Post-Op: Giving Horror Films Another Chance
  • Larrie Dudenhoeffer


Our exploration of the four tissue types of horror cinema might raise a few eyebrows, and a few questions with them: Why describe The Amityville Horror, and not Phantasm or Antichrist, for example, in terms of connective tissue, since all of these films contain conspicuous moments of exsanguination? Might these films resemble more than one tissue type? Why focus on the oculomotor muscles in The Ring and not Psycho, which also contains a close-up of its main character’s eye? Why focus on these specific films anyway? The eight chapters of Embodiment and Horror Cinema might seem random or arbitrarily chosen, although they share certain virtues, namely the fact the many mainstream critics unfairly deride or ignore them, and so do not write much that is terrifically insightful about them. Also, these films cut across different subgenres—the thriller, the supernatural film, and techno-horror—such critics typically do not count as “body horror.” These chapters work to demonstrate that even films without much carnage in them, such as Psycho, the Universal monster films, and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, or without any explicit thematization of the infidelities of the flesh, such as The Ring or Paranormal Activity, deserve serious reconsideration as examples of “body horror,” since they all verify, to a significant degree, the axiom that all horror is body horror.


Tissue Type Epistemic Confidence Toilet Flushing Horror Cinema Specific Film 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Copyright information

© Larrie Dudenhoeffer 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Larrie Dudenhoeffer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations