After yesterday's "Splatter University" experiment, it may seem disingenuous for the Cap'n to delve into a theoretical reading of 1982's* The Slumber Party Massacre, but the film has a reputation of being a step above its contemporaries, despite some strange pandering to male audiences early in the film.
It's worth noting that writer Rita Mae Brown wrote the screenplay as a parody of slasher films, but the producers took on the film irony-free, giving Slumber Party Massacre (there's no "The" in the title screen) a curious, detached quality from its genre counterparts. Director Amy Holden Jones certainly straddles the line between parodic and serious, and the end result is an entry from early in the era that stands out and is often referred to as the first "feminist" slasher film. To be honest, there's plenty of evidence in the film to support that claim.(normally, in a full on review, I'd include a synopsis, but this will likely be the longest Horror Fest entry, for the simple fact that the volume of films is too high for all-encompassing critiques.)
Let's begin with the strange contradiction that exists in an otherwise women-centric film, the high school shower scene, where the entire women's basketball team strips down and has a bit of a chat while soaping up their bodies on camera. In fact, there's a strange, lingering shot of main character Trish's back, then behind, then back, before she turns around to show us her breasts again. This isn't the first time we've seen Trish semi-naked before; the film opens with her waking up, taking her nightgown off, and getting dressed, then decided to throw out her childhood toys, a symbolic gesture of "growing up" that doesn't necessarily play into the film - other than to provide the killer a Barbie doll to mutilate and leave for a scare later.
Speaking of the killer, Russ Thorn's early introduction as the killer in the film removes all ambiguity regarding secondary characters. There's no need to guess which person is picking off the girls (and some of their boyfriends and neighbors), because we're given a clear look at his face and drill before we've actually been introduced to all of the protagonists. It would be tempting to dismiss the "drill as homicidal phallus," were it not for an explicit castration metaphor later in the film - which I will discuss further down. Accordingly, it's not difficult to guess that "thorn," something that "pricks" people, is also not accidental on the part of Brown.
Once the slumber party is underway, there's a shot of two of the boys watching our heroines undress, and indication of a slightly dubious neighbor, and a subplots involving Valerie Bates (again, not likely a coincidence, Psycho fans), her pre-pubescent sister Courtney, and gym coach Rachel Jana that begin to drift away from standard slasher fare. Because we already know the killer and the red herrings are limited to one perspective shot involving jock John Minor, it's actually the way the plot unfolds outside of the "kills" that distinguishes Slumber Party Massacre from other slashers.
The reversal of roles figures prominently into the film. In most instances, the women are all tougher than the men, either dealing with each other or dealing with the killer. Courtney sneaks into Valerie's room to steal a copy of Playgirl (with Sylvester Stallone on the cover) and is obsessed with her budding sexuality (or lack thereof), and the boys in the beginning seem nervous about how to ask out girls. Men in the film are portrayed as psychotic (Thorn) as slightly sketchy but ultimately weird (Trish's neighbor, a man obsessed with using a meat cleaver to kill snails), or fodder for the killer (the Pizza Delivery guy, all of the potential male love interests).
When the end arrives, and our trifecta of "Final Girls" (Trish, Valerie, and Courtney) fight Thorn near a back yard pool, Valerie ultimately chops off the top of Thorn's drill bit with a machete, resulting in his shocked expression of emasculation, followed by rage. That Thorn's hand is subsequently removed and stomach torn open by Trish's knife is, in many ways, symbolic revenge for "penetrating" so many victims with his drill (I could jump into some Freudian analysis from his essay "The Uncanny" that links fear of castration with the loss of eyes or hands, but I think I've made the film's case well enough to this point).
For a movie that exists simultaneously with two purposes, one would expect The Slumber Party Massacre to be a much more disjointed film than it is, but somehow the combination of a serious take on a parodic script holds together. Yes, the film has its share of "huh?" moments, and I'd debate the success level that Thorn has simply swinging the drill as being an effective "kill" technique, but overall I'd count The Slumber Party Massacre as more successful than Student Bodies at turning the slasher film on its head. It's effective in its low budget, turns left enough times when you expect it to go right, and overcomes its own schizophrenic production to be effective.
By the time we get to 1990's Slumber Party Massacre III, the effect just isn't the same. Everything feels like a watered down retread of the first film, even the more directly addressed sexual metaphors. While the second sequel is also written and directed by women (Catherine Cyran and Sally Mattison, respectively), the intentionally feminist approach is undermined by a killer that invokes more laughter than tension, and a third act that falls apart at every opportunity.
Whenever possible, Cyran and Mattison try to make the sexual references more explicit, like an early kill that involves the killer "drilling" a woman from behind her in a car. When he "finishes," his hand drops limply to the side. It's implied twice that he can't actually have sex with anyone, followed by swift rebuking of the women he fails to "penetrate." There's a slightly clever gag involving him going down on the first girl (I'd love to give you specifics on who's who, but honestly aside from physical descriptions like "the long haired blonde" or "the redhead," none of the main characters make much of an impression), she goes to take a bath and he electrocutes her with a vibrator.Speaking of the killer, Slumber Party Massacre III drops the ball in a big bad way if you've seen the trailer (as we did): the film is loaded with red herrings about who the killer might be - is it the Kurt Cobain looking guy dressed in black? The sketchy neighbor with a telescope and a soul patch? One of the guys introduced early in the film? Or is it the guy they went to high school with that is clean cut, has an uncle that's a cop, and is identified in the trailer AS THE KILLER?
This might be bearable if the killer didn't abruptly drop the "hide the bodies and cover your tracks" m.o. in the third act of the film, in order to simply become a ranting maniac. It doesn't help that the killer seemed to learn all his line delivery from George Hardy (Troll 2), and is laughably non-threatening. He seems like a spoiled jock that likes to swing his drill around, which would be find is Cyran and Mattison had any idea how to dispatch with him.
Instead, we're left with another "Final Girl" triumvirate, but instead of deal with the killer, they tie him up and argue about whether calling the police (who, to this point, have derisively ignored their calls) or to simply kill him. Considering that they stood there and did nothing when he killed the redhead (I'm sorry, but I'm not putting the film back on to get names, and IMDB isn't helping), there's no impact whatsoever when they finally drill him to death. The ambiguity I assume I'm supposed to feel as the "final penetration" is followed by the police arriving just isn't there, because Slumber Party Massacre III is half hearted in practically every way. Do yourself a favor and skip the third film; the first and second are absolutely worth checking out.
* The copyright at the end of the film says 1981, but IMDB disagrees.
No comments:
Post a Comment