*** (out of ****)
After the success of John Carpenter's "Halloween" (1978) and "Friday the 13th" (1980) audiences saw a significant increase in low budget slasher movies and they may have reached their peak in the 1980s.
The horror movies of the 1970s and 80s would begin a new trend in the genre - violence against teenagers. Looking back at horror movies from the silent era through the 1960s we notice those movies dealt with adult characters, some with an emphasis on adult females. One of the guidelines of the Motion Picture Production Code prevented violence against children and animals. Once it ended in 1968, and was replaced by our current film rating system, we begin to notice horror movies centering on teenage characters. What was at one time considered unconscionable was now a reflection of society's systematic lowering of standards.
The slasher movie was not a new concept. Many film historians cite Mario Bava's Italian giallo film, "Blood and Black Lace" (1964) as an early example that helped established this sub-genre of horror movies. What was unique however was the contrast between titillation and violence presented in these movies. It has lead many to interpret these horror movies as cautionary tales warning against premarital sex. Look at "Blood and Lace" (1971) as an early American example.
This would come to be a defining characteristic of 1980s horror movies making "The Slumber Party Massacre" (1982) typical for the time period. Revolving around a group of female high school seniors, it was one of many similarly themed movies such as "The House on Sorority Row" (1982) and "Sorority House Massacre" (1986). "The Slumber Party Massacre" however is be the best of these examples.
First take a moment and bring your attention to the movie's poster. Notice how before anyone has even seen the movie its makers immediately initiate the concept of sex and violence with imagery. A group of women (in lingerie) on the floor, looking up at a man standing above them. His legs are spread apart as a power drill dangles between them. It looks as if the man is exposing himself to the girls. That was no accident. It was a deliberate move meant to objectify the women and get the male audience thinking about sex. Isn't it a strange combination? Movie fans today may not think much of it as it is commonplace but take a moment to let it sink in. Ultimately what kind of commentary does it make regarding society's attitude towards sex and violence?
Upon its initial release "The Slumber Party Massacre" was a box-office hit, inspiring two sequels, though it opened to mixed reviews. Today it is considered a "cult classic". It has the distinction of being directed by a woman, Amy Holden Jones (who unfortunately didn't have much of a directing career) and written by one as well, Rita Mae Brown, a noted lesbian activist and feminist who reportedly did not approve of the final product. Brown intended the movie to be a parody of horror movies with a dash of feminism thrown in. The end result was your standard female teenagers in jeopardy slasher movie.
Michele Michaels stars as Trish Devereaux, an 18 year old high school senior who will be left home alone while her parents are away on vacation. To celebrate the occasion Trish has invited some friends over for a slumber party; Kim (Debra DeLiso), Jackie (Andree Honore) and Diane (Gina Mari). Trish would like to invite a new girl, Valerie (Robin Stille), who isn't very popular but the objections are too strong. According to Diane, Valerie is a bit too perfect. This also happens to be the same day a mass murderer has escaped from prison, Russ Thorn (Michael Villella). Will these two events somehow become linked during the course of the movie?
The movie begins with Trish throwing away some of her childhood toys (stuffed animals and a barbie doll) which is meant to signify she is no longer a child but an adult (which is good because this opening sequence also requires her to get naked). However there is one stuffed animal she cannot part with, suggesting she still has a bit of childhood innocence in her. This will become useful information as I have already indicated how these movies are usually interpreted.
The objectification of women continues in what has to be the most blatant gratuitous nude sequence in the entire movie as female students head to the showers after playing basketball. The sequence begins with one of the girls removing her towel exposing her rear end as the camera pans over to Trish (who has her back to the camera) and pans down on her rear end. What is actually interesting about this sequence is the contrast between the images and the dialogue. The girls are talking about how they enjoy watching sports so they can stare at the male athletes thus illustrating how women can objectify men however at the same time the camera is objectifying women.
This sequence also serves the purpose of showing the majority of the characters naked. Although gratuitous nudity was a staple of 80s horror I suspect it was done for more than the obvious reasons. Yes, it was meant to appeal to male teenagers but I think it was also done to mask poor character development. These aren't the most fascinating characters and the nudity will help endure the characters to male audiences while making them randy. You aren't going to want to see any of them die after you've seen them naked! You are going to cheer on their survival and hope for more nude scenes. That is the best shot at creating an emotional investment from the audience.
Gender objectification, in particular male objectification, is further presented by posters shown in Trish's bedroom of male athletes on the walls and in a scene where Valerie's younger sister Courtney (Jennifer Meyers) snoops around in Valerie's room to steal her copy of Playgirl magazine. Valerie knows what Courtney is up to and only tells her not to tear out the centerfold again.
Sequences like this create a persistent feeling of sex and violence lurking everywhere. Two of the girls' male classmates, Jeff (David Millbern) and Neil (Joseph Alan Johnson), decide to spy on their slumber party. They happen to arrive at the exact moment the girls are undressing however we have already witnessed characters being killed which makes us wonder if these two boys are next. In another scene Diane and her boyfriend are making out in his car. Diane leaves to let Trish know she is going to her boyfriend's place but things don't go as expected. In any number of scenes we don't know if we are going to see nudity or violence.
It falls in line with interpreting these movies as cautionary tales. Whenever a character is presented as sexually activate they will end up being next on the killer's victim list.
Much like "Halloween", which clearly inspired this movie, the identity of the killer is not a mystery. The movie doesn't try to falsely make the audience suspicious of one character or another. There also isn't any motive explained for the killer's actions. Interestingly however we are told the killer has been in jail since 1969 which also happens to be the year the Mason family murders took place. Supposedly Michael Villella read about Helter Skelter prior to playing the role of the killer.
The killer isn't given too much screen time either. I like this approach more than having the killer be a dominant character. Unless you are trying to make a social commentary about the killer's motives it is better to keep the character off screen for the majority and instead make the killer represent the threat of evil forever present. It becomes much more suspenseful.
That's what makes "The Slumber Party Massacre" work. It is suspenseful. I can't say I found the movie to be scary but I was happily surprised it wasn't excessively gory, as slasher movies tend to be. A lot of the violence is off screen. It is formulaic in the way it kills the pretty young things one by one but the story is told with a lot of energy and is well paced. The movie doesn't over stay its welcome, running roughly 80 minutes. Credit must be given to director Amy Holden Jones.
If there is a downfall to the movie it is the effectiveness of the performances. The worst is Michael Villella. He isn't much of an actor and doesn't look very menacing - he sort of resembles comedian Fred Armisen. While the acting in "Portlandia" may have been scary at times, Armisen wasn't necessarily scary looking. The best performances would be the ones given by Michele Michaels and Robin Stille with Stille slightly ahead (sadly Stille died in 1996 as the result of suicide). However, none of the characters are very engaging or well written. We don't sense these are real people. They are only pawns to be added up for the killer's final body count.
"The Slumber Party Massacre" is no classic but within the 80s horror genre it stands out for its minor attempts at gender commentary. Pay attention to the casting of minor characters like a phone repair person or a home repairmen, they are played by women but some of these characters are also victims of the killer. One step forward, two steps back. Still, "The Slumber Party Massacre" is worth seeing.
Posts
