In a bit of irony the program included both "The Howling" - which Gene gave a good review for, and "Motel Hell", which Roger liked. Both gave thumbs up to another 1980 "woman in danger" horror film, the Brian DePalma movie "Dressed to Kill". The difference of course lay in how that film was made, just as with "Halloween". Quite a few of the films mentioned have been remade in the years since, and I’m sure both critics would have been saddened by the advent of the so-called "torture porn" shockers of the last several years.

I feel that Siskel & Ebert were being true to their feelings, but also fatigued by watching so many "women in danger" films in such a short time. Mostly all of the films they disparage are admittedly terrible films.

The only thing worse than "women in danger" is the fact that producers think only women are housewives or prostitutes. That was worse in the 80s or 90s. Its another reminder to me that rich white producers have lost touch with the common people. "Women in danger" films are also another reminder why I really hate the slasher genre.

I’m sorry, but I totally disagree with the premise here. for me as a horror fan, the effect is the opposite; I feel for the women who’re set up for danger, and it puts me on edge. certainly there are some people who do enjoy the cruelty for its own sake, but I think they’re in the minority. what does it say about the cynical nature of the people who read into these types of films this way? Or is the criticism that siskel and ebert take here down purely for thesis reasons, in other words, to sound like you’re making some kind of enlightened point when you’re really just rationalizing and drawing conclusions for your own career ends?

There are two genres of movies whose fans continuously accuse its critics of always "reading too much into" them. These are slasher films and dumb comedies. Both of these genres are also quite often misogynistic. Coincidence? I think not.

so although the viewers of such films don’t even feel the way about these movies that these critics say they do, its simply taken as fact? look, I’m sure saying "misogyny" makes you feel smart and self-righteous, but its the wrong idea. people’s willing and aggressively unreleanting ignorance is so frustrating...

I think they all but admitted that different audiences have different reactions. The tendancy to dismiss any attempted intellectual critque of genres that most of people don’t think deeply about as "self-rightous," comes from what I call anti-intellectual snobbery. Just because your interpration may seem off based, hardly means your ideas are all wrong.

With hindsight, their indignation is pretty funny. A whole generation of kids grew up loving these movies, and turned out just fine (many even love women....some even ARE women!)

Since this program was done in 1980, I think they shoud of said something about the otherwise entertaining film Time After Time. Though it apperared on Gene’s top 10 list in ’79, all the murder victims were women. One’s throat was slashed, another one’s murder was hard to tellwhat happened, one was drowned, and the grisley aftermath of the last murder scene included blood on the walls and a severed hand on the floor!

You will recall the murder in that film was supposed to be Jack The Ripper. Obviously the targets were thus exclusively women.

I think the notion that the people who made these films hate women is way off. They love money. It was a quick, cheap and (almost) sure-fire way to make a profit for low budget filmmakers (many with limited talent). Had it been the case that it was cheap and easy to make an empowering women’s picture that appealed to teenagers (the biggest audience for movies) - then these same filmmakers would have been making those! In fact, I believe Sean Cunningham (Friday the 13th) had tried to make money doing other genres (kid’s pictures etc) before going back to horror (he had produced Last on the Left). Even the Weinstein’s started in horror (The Burning) - not because they hate women, but because it was an easy way into the film business.

...And their mindset and reasoning on horror films qualifies them as top citics/authorities? Big brother lives right around the corner folks...watch out!

Conspiracy Theory. Mom approved!

They never said the filmmakets THEMSELVES hate women. They always knew movies were made by many individuals. What they argued was that certain movies pandered to a hostile mindset towards independent women, even if the filmmakers didn’t realize it. It’s like they later said in 1984 about the rise in movies like Red Dawn that pandered to militant patriotism. It wasn’t because filmmakers had grown more conservative, it was becuase they once again taped into that "coaleased dream" that’s talked about here.

The real problem with the argument that THIS TREND was beause of a reaction to the women’s movement is that it assumes those in the audience who have this mindset made up the majority of ticket buyers. Also if Halloween was indeed the trend setter and they didn’t think it pandered to a hate women mindset, how can all the successfull followrs be cador to this mindset and even be called true followers?

I love Siskel and Ebert, but I have to ask: What is Friday the 13th doing on this show? Okay, so they show 3 scenes with women being killed. The neglect to mention that FIVE men also get killed. And that the killer is a 60-year old woman, which is why the scene with the hitchhiker is shown from the killer’s perspective; they wanted to avoid showing the killer on-camera. And the only part of that scene that is shown from the killer’s perspective is while she is driving the jeep. Friday the 13th is no masterpiece; it’s not a great or even a good movie, but it’s easily the best movie of the ones they featured in this episode, and no one who has seen it could begin to argue that it hates women.

When I say Friday the 13th is the best of the movies they feature on this show, I am not including Halloween.

You should check out what they said in the 1985 episode Sequals, Part 2 about Friday the 13th AFTER having said through the FOURTH sequal. Clearly they had lightened on the original by than and for good reason.

Halloween is a little misogynistic: As a child, Micheal Myers seeing his sister naked, may have affected his persona.

Your website is priceless firstmagnitude; Thank you!!!

I admit that I am a pretty dedicated fan of the horror genre, but I still feel it’s only logical to point out how they have absolutely nothing to back up their claim that slasher films were a "reaction" to the women’s movement. This is speculation at the very best.

I think this video is mislabelled, because they mention "The Howling" which was only released in 1981...

Upon closer look, it seems like they just got promotional material for "The Howling", which is why it’s included but they have no clips of it.

I like to know what so called hindsight people here are talking about when they so these films had no such effect. Because last time I checked Violence against women has risen and so has rapes against women. So to the people here who think these movies had no such effect. I say time to wake up from fantasy land.

These movies may be vile junk appealing to sick f**ks, or may serve be effective mirrors of the underlying reality "informing" the less aware ones in a blunt manner (if anything, it builds up your hatred towards s*xual predators like probably little else does - "they’re the ugliest thoughts in the world") - but personally, I f**king hate this stuff, it makes me sick and I did enjoy seeing these guys thrashing these movies.

It was absolutely catharctic.

Having that said, I see the part they showed from Halloween was the one with the "final girl" who obviously fights back and survives.

Maybe they should’ve compared all those other scenes with the victims (of either gender) getting less lucky.

I understand they don’t necessarily serve exploitation and probably have legitimate intentions, but I felt f**king sick reading the Wiki synopsis of those scenes.

Also, it should be noted that "Spit on your Grave" is a revenge film.

The woman doesn’t end up as a victim, but brutally assaults her attackers at the end.

Quite a twist for "the most despicable movie on the list", and not exactly empowering to the poor battered mens, either.

@Brad
even if there is empathy for the victims. wouldn’t you agree that the portrayal and the "casual relationships" presented in some of those slashers are questionable? like the idea, that a girl who is dressing "inappropriately" is pretty much putting herself in danger? or the usual stuff about those who do drugs or have s*x usually being killed not long after?

@twooffour (4 weeks ago)
I am sort of torn on "I spit on your grave" and other rape-and-revenge movies. because too often (and I think "I spit..." is an example for this) these movies are trying to have their cake and eat it as well. on one hand a lot of those scenes of s*xual violence are clearly exploitive (showing way too graphic details and such*) - on the other hand there is this "redemption" story arc in which the victim overcomes the attacker.

* which would not be necessary: you could easily cut the rape scenes to a minimum if you wanted to.

Critics really need to learn that there is no such thing as good movies and bad movies, there are only movies you like and don’t like. People have different tastes. I don’t mind them stating their opinions, but going into all this stuff about "demeaning half the human race" and "don’t see this movie" can be really jerky and arrogant. They should just talk about the content and give their opinions without getting so deep into it. And of course Friday the 13th is now largely viewed as a classic.

The Howling? I don’t know what they lumped that in with these (mostly) generic slasher movies. It makes it seem like they didn’t even watched it and was only thrown in as an after thought to just have another movie title. If memory serves, Ebert liked Mote Hell. It’s pure parody, not to be taken seriously.

Friday the 13th, a classic? Hardly. All of these flicks were a rip off of superior Italian giallo thrillers. The Italians did it long before, and better. Give me Bava’s Blood and Black Lace or Bay of Blood, Sergio Martino’s 70s films or the early Argento stuff any day of the week over the movies they mentioned in this episode.

Cabin in the Woods explicitly attacked this trope. It’s hard to go into why without spoiling the entire movie, but there’s a scene on the docks where a man happily talks about how watching a woman being attacked and brutalized makes him happy and want to cheer for her. Despite being one of the very people that put her there in the first place.

Yea, that guy is pretty much word for word making the same criticisms Siskel and Ebert are doing here. And that’s not even getting into the fact that the film’s storyline LITERALLY requires a "whore" to be "punished" and the film is pretty obviously coming down on the mentality that needs it. Not shockingly, the nature of criticisms that film made about other horror films REALLY pleased the late Roger Ebert when he did review it.

There’s a reason films like this are generally called "exploitation" and "torture porn." Because they have no redeeming artistic value - they exist entirely to shock and make people come out to be shocking. And most of the people that make them are well aware of and happy with it. It’s a shame, though - horror doesn’t HAVE to be this. It CAN be better and it CAN have artistic merit and it also CAN strike out into new territory. Horror is actually a fantastic way to explore the darker reaches of humanity and the world around us.

What’s amazing is that this statement wasn’t new - this episode highlights that even two newspaper critics on public television in 1980 had already picked up on the problem.