For decades, the internet has been locked in a cycle of collective whining: the constant refrain that remakes are never as good, and certainly never as scary, as the originals. But while the average forum post relies on nostalgia and gut feeling, David Roche offers something far more substantial. In Making and Remaking Horror in the 1970s and 2000s: Why They Don't Do It Like They Used To (2014), the "original vs. remake" argument is finally given a thorough, academic, and ruthless anatomical study.
The Scope of the Study
Roche focuses his lens on four iconic pairs of films:
Halloween (1978/2007)
Dawn of the Dead (1978/2004)
The Hills Have Eyes (1977/2007)
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974/2003)
Unlike the reactionary takes found on social media, Roche approaches these films as a competent philosopher. He digs into the "fun" topics that horror has always been uniquely equipped to handle: race, ethnicity, class, the American family, gender, and the symbolic power of the mask.
A Study of Adaptation
At its core, this book is a study of adaptation. Roche isn't just comparing plot points; he’s deploying a sophisticated philosophical apparatus to reveal the depths of these films. This isn't "The Philosophy of The Simpsons"—a text that often feels like it's patting the reader on the head for recognizing a reference. Roche assumes his reader has viewed the films and possesses a general grasp of film studies and philosophy. He doesn't seek to insult your intelligence; he seeks to expand it.
Roche’s methodology is systematic. Each chapter introduces a specific theme or topic, then methodically works through the four film pairs one by one. While some might find this repetitive, the approach is rewarding. By returning to specific scenes and characters from different angles, Roche unearths the cultural contradictions and criticisms embedded in the frames.
Subversion vs. Conformity
One of the most compelling aspects of Roche’s analysis is his look at political commentary versus political conformity. I found myself particularly struck by the discussion regarding the political contexts of American wars—how the Vietnam-era originals differ from the War on Terror-era remakes.
In The Hills Have Eyes, for example, the originals were far more willing to serve as raw, subversive commentary. The remakes, by contrast, tend to "conform" to social commentary—packaging their messages in a way that is more palatable for modern consumption. Interestingly, Roche breaks his own trend with Rob Zombie’s Halloween. He argues that Zombie’s take is an intelligent critique of the slasher subgenre itself, making it more politically and psychologically complex than the other remakes in the study.
The "Disturbing" Question
As Roche asks at the outset: "To what extent can the politics of these films be described as 'disturbing' insomuch as they promote subversive subtexts that undermine essentialist perspectives? Do the politics of the film lie on the surface or are they wedded into the film's aesthetics?" (Loc. 334).
Roche argues convincingly that the remakes are ultimately less "disturbing" than their 70s counterparts because they often trade subversion for spectacle. The originals undermined our perspectives on the family and the state, whereas the remakes often reinforce them through high-gloss aesthetics.
Conclusion
Reading this book left me with a sense of "intellectual jealousy." There were several moments where I realized I had harbored the same instincts while watching these films, but Roche has the vocabulary and the rigor to turn those instincts into a powerful thesis.
I highly recommend Making and Remaking Horror for horror fans who are also philosophers at heart. It is a dense, rewarding read that proves why horror remains the most politically vital genre in cinema.
Comments
Post a Comment