Carol J Clover uses the argument that the Final Girl is ambiguous, in having masculine and feminine qualities, does this have the same effect as the masquerade? Does this allow her to be gain power from being the spectacle?
In explaining the transformation of the final girl to a masculine figure clover notes “What is represented as male-on-female violence, in short, is figuratively speaking male-on-male sex.” which she then follows up with the quoted excerpt “literature is a completely distorted and idealized version of what really happens.” Is clover mocking herself? Is this follow up quote placed to show a great contrast in perceptions or does it mean something else?
Clover defines the Final Girl as a masculine female because of her “masculine interests, inevitable sexual reluctance…her apartness from other girls, [and] sometimes her name.” What happens if the Final Girl does save herself and the day, but has more feminine interests, female friends, and a girly name? Is this possible? Present? Does she still count as the Final Girl?
Clover states that the male audience members cheer when the female victim is raped or murdered, and yet they also cheer at the end when the heroine kills the monster. So why do men always identify with the dominant character? (with the monster when it is murdering and with the final girl when she is triumphant). Are they unable to identify with a character that is being overpowered or subordinated?
Clover explains that “the Final Girl has not just manned herself; she specifically unmans an opressor whose masculinity was in question to begin with”(239). Is the reason why men end up identifying with the final girl because she extermined the two things they were afraid of? The two things that were sexually repressed or sexually different from them? The monster and the woman? (she extermined the woman since she had to lose her femeninity in order to kill the monster).
The Final Girl is intelligent, but Clover doesn’t state that the Final girl is attractive. Clover says that the victim is “always young and beautiful.” She notes that the male viewer enjoys watching the victim’s demise and is “triumphant” when the Final Girl overcomes the kill. So which girl is the male viewer more attracted to and which one is he actually rooting for? Can he identify with the same girl he is attracted to?
The author states “the gender displacement can provide a kind of identificatory buffer, an emotional remove, that permits the majority audience to explore taboo subjects in the relative safety of vicariousness.” This notion really stands out for me. It is one thing for men to watch slasher movies for use of the male gaze, voyeuristically, sexually, or castration anxiety ridden). However, the notion that it allows men to do something repressed or desiring that they could never have done in societal terms. Does this same idea apply to women and/or queers? This idea also comes to the question of rape. Could men possibly feel attachment to someone who is against moral ties, but in this movie prospers while committing sexually wrong actions?
Carol J. Clover notes that” The gender of the Final Girl is likewise compromised from the outset by her masculine interests…her apartness from other girls”. Therefore, once more, we are seeing the female protagonist beholding masculine traits. Is this really the only way in which female characters are able to become the dominant characters? Why is it still seen as ‘masculine’ to be the hero? Why is it still the case that ‘successful’ woman have to encompass masculine characteristics? Will these cultural stereotypes ever change?
(The other response I left is actually Laura Hendricksen’s, her computer wasn’t working, however I can see that her response was actually successful)
Clover suggests at the end of her article that slasher films may be, ironically, “radical…addressing the social, political, racial, or sexual iniquities, hypocrisy in religion and government.” Yet doesn’t the slasher film, in its representation of the sexually “different” and “threatening” character as the antagonist, do exactly the opposite? Indeed, this article showed us that most slasher film killers are sexually stunted or challenged in some ways (i.e. intersex, sexually repressed, incestuous, transsexual, etc.) And in all these films these sexually different characters are “punished”, just like the sexually-threatening females are always killed and “punished.” So doesn’t this punishment of what is sexually threatening and different just satisfy the heteronormative, patriarchal structure of film?
Clover states that in slasher films, the sexual, attractive female is almost always killed in the beginning of the film while the Final Girl, who usually exhibits masculine traits and has masculine interests, remains until the end and kills off the monster. Due to her traditionally “masculine” qualities, Clover says that the male viewer can safely identify with the Final Girl. However, as the Final Girl does not have traditionally feminine qualities, does the female viewer willingly identify with the Final Girl? Or does she simply identify with the Final Girl because she is the last female, and there are no other available options?
Carol J. Clover notes of the killer in slasher movies that “His masculinity is severely qualified: he ranges from the virginal or sexual inert…is spiritually divided…or even equipped with vulva and vagina”. Clover also suggests by comparison that the victim “Is by any measure the slasher film’s hero”, and therefore emphasizing the advantageous position that the female victim is put in. So why is it that the female does not gain credit for being the protagonist? What stops us from realizing she is indeed the heroine of the movie?
If horror is not directly aligned with childhood trauma, the way in which it is characteristed by sexual repression shows that within horror, a sexual excitement from the viewer emerges. “The penetration scene is commonly the films pivotal momement, if the victim has up to now simply fled, she has at this point no choice but to fight back”. Therefore when couples go on dates to watch slasher flicks, is this a modern method of foreplay and in this voyeuristic representation of what we can consider to be abnormal sexual desires, does it mean that both men and women like to be dominated by the killer/ the other?
“If no male character of any stature lives to tell the tale” then why does this not make the woman the hero, the key protagonist. Is the way in which the killer defines the action of the woman, not just another example of male puppetry of female characters. Why is it always men never women that are the puppeteers?
Clover writes, “To applaud the Final Girl as a feminist development… is, in light of her figurative meaning, a particularly grotesque expression of wishful thinking. She is simply agreed upon fiction…” (242). Clover seems to argue that because the Final Girl is a stand-in for an adolescent male, her value for feminism is diminished. However, if the Final Girl (a strong, independent victim-hero) is not a triumph for feminists, then what is? Where does Clover stand on this issue? Is she correct in deeming Final Girls as “a congenial double for the adolescent male” (241)?
Carol J. Clover writes that in slasher films, “The combination masculine female repeatedly prevails over feminine male” (247). Can we think of examples of this phenomenon in other genres of film? Any counter examples? What does this trend speak to in our current culture—are men encouraged to repress their “feminine” characteristics, and is this pressure societal (external) or personal (internal)? What are the implications of this statement from the female point of view?
Clover states: “gender is less a wall than a permeable membrane.” Is a killer’s “non-phallic sexuality” revealed by the sex of the victim? In other words, if the killer exhibits non phallic sexuality are they more likely to target victims who exhibit gender confusion as they do or does the sex of the victim not matter to them?
“Final Girls” are relatable due to their feminine and masculine qualities. But do audiences actually identify with sexual ambiguity? In an extreme case, say the primary character was a transvestite, would the majority of the audience still associate with them? It seems that part of the ability to relate lies in the structures of society’s gender roles and a connection the audience has with the character; they both are under the influence of society’s expectations.
Carol J. Clover notes of the killer in slasher movies “His masculinity is severely qualified: he ranges from the virginal or sexual inert…is spiritually divided…or even equipped with vulva and vagina”. Clover also suggests by comparison that the victim “is by any measure the slasher film’s hero”. And therefore emphasizing the advantageous position that the female victim is put in. However, the essay goes on to show the ambiguity in the female character’s sexual identity, often portrayed as unfeminine, masculinised. Then, why is it that the female does not gain credit for being the protagonist? What stops us from realizing she is the heroine of the movie when we are tempted to see her as the victim trying to escape the killer throughout the whole plot? Even more so, would a clear determination of gender identity undermine the « thrill » of slasher movies? Or is the gender-identity game the essence of this genre?
Woops. Sorry I forgot about this.
Carol J Clover uses the argument that the Final Girl is ambiguous, in having masculine and feminine qualities, does this have the same effect as the masquerade? Does this allow her to be gain power from being the spectacle?
In explaining the transformation of the final girl to a masculine figure clover notes “What is represented as male-on-female violence, in short, is figuratively speaking male-on-male sex.” which she then follows up with the quoted excerpt “literature is a completely distorted and idealized version of what really happens.” Is clover mocking herself? Is this follow up quote placed to show a great contrast in perceptions or does it mean something else?
Clover defines the Final Girl as a masculine female because of her “masculine interests, inevitable sexual reluctance…her apartness from other girls, [and] sometimes her name.” What happens if the Final Girl does save herself and the day, but has more feminine interests, female friends, and a girly name? Is this possible? Present? Does she still count as the Final Girl?
Clover states that the male audience members cheer when the female victim is raped or murdered, and yet they also cheer at the end when the heroine kills the monster. So why do men always identify with the dominant character? (with the monster when it is murdering and with the final girl when she is triumphant). Are they unable to identify with a character that is being overpowered or subordinated?
Clover explains that “the Final Girl has not just manned herself; she specifically unmans an opressor whose masculinity was in question to begin with”(239). Is the reason why men end up identifying with the final girl because she extermined the two things they were afraid of? The two things that were sexually repressed or sexually different from them? The monster and the woman? (she extermined the woman since she had to lose her femeninity in order to kill the monster).
The Final Girl is intelligent, but Clover doesn’t state that the Final girl is attractive. Clover says that the victim is “always young and beautiful.” She notes that the male viewer enjoys watching the victim’s demise and is “triumphant” when the Final Girl overcomes the kill. So which girl is the male viewer more attracted to and which one is he actually rooting for? Can he identify with the same girl he is attracted to?
The author states “the gender displacement can provide a kind of identificatory buffer, an emotional remove, that permits the majority audience to explore taboo subjects in the relative safety of vicariousness.” This notion really stands out for me. It is one thing for men to watch slasher movies for use of the male gaze, voyeuristically, sexually, or castration anxiety ridden). However, the notion that it allows men to do something repressed or desiring that they could never have done in societal terms. Does this same idea apply to women and/or queers? This idea also comes to the question of rape. Could men possibly feel attachment to someone who is against moral ties, but in this movie prospers while committing sexually wrong actions?
Carol J. Clover notes that” The gender of the Final Girl is likewise compromised from the outset by her masculine interests…her apartness from other girls”. Therefore, once more, we are seeing the female protagonist beholding masculine traits. Is this really the only way in which female characters are able to become the dominant characters? Why is it still seen as ‘masculine’ to be the hero? Why is it still the case that ‘successful’ woman have to encompass masculine characteristics? Will these cultural stereotypes ever change?
(The other response I left is actually Laura Hendricksen’s, her computer wasn’t working, however I can see that her response was actually successful)
Clover suggests at the end of her article that slasher films may be, ironically, “radical…addressing the social, political, racial, or sexual iniquities, hypocrisy in religion and government.” Yet doesn’t the slasher film, in its representation of the sexually “different” and “threatening” character as the antagonist, do exactly the opposite? Indeed, this article showed us that most slasher film killers are sexually stunted or challenged in some ways (i.e. intersex, sexually repressed, incestuous, transsexual, etc.) And in all these films these sexually different characters are “punished”, just like the sexually-threatening females are always killed and “punished.” So doesn’t this punishment of what is sexually threatening and different just satisfy the heteronormative, patriarchal structure of film?
Clover states that in slasher films, the sexual, attractive female is almost always killed in the beginning of the film while the Final Girl, who usually exhibits masculine traits and has masculine interests, remains until the end and kills off the monster. Due to her traditionally “masculine” qualities, Clover says that the male viewer can safely identify with the Final Girl. However, as the Final Girl does not have traditionally feminine qualities, does the female viewer willingly identify with the Final Girl? Or does she simply identify with the Final Girl because she is the last female, and there are no other available options?
Carol J. Clover notes of the killer in slasher movies that “His masculinity is severely qualified: he ranges from the virginal or sexual inert…is spiritually divided…or even equipped with vulva and vagina”. Clover also suggests by comparison that the victim “Is by any measure the slasher film’s hero”, and therefore emphasizing the advantageous position that the female victim is put in. So why is it that the female does not gain credit for being the protagonist? What stops us from realizing she is indeed the heroine of the movie?
If horror is not directly aligned with childhood trauma, the way in which it is characteristed by sexual repression shows that within horror, a sexual excitement from the viewer emerges. “The penetration scene is commonly the films pivotal momement, if the victim has up to now simply fled, she has at this point no choice but to fight back”. Therefore when couples go on dates to watch slasher flicks, is this a modern method of foreplay and in this voyeuristic representation of what we can consider to be abnormal sexual desires, does it mean that both men and women like to be dominated by the killer/ the other?
“If no male character of any stature lives to tell the tale” then why does this not make the woman the hero, the key protagonist. Is the way in which the killer defines the action of the woman, not just another example of male puppetry of female characters. Why is it always men never women that are the puppeteers?
Clover writes, “To applaud the Final Girl as a feminist development… is, in light of her figurative meaning, a particularly grotesque expression of wishful thinking. She is simply agreed upon fiction…” (242). Clover seems to argue that because the Final Girl is a stand-in for an adolescent male, her value for feminism is diminished. However, if the Final Girl (a strong, independent victim-hero) is not a triumph for feminists, then what is? Where does Clover stand on this issue? Is she correct in deeming Final Girls as “a congenial double for the adolescent male” (241)?
Carol J. Clover writes that in slasher films, “The combination masculine female repeatedly prevails over feminine male” (247). Can we think of examples of this phenomenon in other genres of film? Any counter examples? What does this trend speak to in our current culture—are men encouraged to repress their “feminine” characteristics, and is this pressure societal (external) or personal (internal)? What are the implications of this statement from the female point of view?
Clover states: “gender is less a wall than a permeable membrane.” Is a killer’s “non-phallic sexuality” revealed by the sex of the victim? In other words, if the killer exhibits non phallic sexuality are they more likely to target victims who exhibit gender confusion as they do or does the sex of the victim not matter to them?
“Final Girls” are relatable due to their feminine and masculine qualities. But do audiences actually identify with sexual ambiguity? In an extreme case, say the primary character was a transvestite, would the majority of the audience still associate with them? It seems that part of the ability to relate lies in the structures of society’s gender roles and a connection the audience has with the character; they both are under the influence of society’s expectations.
Carol J. Clover notes of the killer in slasher movies “His masculinity is severely qualified: he ranges from the virginal or sexual inert…is spiritually divided…or even equipped with vulva and vagina”. Clover also suggests by comparison that the victim “is by any measure the slasher film’s hero”. And therefore emphasizing the advantageous position that the female victim is put in. However, the essay goes on to show the ambiguity in the female character’s sexual identity, often portrayed as unfeminine, masculinised. Then, why is it that the female does not gain credit for being the protagonist? What stops us from realizing she is the heroine of the movie when we are tempted to see her as the victim trying to escape the killer throughout the whole plot? Even more so, would a clear determination of gender identity undermine the « thrill » of slasher movies? Or is the gender-identity game the essence of this genre?