In understanding the central theme of a horror film as “normalcy is threatened by the monster”, Friedman sees Wegener’s Golem to be evidence of a Jewish threat to Christian normalcy which must ultimately be destroyed. Friedman’s is a solid reading, to be sure; although I don’t think I entirely agree with it. One could easily read F. W. Murnau’s Nosferatu (1922) as equally (if not more so) anti-Semitic. My problem with Friedman’s account is that it doesn’t allow for discussion of the issues of anti-Semitism; it is sufficient to say this depiction is racist, or that depiction is not. Tomorrow, I’ll be discussing Jewish self-stereotyping in some recent comedy films, so I’m not letting this issue entirely drop. The significance of the Golem story for Wegener, significant enough for this non-Jewish filmmaker to make three different films about the monster (with him playing the central role in each) is what interests me. What does the Golem mean?

As I’ve discussed elsewhere (in reference to The X-Files episode, ‘Kaddish’), the Golem stories ask us to mediate, to think about, the limits of our scientific knowledge. Rabbi Loew, in making the Golem, has created life; but it is life without a soul (as only G-d can bestow a soul – presumably from the Guf). So the legends of Rabbi Loew ask us to think about what separates us from ‘base clay’. What makes us human? The metaphysical repercussions of such questions are what need discussing. Significantly, James Whales’ 1930 Frankenstein owes much more to Golem legends than it does to Mary Shelly’s novel. And by extension, with Dr. Frankenstein being one of cinema’s first “mad scientist”, in many respects all those horror and science fiction films where science has gone too far harken back to this old Jewish legend.

Golem1936But the Golem variant I want to consider for a few minutes is the little-discussed French film made in 1936, Le Golem, directed by Julian Duvivier, who is probably more famous for directing Pepe le Moko the following year. Le Golem acts as a sequel to Wegener’s surviving Golem film: a generation after Rabbi Loew created his Golem to defend the Jews of Prague, his successor, Rabbi Jacob is confronted with an even greater threat to the community in guise of the highly paranoid Emperor Rudolph who has not quite recovered from encountering the Golem with Rabbi Loew. On his deathbed, the great Rabbi prophesized that only when the Jews most need defending, the Golem will awaken one last time. Unlike Wegener’s film, it is Emperor Rudolph who is surrounded by magicians and sorcerers trying to reproduce Loew’s Golem.
What makes Le Golem fascinating for me is less the Jewish horror element (which is relatively minor) than the artistic context of Duvivier and his cinema. Julien Duvivier, along with Jean Renoir, Jean Vigo and Marcel Carne are the key filmmakers of the French Poetic Realist movement of the 1930s. Strongly linked with the Popular Front and supporters of short-lived socialist government of Leon Blum, these films tended toward highly studio-bound and stylized films, but unlike German Expressionism which tried to visually articulate psychological states, French Poetic Realism attempted to explore real-world political and social issues through stylized filmmaking. When we put Le Golem into the context of Poetic Realism, the social discourse Duvivier is articulating come to the fore.

golem-1935-03-gFrench Poetic Realist films tend toward the allegorical, and with Le Golem it is possible to read Rabbi Jacob’s call for liberty and freedom to create a strong sense of “fraternité” among the French people of all races and religions against the aggression coming from Germany. The “Jewish nation” of the Prague Ghetto stands in for the French nation as a whole. France calling on the Golem to defend it against German oppression. In one sequence, Rabbi Jacob is tortured by Emperor Rudolph (echoes of Furher Adolph?); the young Rabbi is shirtless and bound almost in a crucifixion pose. To cast the Rabbi in a Christ-like, Duvivier suggests a bond between contemporary Jewish suffering and how all Christians, likewise suffered under the Romans (Emperor Rudolph also feeds his “Jews” to his pet lions). By creating the parallel between Jews and Christians, the film is trying to unite opposition (if not outright rebellion) against the decadent, corrupt and despotic Emperor. legolem1935At one point, Rudolph does an excellent impression of Hitler, angrily banging his fist on a table. Rachel, the Rabbi’s wife, is the one who awakens the Golem finally (this 1936 call for rebellion is nothing if not also fighting for greater gender equality), and rouses the Jewish prisoners to action with her call that “Revolt is the right of the slave!” There is a final sad coda to add to this discussion: With Rachel awakening the Golem for the last time, the creature is, of course, no longer able to defend the Jews any longer. Duvivier’s Golem seems tragically prescient in hindsight, and not entirely by accident I think.

From Golems to Dybbuks. There is a surprisingly diverse demonology within Judaism, although I’m in agreement with Gershom Scholem, that most of these “demons” were folk appropriations of various surrounding peoples and tribes. Scholem suggests that the various cultures ancient and medieval Hebrews encountered would often “Judaicized” the local beliefs, finding ways of incorporating local beliefs into forms acceptable to Judaism. Scholem also suggests that these appropriations were often “in name only” and were used metaphorically as poetic descriptions of psychological or natural forces. “Satan” for example, is not a cognitive spirit, but a personification of the forces of temptation which distract the pious from doing their good works. Later Kabbalistic traditions attempted to create a “systematized demonology” out of these inchoate beliefs; the results were less a definitive “Book of Demons” than an attempt to put the outside world and its beliefs into a Jewish world view. I’ll return to this issue in a moment.

A dybbuk, in its most basic form, is a possessing spirit; that is, should a pious individual be tempted from the righteous path, they run the risk of being possessed by an evil spirit or demon. If we’re dealing with metaphoric and poetic personifications of natural processes, then the innocent bocher who gradually loses interest in their studies in favour smoking weed and watching porn, clearly they’ve been possessed by a dybbuk.

DVD_DybbukI would guess that the most famous (or at least significant) dybbuk-oriented film is Michael Waszynski Yiddish-language film, Der Dybbuk, based on the stage production written by S. Ansky. Unlike the other dybbuk-films I’ll be discussing momentarily which have some appeal to mainstream and non-Jewish audiences, this Polish film from 1937 seems to be made for an almost exclusive Jewish audience. While there is certainly a supernatural realm in this film, the entities are less demonic than spiritual. The strange figure of the Messanger (an angel of G-d by definition) is only one of two supernatural entities in the film. The other, of course, is Chanon – the Yeshiva bocher who is denied the hand of Leah, the woman he loves, by her father. Chanon then turns towards the supernatural in order to possess her; an act which kills him. Leah, in her grief, asks for her dead lover to possess her so they will always be together.

As I have been arguing all along, monsters – whether ghosts, Golems, werewolves or vampires – are some kind of metaphor or poetic image to discuss larger social, political, psychological issues that may be difficult, if not impossible, to articulate in any way other than the symbolic. As a profoundly religious and spiritual play, Ansky’s The Dybbuk is much less a horror story, than a morality play warning Yeshiva bochers to not be seduced by magic and witchcraft, and a warning against excessive mourning the loss of a loved one and wanting to selfishly possess them. Just as Channon possesses Leah literally, she equally possesses Channon in her refusal to let him go – either to marry who her father has chosen, or after her lover has died.

images (2)Within the past few years, two mainstream Hollywood horror movies have been produced which touch, in some way, on the Dybbuk belief traditions, although they do so very differently. In writer-director David S. Goyer’s The Unborn (2009), Casey Beldon discovers a different variant on the dybbuk story. Unlike in Ansky’s play, the possessing entity is not the ghost of someone Casey knew and couldn’t let go of, but is a preternatural evil presence which incarnates in babies waiting to be born. What The Unborn nicely demonstrates is the combination of traditions which screenwriters draw upon when fashioning a “new” screenplay: the Dybbuk tradition which I’ve been discussing so far is only one of the narrative traditions Goyer is exploring. And as a screenwriter (who also co-wrote the Christopher Nolan Batman movies), Goyer can pick and choose from a variety of traditions, although hopefully his choices won’t violate any of the traditions he’s playing with. First, here is The Unborn’s definition of a dybbuk.

Before continuing on, I want to draw your attention to a couple of the traditions Goyer is playing with. Firstly, in addition to the Jewish dybbuk tradition, Goyer is equally rooted in what I call “mall-horror”; recent horror movies which are designed to give teenage audiences enough of a fright so they’ll cuddle up in the cinema seats, but nothing too extreme that mummy & daddy will write to the cinema about to complain. As a horror fan, “mall-horror” is antiseptic and bland, despite the large amount of marketing and publicity these films receive. Part of the cultural logic of “mall-horror” is that, unlike earlier horror and supernatural films, which require you to pay attention to storytelling involved in order to fully understand the narrative, “mall-horror” repeats its salient points continuously to ensure everyone in the cinema understands what is going on, no matter how many times they’ve gone to the toilet or checked their phones. Effectively, Goyer is operating in two main traditions in this film: the Jewish dybbuk narrative and the Hollywood “mall-horror” tradition. The sequence keeps certain aspects of Jewish lore – dybbuk by name, disembodied spirits (not demons), familial dedication – but integrates these with “mall horror”-movie clichés.

In trying to understand whether or not The Unborn is a Jewish horror movie or a horror movie that has appropriated its Jewish trapping as a kind of ‘drag act’, we need to consider the cosmology within the film. Is this a Jewish cosmos? I’ve demonstrated (hopefully) how films like The Exorcist, Exorcist III: Legion and The Seventh Sign use Jewish content to tell distinctly Gentile narratives. I do not have a problem with strict adherence to a particular legend core – is this an ‘accurate’ or ‘authentic’ dybbuk story? I’m happy for a film narrative to play with its ideas and potentially to add to the tradition it is building upon. But the overall logic of the universe must be consistent. Eschatology in The Unborn is discussed, but never committed. While the malevolent spirit in the film is never dismissed as a demon, neither is it named. Also, while the film references the Sefer ha-Marot, a fictional mystical book, its title is authentically Hebrew, translating as “The Book of Mirrors”; if such a mystical volume existed, it probably would be called the Sefer ha-Marot. Writer-director David S. Goyer has done his research. Consider this next clip – a lengthy one, I apologise: Casey has found the Sefer ha-Marot, but it is in Hebrew and consults a Rabbi (played by Gary Oldman) to help her with an Exorcism.

An ecumenical minyan is formed including an Episcopal priest (Idris Alba); the spirit is thought to be ancient and preternatural. Slowly the “mall-horror” clichés are creeping back in; while the universe never fully reveals itself to be a Christian one, it does appear to be a chthonic one. This pre-religious entity and the ecumenical exorcism effectively remove any Jewish specificity from the narrative. While this may not be a Christian cosmology, neither is it a particularly Jewish one.

6a00d83451d04569e2017c31c6b6f4970b-500wiThe Possession (2012) is purported to be a true story. In 2001, Kevin Mannis bought something described as a ‘wine cabinet’ from an estate sale that had belonged to a Holocaust survivor. When he opened it up, he discovered several strange artefacts inside. But then he began to be haunted by bad nightmares, his mother suffered a stroke, light bulbs exploded anywhere around this box, and electrical equipment failed. By opening the box, Mannis appeared to have released some kind of spirit. Famously, he sold the box to a couple of university students on Ebay, but when then similar strange events began happening to them too, they sold the box on to a medical historian, Jason Haxton, who wrote a book about the object called The Dibbuk Box (2012).

The film itself uses the idea of the ‘Dibbuk Box’ to tell a story of this haunted wine box, bought at a yard sale by a young girl. When she opens the box, she begins to become possessed by the evil spirit. As a possessing spirit, the entity is by definition a ‘dybbuk’. Despite the family at the centre of the film narrative being non-Jewish (no definite faith or ethnicity is actually defined), young Emily’s father, Clyde, contacts a young Hassidic man, Tzadok Shapir (played by Hassidic Beat-Box and Reggae superstar Matisyahu) for help in exorcising the entity out of her.

What interests me about this film is how it reverses the paradigm of some of the pseudo-Jewish horror films discussed here. Instead of Jews living in a Christian cosmos, here the (nominally) Christians have to contend with a Jewish cosmos, or at least a Jewish folk cosmos. Awareness of arcane Jewish mysticism impacts directly on a modern Gentile family.

Unlike the ecumenical exorcism in The Unborn, the exorcism in The Possession is specifically Jewish. [And watch for Matisyahu’s particularly rhythmic davening!]

vlcsnap-2013-06-21-21h18m19s79The possessing spirit may very well have responded to a Christian, a Muslim or a Buddhist exorcism – as Rev. Wyndham noted in The Unborn, the exorcism rituals are all pretty much the same due to these spirits predating religious codification. But Christianity isn’t given a look in this film. Which is odd by its very inclusion, particularly since neither director nor screenwriters appear to be Jewish. What protects the innocent young WASP girl is the Jew’s tallis, wrapped around her. And the twisted malevolence of the dybbuk is nicely rendered in CGI.vlcsnap-2013-06-21-21h17m57s126

The last point I want to make regarding these two films is a fascinating example of how these films seem to echo one another. The image of the dybbuk’s hand emerging from the mouth of the possessed was used to advertise The Possessed. One of the more famous images from the film is early on, Emily feels like she’s choking and explores her mouth only see two fingers creeping up her throat.


The dybbuk’s hand fully emerging from Clyde’s mouth before the spirit fully crawls out of him is central to the film denouement.

vlcsnap-2013-06-23-21h12m17s56This central image or motif is what The Possession is built around and yet does not appear to be part of the “Dibbuk Box” narrative. The motif appears to come from what is apparently a medieval woodcut of a Jewish exorcism which features this ghostly hand emerging from the mouth of the possessed.


Now, unless anyone can direct me to a source for this woodcut and can verify its authenticity, I’m pretty sure it was a creation for The Unborn, as this is where I’ve taken the screengrab from.
I hope my description above of The Possession reflects how the film is “based on a true story” in so far as the existence of this mysterious wine box which has been given the name ‘dibbuk box’ by Kevin Mannis. The film keeps the box and its purchase at a yard sale (I think the contents of the box are also reputed to be authentically reproduced), but that is the extent of the film’s veracity. Now, not wishing to cast too many aspersions on the legend of the “dybbuk box”, but Haxton’s book was published in February of the same year that the film was produced. And two days before the film was released in the US, the SyFy channel’s Paranormal Investigations series did an hour-long documentary on this story featuring interviews with Kevin Mannis, his mother, student Iosif Neitzke, and medical historian Jason Haxton along with dramatic recreations typical of this kind of documentary programme. What emerges from this documentary is a demonstration of what medical folklorist David Hufford refers to as an experience-centred approach to belief: various and similar phenomena are experienced around this wine box. Mannis, who is Jewish, refers to it as a ‘dibbuk box’, a term he apparently coined to describe the box on EBay; that is Mannis names the phenomenon through his own cultural (Jewish) lens. The name sticks to the item and those who encounter the box likewise keep the name (whether they’re Jewish or not). Enter the film producers to use this story as a basis for their horror movie, but build on the ‘dibbuk’ aspect. And like Scholem argued with regards to Kabbalistic attempts to fashion a coherent demonology within a Jewish frame of reference, so too did Mannis attempt to describe the phenomena around this haunted wine cabinet.
Hostel- Part II Wallpaper 2I want to talk about one last film; a film which is highly controversial and, I think, the most Jewish of any of the films discussed so far – Eli Roth’s Hostel Part II. While Abrams’ otherwise excellent book focuses on the central character of Beth as a strong Jewish woman fighting against these murderous sickos – she is one if his “New Jews in Film” – he is less developed about “New Jew” filmmakers, like Roth. Both Hostel and its Roth directed sequel (there is a third Hostel film, but not directed by Roth), young Americans vacationing in Europe are abducted by a secret society who sell young people to the rich for torture and murder. The opening sequence of Hostel Part II – the first images we see in the film – are of the personal effects of the victims being sorted through. Valuables in their luggage are appropriated while clothes, photographs and other identifiable materials are burned in an incinerator. From a diegetic perspective, within the storyworld, this is simply the menial staff hired by this club to cover up their victims’ disappearance. But the echoes of the concentration camps are too obvious to ignore. Europe, specifically Eastern Europe, is a killing field, the locus of atrocities hitherto unknown in humanity’s history of atrocities. And the evidence of these crimes is being burned up – literally consumed by fire. Even the setting of an old abandoned factory has visual echoes of the Nazi death camps’ architecture.Hostel 2
Hostel Part II in particular develops the wealthy libertines who try for entry into this society in the guise of brothers Stuart and Todd; Stuart is meek and mild, while Todd want to make a man out of his nebbish brother through torture and murdering another person. Stuart embodies Hannah Ardent’s ‘banality of evil’ figure. Stuart becomes intoxicated with brutality, loving the freedom of being one of life’s victimizers, rather than a being a perennial victim. What Roth has produced in this film is to give a human (and banal) face to these Nazi-like monsters, instead of, for example, Landis’ Nazi-like demons in American Werewolf.

I think there is a further, and more profound, dimension to Roth’s films: both Hostel movies play on the fear of tourist safety. We assume, when we travel, that we are safe; although this might be a particularly North American assumption. In the Hostel films the protagonists are (fatally) betrayed by those who they have trusted. People who you thought were your friends are in reality selling you to others who want your slow and agonizing death. Of course, this is not the “reality” of world travel, but it does reflect a “cultural truth”, and “emotional truth”. A persistent suspicion and paranoia. Which, given the history of Eastern Europe, is kind of a Jewish head-space to be in.

I’d like to conclude with a series of interpretive question; that is, questions which, rather than definitively answer the problem, suggest further questions and (hopefully) facilitate discussion.

What is a Jewish horror movie?

• Are there “Jewish moments”; a sense of “Jewissance”?
• What are the impacts on the film by inclusions of ethnicity?
• Despite what the film says, is the cosmology shown in the film Jewish? Is it a Jewish universe? Or is this a Christian film in Jewish drag?
• Is the film based in Jewish folklore?
• What are the traditions woven into the film’s screenplay? Are those traditions Jewish?
• What is the impact of a “Jewish reading” of a horror film? What does reading a horror film through a particular cultural (i.e. Jewish) lens open for interpretation?

Each of those questions suggests further questions. And not everyone will derive the same answers. But by beginning to discuss, in this case, horror movies, from some kind of Jewish perspective(s), a greater understanding develops not only about fantasy cinema, but also ontological questions about what it means to be identified as a Jew.

Works Cited

Abrams, Nathan. 2012. The New Jew in Film: Exploring Jewishness and Judaism in Contemporary Cinema. London: I. B. Tauris

Boyarin, Daniel. 1997. Unheroic Conduct: The Rise of Hetreosexuality and the Invention of the Jewish Man. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Erens, Patricia. 1984. The Jew in American Cinema. Bloomington: Indiana University Press

Friedman, Lester. 1982. Hollywood’s Image of the Jew. New York: Ungar.

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

Haxton, Jason. 2012. The Dibbuk Box. Kirksville: Truman State University Press.

Hufford, David. 1989. The Terror that Comes in the Night: an Experience-Centred Study of Supernatural Assault Traditions. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Koven, Mikel J. 2000. “Have I got a monster for you!”: Some thoughts on the Golem, The X-Files and the Jewish horror movie. Folklore 111.2: 217-230.

Scholem, Gershon. 2008. Demons, Demonology In Jewish Virtual Library [online]


On Fairytales and Horror Movies

Here’s something I was thinking about today (well, actually, I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit in my Folklore & Film classes, but the idea to post this as a blog hit me in the shower this morning).


There are four key fairytales which create narrative patterns for the vast majority of horror movies. I want to say all horror movies, but then I’d just be proven wrong by a horror geek with a  better memory than I have, so I’m hedging my bets.


Firstly, there are several key books which have inspired these random thoughts:

download (4)download (2)


Brottman, Mikita. (2005) Once Upon a Time in Texas. In Offensive Films, pp. 96-112. Nashville, Vanderbilt University Press.


Rankin, Walter. (2007) Grimm Pictures, Fairy Tale Archetypes in Eight Horror and Suspense Films. London, McFarland & Company.


Short, Sue. (2006) Misfit Sisters, Screen Horror as Female Rites of Passage. Palgrave


Zipes, Jack. (2011) The Enchanted Screen, The Unknown History of Fairy-Tale Films. London, Routledge (Who knew Zipes had his own page on Wikipedia?)


download (3) download (1)


Right, so my proposition is that there are four key fairytales which form the four key paradigms in horror movies:


English: Little Red Riding Hood


1. Little Red Riding Hood: In this story, the protagonist, while on the road from A to B, encounters the monster and the monster follows the protagonist home; turning the ‘safe place’ to the ‘bad place’ (to appropriate Stephen King’s useful phrase). We can see this paradigm in Halloween – where Michael Myers follows Laurie (et. al)  back to the suburban idyll of Haddonfield.


Deutsch: Hänsel und Gretel vor dem Hexenhaus


2. Hansel & Gretel: In this story, the protagonist(s), on their travels, encounter the monster in his/her own ‘bad place’. Unlike the monster in the ‘Red Riding Hood’ narratives who follows the protagonist(s) home, the monster in the ‘Hansel & Gretel’ films is already at home when the protagonist(s) come knocking. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is the archetypal film in this narrative paradigm (as Brottman noted), wherein the kids discover what they believe is a place of succor, only to discover bad stuff happens in the ‘bad place’


download3. Bluebeard: In the ‘Bluebeard’ narratives, the protagonist(s) discover what they thought was a ‘safe place’ is in fact the ‘bad place’ through the discovery of (what Angela Carter called) The Bloody Chamber – the place of carnage. While Texas Chain Saw could be seen to use this paradigm, films such as Hostel, where travelers discover, what they thought was a safe tourist destination, isn’t, might better fit this paradigm. In the ‘Bluebeard’ narratives, the revelation of the charnel house must change the perception of the ‘safe place’ – that the ‘safe place’ is the ‘bad place’. Unlike the other two types of narratives, in which the ‘safe place’ is turned into the ‘bad place’ (‘Red Riding Hood’) or in which the ‘bad place’ is come upon (‘Hansel & Gretel’).


Peaudane34. Beauty & the Beast: ‘Beauty & the Beast’ narratives are those wherein the monster reveals itself to be often more  human than the human protagonist(s); certainly the monster is revealed to be more of a lover than a killer. These are some of my favourite horror narratives: Phantom of the Opera fits in here, as does FrankensteinKing Kong and my favourite of these movies, Candyman.


There may be other films/fairytale relationships, but I think these are the key ones.


So, just off the top of my head:


original215px-Psycho_(1960)Alien – ‘Red Riding Hood’


Psycho – ‘Bluebeard’ (although the case could be made for ‘Hansel & Gretel’ too)


Dracula – ‘Red Riding Hood’


Scream – ‘Bluebeard’


My Bloody Valentine – ‘Bluebeard’


Friday the 13th – ‘Hansel & Gretel’


… and we could go on. This could be a fun pub game.




Now, this is where the important part fits into the discussion. To leave analysis at the level of identification is to only do part of the job – and the weakest part too. To leave the discussion at the level of identification of the paradigm is to fall into the same trap as the reductive studies of Christopher Brooker’s The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories (Continuum, 2005) or worse, the superficial Stuart Voytilla’s Myth and Movies (Michael Weise, 1999). Once we identify that a particular film is this fairytale or that (and despite using the word ‘myth’ – both Voytilla and his inspiration, Joseph Campbell, are actually talking about fairytales, not myths), we need to consider what this particular adaptation of the traditional story is doing. As Zipes suggests in studying the fairytale film, we need to contextualize the film in its historical moment – what were the contemporary discourses which facilitated this adaptation as it was brought to life by this particular film.


download (5)We need to consider the impact on the narrative (as a source or conduit of meaning) in terms of these paradigms. What roles do the protagonists and antagonists take on by this patterning – images of youth in the ‘Hansel & Gretel’ narratives, of innocence for ‘Red Riding Hood’ or ‘Bluebeard’, of miscegenation and various forms of illicit love in ‘Beauty & the Beast’?


So, using my random examples above, if Alien is a ‘Red Riding Hood’ story, what role does innocence play in the film? Innocence that the Wayland-Yutani Corp would prize its crew over its cargo?


If Friday the 13th is ‘Hansel & Gretel’, then what are the factors (social, cultural, ideological) which enable the ‘kids’ to invade the space of Mrs. Voorhees and then Jason himself?


download (6)What does a film like My Bloody Valentine have to say about community and local history when the relatively safe place of Valentine’s Bluff is revealed to have covered up earlier crimes, and works with the ‘Bluebeard’ narrative paradigm? (The same question could also be asked of Scream)


And, with the ‘Beauty & the Beast’ paradigms, what kinds of conditions are categorized as ‘monstrosities’ (race in King Kong and Candyman; deformity in Phantom of the Opera  and Frankenstein)?


This is probably requires further discussion …


Post Navigation


stressed & depressed in the cuckoo's nest


January is Giallo Month...

Celluloid Wicker Man

Reviews, Essays and Analysis of Film and Art By Adam Scovell

Vanishing Point

TESC Literary and Art Magazine

The Filmgoers' Guide


Surviving the Dead

in life, no one makes it out alive

The Year of Halloween

All the Halloween you can Handle


"The distinction between the past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." ~Albert Einstein

Young Progressive Voices

A new generation of progressive thought. Another generation of liberal politics.

The Horror Online

Horror With Humour

The Chabad Sociologist

Exploring Chabad, Judaism and Contemporary Jewry

Roses Have Thoughts

A Salopians view of the world through screens

Bad horror, Good times

Reviewing the best of the bad!


Cinematography & Equipment Hire

The Website for the International Society for Contemporary Legend Research

Josh's Jibba Jabba

Some Jibba Jabba about film