Benjamin A. Railton's Blog, page 33

November 7, 2024: The 1924 Election: La Follette’s 3rd Party

[This hasbeen a particularly crazy last year/decade/eternity, but it’s not the firstnutty presidential campaign and election. 100 years ago wascertainly another, so this week I’ll AmericanStudy a handful of 1924 electioncontexts, leading up to some reflections on this year’s electoral results!]

For one ofthemost successful third-party candidates in American history, on three waysto analyze why such candidates exist.

1)     Splintered Parties: Dissatisfied with the increasinglyconservative, isolationist, pro-business and anti-labor stance of theRepublican Party in the 1920s, Robert“Fighting Bob” La Follette, the most famous political figure in the history of Wisconsinand an ardent supporter of labor unions, progressive taxation and wealthdistribution, and other liberal causes, decided not long before the 1924campaign began to leave that party and form his own, theProgressive Party. Many of the most successful third-party candidates andcampaigns in American history have started in similar ways, with a schismin one of the major parties; I’d say that defines these particularthird-party candidates as well-established political players, part of theexisting system, yet with a new perspective that challenges that system’scurrent duality and offers voters a somewhat familiar but still new alternative.

2)     Self-Confidence: While third parties are thusgenerally responding to evolving realities within the existing parties andsystem, as well as to voting blocs that are no longer represented by thoseparties, they have also almost always depended on a famous individual aroundwhom the new party can be organized. And from WilliamJennings Bryan to TeddyRoosevelt to RossPerot to RalphNader to RFK Jr. (not providing a hyperlink for that mofo, sorry), most ofthose individuals have been, shall we say, very fond of the sound of their ownvoices. It’s understandable—to run a campaign that challenges the major partiesis an act of striking self-confidence, if not indeed hubris. Quite likely that’snecessary in our political system; but at the same time, it can make thesethird parties dangerously close to cults of personality. From what I can tell,La Follette was genuinely more focused on the people than himself; but it’salways a fine line with third-party candidates, is what I’m saying.

3)     Setting the Stage: However we parse theirmotivations, there’s no doubt that third parties can have a real effect onelections, and at times that effect has been a very frustrating one (looking atyou, Ralph). It doesn’t seem like La Follette’s presence in 1924 necessarily didso, since he probably gained votes from more liberal voters in both parties. Andin any case, there’s another, longer-term potential effect of third-partycampaigns, especially those that reach a certain level of success as La Follette’sdefinitely did: they can help reshape political conversations, setting thestage for future evolutions of the parties and the system as well as the nationoverall. It was nearly a decade before Franklin Roosevelt would begin creatingthe New Deal, and of course the onset of the Great Depression was the mostsignificant factor in that sweeping transformation of American politics andsociety. But I would argue that La Follette’s campaign proved that there was a substantialpublic appetite for (among other reforms) support for workers and taking careof the most vulnerable, all of which helped make the New Deal possible.

Last 1924contexts tomorrow,

Ben

PS. Whatdo you think? Other crazy elections you’d highlight, or thoughts on this oneyou’d share?

November 6, 2024: The 1924 Election: KKKonventions

[This hasbeen a particularly crazy last year/decade/eternity, but it’s not the firstnutty presidential campaign and election. 100 years ago wascertainly another, so this week I’ll AmericanStudy a handful of 1924 electioncontexts, leading up to some reflections on this year’s electoral results!]

On theKlan’s influence on both 1924 Conventions, and a frustrating national parallel.

More than8 years ago, I wrotefor The American Prospect about the chaotic 1924 Democratic NationalConvention (to this day thelongest continuously running convention in US history) and the frustratinglyover-sized role that the Ku Klux Klan played there. I’d ask you to check outthat column (at the first hyperlink above) if you would, and then come on backfor more.

Welcomeback! I’m always learning, and it’s important to note that I was apparentlymistaken that the Convention was widely known as the “Klanbake”—that’s apparentlya myth which developed after the fact, based on asingle newspaper editorial. But nonetheless, the Klan was a prominentpresence at that DNC in New York, and a driving force in the Convention’sinability to settle on a nominee until the 103rd ballot. And it’sworth noting that the Klan was also prominently present at the RNC in Clevelandthat year, leading another editorial writer to dubthat one the Kleveland Konvention. Just as the DNC failed to censure or inany formal way call out the KKK, so too was an anti-KKK measure voted down atthe RNC; eventually the Republican VP nominee Charles Dawes did publicly criticizethe Klan, but with sufficient mixed signals toward the organization that, as NewYork Mayor Fiorello La Guardia noted, “General Dawes praised the Klan withfaint damn.” There’s no question that the Ku Klux Klan was a major politicalplayer for both parties in the 1924 campaign.

Moreover,whatever we call the conventions or say about the KKK’s role at and aroundthem, I stand by the final arguments I made in that American Prospectcolumn—that we can’t separate the Klan from the most significant legislation passedin 1924, and one of themost influential laws enacted in American history: the Johnson-Reed Act,better known as the ImmigrationAct of 1924. I said most of what I’d want to say about that horrific law inthose two hyperlinked columns, as well as in those final paragraphs of the Prospectpiece. The bottom line, to me, is that it wasn’t just the respective national conventionsand political parties which were under the sway of the Ku Klux Klan in 1924—it wasthe entire nation, and in its immigration policy, its visions of diversity and inclusion/exclusion,and its definitions of American identity it would remain so for the next fortyyears.  

Next 1924contexts tomorrow,

Ben

PS. Whatdo you think? Other crazy elections you’d highlight, or thoughts on this oneyou’d share?

November 5, 2024: The 1924 Election: Three VP Nominees

[This hasbeen a particularly crazy last year/decade/eternity, but it’s not the firstnutty presidential campaign and election. 100 years ago wascertainly another, so this week I’ll AmericanStudy a handful of 1924 electioncontexts, leading up to some reflections on this year’s electoral results!]

On howthree Republican nominees for the Vice Presidency exemplify electoral chaos.

1)     Frank Lowden: Up until the ratificationof the 25th Amendment in 1967, if wasn’t required for a formerVice President and newly sworn-in President like Calvin Coolidge to nominate anew Vice President, and so Coolidge didn’t do so when he ascended to thepresidency in August 1923. That meant that for much of 1923 and 1924 Coolidgewas seeking the Republican nomination and reelection to the presidency with noVice Presidential nominee, and thus that the 1924Republican National Convention in Cleveland needed to name such a nomineealongside Coolidge. Coolidge’s choice was Frank O. Lowden, aformer U.S. Representative from and Governor of Illinois who had himself soughtthe presidency in 1920. But perhaps because he had lost that nomination tothe Harding-Coolidge ticket, or perhaps because he had his own futurepresidential ambitions (and did run again in the1928 Republican primaries), Lowden turned down the nomination.

2)     Charles Dawes: With Coolidge’s own choice forVP out of the running, the convention delegates as a whole settled on a newnominee, the lawyer and businessman, WorldWar I officer, and Harding administration official (in the role of the first director ofthe Bureau of the Budget) CharlesDawes. During his time as Coolidge’s VP Dawes would become best known for draftinga WWI reparations plan, known as the Dawes Plan,for which he received the 1925Nobel Peace Prize. But Coolidge clearly never warmed to Dawes as his VP, asillustrated by the president’s failure to support Dawes’ signature domesticachievement: Dawes championed the McNary-HaugenFarm Relief Bill and helped it pass Congress, but Coolidgevetoed the bill not once but twice (in 1926and 1927). And when Coolidge announced he would not seek reelection in 1928and Dawes was rumored as a possible candidate, Coolidge told delegates that hewould consider any nomination of Dawes as a personal insult.    

3)     Charles Curtis: Herbert Hoover ended up the Republicanpresidential nominee in 1928, and Dawes was likewise passed over as a VicePresidential nominee despite his continued interest in the role. Instead, the RepublicanNational Convention in Kansas City chose Kansas Senator CharlesCurtis as Hoover’s VP nominee. The choice of Curtis reflected a second consecutiveRNC with a contested vice presidential nomination process that was separate from,and perhaps even more combative than, the presidential nomination. But at thesame time, Curtis was a hugely significant symbolic choice—as an enrolledmember of the Kaw Nation, he was (and remains to this day) theonly Native American ever to serve as Vice President. Another way that thechaos of these 1920s elections mirrors some of the factors that have made ourown current campaign and election unusual and groundbreaking!

Next 1924contexts tomorrow,

Ben

PS. Whatdo you think? Other crazy elections you’d highlight, or thoughts on this oneyou’d share?

November 4, 2024: The 1924 Election: Harding’s Shadow

[This hasbeen a particularly crazy last year/decade/eternity, but it’s not the firstnutty presidential campaign and election. 100 years ago wascertainly another, so this week I’ll AmericanStudy a handful of 1924 electioncontexts, leading up to some reflections on this year’s electoral results!]

On how theHarding administration’s scandals expanded in the year after his death, and howthey didn’t ultimately matter much in the election.

Beginning withthe 1840 election and WilliamHenry Harrison’s particularly abrupt death just one month after hisinauguration, and continuing through the 1960 election and theKennedy assassination, every twenty years the president who triumphed in thatcampaign ended up dying while still in office. The majority of those deathswere due to assassinations (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy), butthere were also three who died of natural causes: Harrison in 1841, FDRin 1945, and, on August2nd, 1923, Warren Harding from what was likely cardiacarrest but was called at the time a cerebral hemorrhage that had followed an“acutegastrointestinal attack.” Harding was on atrain and boat trip across the Western U.S. at the time (known by theevocative name the Voyageof Understanding), and apparently sometime in the course of the trip askedhis Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover (who laterwrote about the conversation) what a president should do if is he aware ofa scandal inside his administration that has not yet come to light.

Accordingto Hoover, he advised the president to publicize such a scandal; we’ll neverknow if Harding would have done so had he lived, but one thing is for certain:major scandals related to his administration did indeed emerge in the year afterhis death, amidst hisformer Vice President and newly sworn-inPresident Calvin Coolidge’s reelection campaign. The most prominent suchscandal was TeapotDome, which involved illicitly awarded leases to federal lands; investigationsbegan two months after Harding’s death and continued into early 1924, withHarding’s Secretaryof the Interior Albert Fall eventually serving prison time for his role. Justa couple months later, the Senate voted to open up another investigation, thistime into Harding’s Attorney GeneralHarry M. Daugherty; those investigationsbegan in March 1924 and continued for the next few months, eventuallyresulting in the conviction of and prison time for another former Hardingofficial, AlienProperty Custodian Thomas W. Miller (although Daugherty escaped with a hungjury). Those weren’teven the only scandals, but they were more than enough to dominate headlinesfor much of 1924.  

You’d thinkthat those election-year scandals would have affected Calvin Coolidge’s campaign—hehad been part of the Harding administration (it’s second-highest rankingofficial, no less), had assumed the presidency upon Harding’s death andmaintained much of the administration’s structure, and was running forreelection amidst all these stories about his former boss’s multi-layered corruption.At the very least, you’d think he’d have to constantly distance himself fromHarding, as AlGore did from Bill Clinton’s Monica Lewinsky scandal throughout the 2000campaign. But from what I can tell, Harding’s scandals were largely treated bythe press as separatefrom Coolidge and his campaign, and they don’t seem to have significantly shiftedtheeventual voting patterns (which closely mirrored the 1920 election, with athird-party thrown in about which I’ll write more in a couple days). Part ofthe reason is likely that the economy was in very good shape, which always benefitsan incumbent seeking reelection. But I’d say it also reflects an early 20thcentury reality that has changed drastically in the last 100 years—that vicepresidents were seen as quite distinct from the president (as we'll see in tomorrow's post as well), and given space todefine their own campaign as a result.  

Next 1924contexts tomorrow,

Ben

PS. Whatdo you think? Other elections you’d highlight, or thoughts on this one you’dshare?

November 2-3, 2024: October 2024 Recap

[A Recapof the month that was in AmericanStudying.]

September30: 19th Century Baseball: A Contested Origin: Inspired by abicentennial birthday and connected to my new podcast, a series on 19C baseballkicked off with two interesting details about the contested story of the sport’sorigins.

October1: 19th Century Baseball: Henry Chadwick: For his 200thbirthday, the series continues with three ways the “Father of Baseball” helped shapethe sport and its stories.

October2: 19th Century Baseball: The Massachusetts Game: Three placesthat can help us better remember an alternative form of baseball, as the seriesplays on.

October3: 19th Century Baseball: The First Professionals: Four figureswho together help us chart the evolution of professional baseball in the late19th century.

October4: 19th Century Baseball: The Celestials: The series concludeswith two 19th century baseball context for the 1870s team at theheart of my podcast.

October5-6: My New Podcast!: And speaking of that podcast, a special weekend poston three takeaways from my first experience with the medium!

October7: Contested Holidays: Memorial/Decoration Day: Ahead of Columbus/IndigenousPeoples’ Day, a series on contested holidays kicks off with a couple additionalthoughts on my annual Memorial and Decoration Day post.

October8: Contested Holidays: The 4th of July: The series continueswith whether and how there’s a place for celebratory patriotism in our nationalcommemorations.

October9: Contested Holidays: Labor Day: The bare minimum for how we shouldcelebrate Labor Day and a couple steps beyond, as the series parties on.

October10: Contested Holidays: Thanksgiving/Day of Mourning: With Thanksgiving justa few weeks away, two ways we can be thankful while mourning.

October11: Contested Holidays: “The War on Christmas”: The series concludes withthree voices who can help us see through the “War on Christmas” canard.

October12-13: Contested Holidays: Columbus/Indigenous Peoples Day: And for theholiday, a special weekend post on how my thinking on it has evolved over thelast decade, and one thing I’d still emphasize.

October14: Famous Phone Calls: The Great Gatsby: For the 75th anniversaryof a key stage in the technology, a series on American phone calls kicks offwith three phone calls at the heart of Fitzgerald’s portrayal of early 20CAmerica.  

October15: Famous Phone Calls: The Scream Films: The series continues with onething that’s really changed since the first of these phone-focused films, andone that hasn’t.

October16: Famous Phone Calls: Phone Songs: Five pop songs that call upon thistechnology, as the series rings on.

October17: Famous Phone Calls: “Madam and the Phone Bill”: A funny and fun poetic character,and the layers of meaning she reveals.

October18: Famous Phone Calls: The 2024 Election: With the election now just daysaway, the series concludes with how phone calls symbolize the striking contrastat the heart of this campaign.

October19-20: An AmericanStudier Tribute to the Phone: And on a more fullypositive note, what the phone has meant to me over the last decade of my lifeand relationships.

October21: Prison Stories: Dorothea Dix: For the 30th anniversary of asobering statistic, a PrisonStudying series kicks off with the activist fromwhom we still have a lot to learn.

October22: Prison Stories: Alcatraz: The series continues with why it’s okay toturn a prison into a tourist attraction, and what we can remember instead.

October23: Prison Stories: Ian Williams and Teaching in Prisons: Re-sharing one ofmy earliest posts, on a colleague and friend doing vital work in our prisons.

October24: Prison Stories: Johnny Cash: The message the Man in Black still has forus, if we can ever start to hear it, as the series rolls on.

October25: Prison Stories: The Inside Literary Prize: The series concludes with threequotes that together sum up why one of our newest prizes is also one of themost important ever.

October26-27: A PrisonStudying Reading List: And speaking of writing and reading,a weekend reminder that there’s always more we can read and learn.

October28: The Politics of Horror: Psycho and The Birds: We all know this year’sHalloween is interconnected with a very scary political season, so a series onthe politics of horror films kicks off with defamiliarization and prejudice inHitchcock.

October29: The Politics of Horror: Last House on the Left: The series continueswith a horror film that’s more disturbing in what it makes us cheer for.

October30: The Politics of Horror: Hostel and Taken: The horrifying xenophobia atthe heart of two of the 21st century’s biggest hits, as the seriesscreams on.

October31: The Politics of Horror: The Saw Series: Different visions of moralityin horror films and franchises, and whether they matter.

November1: The Politics of Horror: Recent Films: The series and month conclude withquick political takeaways from five new horror classics.

Electionseries starts Monday,

Ben

PS. Topicsyou’d like to see covered in this space? Guest Posts you’d like to contribute? Lemme know!

November 1, 2024: The Politics of Horror: Recent Films

[For thisyear’s Halloween series, right before a particularly scary election, I thoughtI’d focus on some of the many horror films that remind us of the genre’sinescapable intersections with political issues. Add your nominations incomments, please!]

Quickpolitical takeaways for five horror films from the last decade.

1)     ItFollows (2014): As at least a couple of the earliest posts in this serieshave illustrated, sex and horror have always been intertwined in this genre. ButI’m not sure any horror film has been quite so explicit, and yet quite soambiguous, about the links between those two elements. I’m not here to tell youhow to interpret this film’s themes in social or political ways—but you can’twatch it and not try to do so, and that’s a great case for horror’s politicalechoes regardless of your perspective.

2)     GetOut (2017): In that hyperlinked post I framed a trio of other filmsthat provide contexts and perhaps inspirations for Jordan Peele’s modern horrorclassic. Here I’ll simply add that Peele’s choice in a 2017 film to make whitesupremacy the truest source of horror has to be among the single most prescientcultural decisions in our history.

3)     Midsommar (2019): Thatsmart hyperlinked analysis says a great deal of what I’d want to say about Ari Aster’scult classic and themes of toxic masculinity. A lot of horror film killers andvillains seem to hate women with a particular vengeance, so I’d say it was longpast time we had a horror film in which men are the specific target instead.Maybe that’s a reductive reading of Midsommar, though, which is plentydivisive in its interpretations as well as its reviews. As with every film here,check it out for yourself and share your thoughts!  

4)     Prey (2022): Thislatest installments in the long-running Predators franchise is a lotless ambiguous than the others in this list, and a lot more badass, with young Comanchewarrior Naru (Amber Midthunder)more than up to the challenge of taking on the alien predator (at least as muchas was Ahnold back in the day, I’d argue). Here the politics aren’t in the film’scontent so much as in its existence as cultural representation, and (as the abovehyperlinked piece also argues) it’s really excellent for that.

5)     MaXXXine (2024): Idon’t know either this particular film or the trilogy it concludes very well,so I’ll mostly hand things over to my favorite contemporary reviewer Vern inthat hyperlinked review (which engages with all three films, and certainlyincludes their social and political themes as Vern always does). I’ll just addthat, as with Prey, these films seem to continue a trend of foregroundingbadass young women in contemporary horror, and that in and of itself is a powerfulsocial and political stance.

OctoberRecap this weekend,

Ben

PS. Whatdo you think? Other horror films you’d analyze?

October 31, 2024: The Politics of Horror: The Saw Series

[For thisyear’s Halloween series, right before a particularly scary election, I thoughtI’d focus on some of the many horror films that remind us of the genre’sinescapable intersections with political issues. Add your nominations incomments, please!]

Ondifferent visions of morality in horror films, and whether they matter.

There’s aneasy and somewhat stereotypical, although certainly not inaccurate, way to readthe morality or lessons ofhorror films: to emphasize how they seem consistently to punish characters,and especially female characters, who are too sexually promiscuous, drink or dodrugs, or otherwise act in immoral ways; and how they seem to rewardcharacters, especiallythe “final girl,” who are not only tough and resourceful butalso virgins and otherwise resistant to such immoral temptations. Film scholarCarol Clover reiterates but also to a degree challenges those interpretationsin her seminal Men, Women, and Chain Saws: Gender in theModern Horror Film (1992); Clover agrees with arguments about the “final girl,” but makesthe case that by asking viewers to identify with this female character, thefilms are indeed pushing our communal perspectives on gender in provocative newdirections.

It’simportant to add, however, that whether conventional slasher films arereiterating or challenging traditional moralities, they’re certainly notprioritizing those moral purposes—jump scares and gory deaths are much higheron the list of priorities. On the other hand, one of the most successful andinfluential horror series of the last decade, the Saw films (which began with 2004’s Saw and continued annually through the 7th and supposedlyfinal installment, 2010’s Saw 3D), hasmade its world’s and killer’s moral philosophy and objectives central to theseries’ purposes. The films’ villain, John Kramer,generally known only as Jigsaw, has been called a“deranged philanthropist,” as his puzzles and tortures are generallydesigned to test, alter, and ultimately strengthen his victims’ identities andbeliefs (if they survive, of course). That is, not only is it possible to findmoral messages in both the films and which characters do and do not survive inthem, but deciphering and living up to that morality becomes the means by whichthose characters can survive their tortures.

That’s thefilms and the characters—but what about the audience? It’s long been assumed(and I would generally agree) that audiences look to horror films not only tobe scared (auniversal human desire) but also to enjoy the unique and gory deaths(a moretroubling argument, but again one I would generally support). Soit’d be fair, and important, to ask whether that remains the case for Saw’s audiences—whether, that is,they’re in fact rooting not for characters to survive and grow, but instead tofail and be killed in Jigsaw’s inventive ways. And if most or even many of themare, whether that response—and its contribution to the series’ popularity andbox office success and thus its ability to continue across seven years andmovies—renders the films’ sense of morality irrelevant (it would certainly makeit ironic at the very least). To put it bluntly: it seems to make a bigdifference whether we see the Sawfilms as distinct in the inventiveness of their tortures/deaths or the moralityof their killer. As with any post and topic, I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Lastpolitical horror tomorrow,

Ben

PS. Whatdo you think? Other horror films you’d analyze?

October 30, 2024: The Politics of Horror: Hostel and Taken

[For thisyear’s Halloween series, right before a particularly scary election, I thoughtI’d focus on some of the many horror films that remind us of the genre’sinescapable intersections with political issues. Add your nominations incomments, please!]

On thehorrifying xenophobia at the heart of two of the 21st centurybiggest hits.

It’s hardto argue with success, and Eli Roth’s Hostel (2005) and Pierre Morel’s Taken (2008) are by many measures two of the mostunexpectedly successful films of the 21st century’s first twodecades. Hostel made more than $80million worldwide (on a budget of $4.5 million), led to a sequel two yearslater, and contributed significantly to the rise of an entirely new sub-gerne (the horror sub-genre generally knownas “torture porn”). Takencost a lot more to make (budget of $25 million) but also made a lot more at thebox office (worldwide gross of over $225 million), spawned multiple sequels andimitations, and fundamentally changed the careerarc and general perception of its star Liam Neeson. Neitherfilm was aiming for any Oscars or to make the Sight and Sound list, butclearly both did what they were trying to do well enough to please theiraudiences and hit all the notes in their generic (in the literal sense)formulas.

What thetwo films were trying to do is, of course, a matter of interpretation anddebate (althoughEli Roth is more than happy to tell us his take on what his film is about);moreover, they’re clearly very different from each other, in genre and goal andmany other ways, and I don’t intend to conflate them in this post. Yet theyboth share an uncannily similar basic plot: naïve and fun-loving young Americantravelers are abducted and tortured by evil European captors, against whom thetravelers themselves (in Hostel) orthe traveler’s badass special forces type Dad (in Taken; youngMaggie Grace gets to fight some of her own fights against additional Euro-typesin the sequel) have to fight in order to escape. While it’s possible to arguethat the travelers in Roth’s film help bring on their own torture as a resultof their chauvinistic attitudes toward European women (in thesequel Roth made his protagonists young women, and much more explicitlyinnocent ones at that), there’s no question that the true forces ofevil in each film are distinctly European. Moreover, since all of the youngtravelers are explicitly constructed as tourists, hoping to experience thedifferent world of Europe, the films can’t help but seem like cautionary talesabout that world’s dangerous and destructive underbelly.

It’s thatlast point which I’d really want to emphasize here. After all, bad guys in bothhorror and action films can and do come from everywhere, and that doesn’tnecessarily serve as a blanket indictment of those places; if anything, I wouldargue that themulti-national and multi-ethnic villainy of (for example) James Bond films is athematic strength, making clear that evil can and will be foundeverywhere.  Yet both Hostel and Taken are precisely about, or at least originate with, therelationship between American travelers and Europeans, about the naïve idealsof cultural tourism and about creating plots that depend on very frighteningand torturous realities within these foreign worlds. “Don’t travel to Europe,young people,” they seem to argue; and if you do, well, be prepared either tokill a ton of ugly Europeans (or have your Daddy do it) or to be killed bythem. Not exactly the travel narrative I’d argue for, and indeed a terrifyingcontribution to our 21st century American worldview.

Nextpolitical horror tomorrow,

Ben

PS. Whatdo you think? Other horror films you’d analyze?

October 29, 2024: The Politics of Horror: Last House on the Left

[For thisyear’s Halloween series, right before a particularly scary election, I thoughtI’d focus on some of the many horror films that remind us of the genre’sinescapable intersections with political issues. Add your nominations incomments, please!]

On the horror film that’s more disturbing in what it makes us cheer forthan how it makes us scream.

The Last House on the Left (1972) was Wes Craven’s directorial debut, as well as oneof the only films that he wrote and edited as well as directed (although it wasat least partly based on Ingmar Bergman’s The Virgin Spring [1960], as Craven has admitted). But despite launching one of the late 20th century’s mostsignificant horror talents, Last House is far less well known than Craven’s Nightmare on Elm Street series, or even(I would argue) his other prominent early film, The Hills Have Eyes (1977). Partly that’s because Last House feels extremely raw inexecution, the product of a talent still figuring out much of what he could do;but partly it’s because it also feels raw in another and more troubling way,one that makes us more deeply uncomfortable than horror films generally do.

Thatrawness is most obviously comprised by the extended and very graphic abduction,rape, and murder sequence that opens the film—a sequence that feels less likehorror than like cinemaverité of an extremely disturbing kind. But even more raw, both in itsemotional brutality and in the places it takes the audience, is the film’sculminating sequence, in which the killers find themselves in the home of theparents of one of the murdered girls—and the audience finds itself rooting forthose parents to take the bloodiest and most violent revenge possible on thesepsychopaths. I suppose it’s possible to argue that we’re not meant to root inthat way, or that we’re meant to feel conflicted about these ordinary and goodpeople turning into vengeful monsters—but to be honest, any audience that haswatched the film’s opening seems to me to be primed instead to cheer as thekillers get their violent comeuppance, even—perhaps especially—if it requires thistransformation of grieving parents into their own terrifying kind of killers.

To beclear, if we do find ourselves cheering for the parents, we’re doing so notjust because of how Craven’s film has guided us there. We’re also taking thenext step in what I called, in this poston the comic book hero The Punisher, the long history of vigilante heroesin American culture; and perhaps at the same time living vicariously the mostpotent (if extra-legal) argumentsfor the death penalty. Yet the rawness of Craven’s film, whetherintended or simply a result of its stage in his career, serves one additionaland crucial symbolic purpose: it reminds us that vigilante justice andexecutions, however deserved they might feel, are also grotesque andhorrifying, as difficult to watch as they are to justify when the heat of themoment has cooled off. Last House isscarier for what it reveals in ourselves than for anything that’s on screen—butwhat’s on screen can also help us examine that side of ourselves honestly, andthat’s a pretty important effect.

Nextpolitical horror tomorrow,

Ben

PS. Whatdo you think? Other horror films you’d analyze?

October 28, 2024: The Politics of Horror: Psycho and The Birds

[For thisyear’s Halloween series, right before a particularly scary election, I thoughtI’d focus on some of the many horror films that remind us of the genre’sinescapable intersections with political issues. Add your nominations incomments, please!]

Ondefamiliarization, horror, and prejudice.

In his essay “Artas Technique,” pioneering RussianFormalist theorist Viktor Shklovsky (whom I never imagined I’d bediscussing in this space, but I am an AmericanStudier and I contain multitudes)developed the concept of“defamiliarization”: the idea that one of art’s central goals andeffects is to make us look at the world around us, and particularly thosethings with which we are most familiar, in a new and unfamiliar light. Suchdefamiliarizations can have many different tones and effects, includingpositive ones like opening our minds and inspiring new ideas; but it seems tome that one of their chief consistent effects is likely to be horror. Afterall, the familiar is often (even usually) the comfortable, and to be jarred outof that familiarity and comfort, whatever the long-term necessity and benefits,can be a terrifying thing.

StephenKing, by all accounts one of the modern masters of horror, seems wellaware of that fact, having turned such familiar objects as dogs and cars intosources of primal terror. And AlfredHitchcock, one of the 20th century’s such masters (and, yes, aBrit, but he set many of his films, including today’s two, in the U.S.),certainly was as well, as illustrated by one of his silliest yet also one ofhis scariest films: The Birds (1963).The film’s heroine Melanie, played by the inimitable Tippi Hedren, asks herboyfriend, “Mitch, doseagulls normally act this way?”; it’s a ridiculous line, but at thesame time it nicely sums up the source of the film’s horror: we’re alwayssurrounded by birds of one kind or another, and there are few ideas moreterrifying than the notion that such accepted and generally harmless parts ofour world could suddenly become constant threats. I defy anyone to watchHitchcock’s film and not look askance at the next pigeon you come across.

The Birds was Hitchcock’s second consecutivehorror film, following on what was then and likely remains hisbiggest hit: Psycho (1960). Psycho relies for its horror more on a combination of slow-burnsuspense andsurprising and veryfamous jump scares than defamiliarization, with one crucialexception (SPOILERS for the four people who don’t know the film’s revealalready): the ending, and itsrelevation of the killer’strue identity and motivations. If that ending is meant to be the mostterrifying part of all—and the film’s marketing campaign suggestedas much very clearly—then there’s no way around it: the defamiliarization ofgender and sexuality that accompanies the revelation of Norman Bates’ cross-dressing ispresented as something fundamentally frightening, not only connected toNorman’s murderous ways but indeed the titular psychosis that produced them.That is, while those murderous birds are clearly deviating from their familiarbehaviors, I would argue that Bates is presented as deviant in his normalbehaviors—and that his gender and sexual deviancy represents, again, the film’sculminating and most shocking, and thus troubling and prejudiced, horror.

Nextpolitical horror tomorrow,

Ben

PS. Whatdo you think? Other horror films you’d analyze?