There are so many books covering the history of the horror genre – and assorted sub-genres – that it's hard to find a new approach these days, so kudos to Jon Towlson for treading fairly unexplored ground in Subversive Horror Cinema. While many of the films discussed here have certainly been written about extensively elsewhere, the author's approach is both original and impressive.

This is a chronological history of the genre, but quite deliberately not a complete one. As the title suggests, Towlson is interested only in those films that he thinks subvert both the genre and social norms, and while I might beg to differ on some of his choices, the over all thrust of his argument is interesting and often persuasive. Most importantly, this is a book that will cause debate and discussion. And equally importantly, he avoids the dour academic flatness that makes many a book on film theory unreadable; this is never less than enjoyable and provocative.

The book opens with Freaks and Frankenstein, two films that subverted thinking about eugenics and the demonisation of 'the other' that was prevalent at the time – as Towlson says, a “morally conservative era that sought to eradicate the liberalism of the 1920s” during a time of economic depression (much as we have now). He then goes on to cover the films of Val Lewton, Herman Cohen's teen horrors, Michael Reeves and Pete Walker, the American horror of the late Sixties / early Seventies – from Night of the Living Dead to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre – then on to the likes of Henry – Portrait of a Serial Killer, the films of Brian Yuzna and Peter Jackson, through to recent movies such as Teeth and American Mary.

Towlson approaches this from a determinedly leftist viewpoint and marks a split between 'subversive' and 'reactionary' horror, though of course, this is often in the eye of the beholder – so Hostel is dismissed as a right-wing fantasy (Americans vs 'the other') when it could easily be seen as subverting that idea in the same way that, say, Blue Sunshine – discussed here – mocked the war on drugs by essentially buying into its worst nightmares. It's an interesting fact that you can probably interpret many horror films in different ways, depending on your own personal politics and how much you liked the film, and so in that sense, this is certainly an opinionated book – as it should be, of course. There is no sense that Towlson is trying to pander to the widest audience here, and that means that his choices and his arguments in favour of those films are much more effective than if he's simply been going through the motions, as far too many writers still do.

It also means that I will, of course, violently disagree with some of his choices – I have absolutely no time for cover film American Mary or The Woman, for instance, and think both are reactionary movies in hipster clothing - and I think the dismissal of early 1980s slasher movies as misogynistic is a rare moment of over-simplification for the book (if there is one point I would very much disagree with in Towlson's argument, it's that most horror films are reactionary. I think horror remains a confrontational genre, and sometimes, that means confronting the comfortable beliefs of the left as well as the right). For the most part though, I think the choices here are good ones, even if the individual films are a mixed bag (a movie can be subversive and terrible, after all!).

But it's great to see acknowledgement of Steven Sheil's Mum and Dad – the grimmest British film since the 1970s – and the work of Sheil's influence, Pete Walker, discussed here in detail. Likewise, Herman Cohen's teen horrors are finally given the credit they deserve – as films that toyed with the idea of the 'rebel without a cause' and spoke to frustrated teens about the fears older generations had of them (not to mention confirming the ideas they have that adults are deliberately fucking them over), these are movies that are more important than most critics have implied. The same can be said of Yuzna's Society and Return of the Living Dead 3, which deal secifically with issues of class and sexuality in often uncomfortable ways. On the other hand, I refuse to see Peter Jackson's splatter comedies as anything other than rather crass, reactionary and juvenile crap.

Of course, the best horror perhaps stays open to interpretation. The book is somewhat ambivalent about David Cronenberg's work, for instance, because Shivers in particular doesn't wear it's heart on its sleeve – you can choose to see it is deeply subversive (as I do) or very conservative in its sexuality, and that's what makes it interesting, unlike the later work of George Romero, which tends to hammer you over the head with The Message (curiously, Romero's The Crazies, while ostensibly an anti-militaristic film inspired by Vietnam and Kent State, could be seen as very right-wing – leaving aside the gun fetishisation that runs through a lot of his films, his portrayal of the townsfolk fighting back against Big Government would warm the hearts of Tea Party militias, I suspect). That so many of the films here are contradictory, open to debate and interpretation is what makes them interesting.

While I would debate opinions on individual films, that doesn't take away from the fact that this is an impressive, well written and incisive look at genre theory. It is certain to make you look at some movies afresh, and Towlson makes his arguments strongly even for those choices I disagree with him on. For genre fans looking for some challenging and substantial criticism to get their teeth into, it is highly recommended.

DAVID FLINT

BUY IT NOW (UK)  

BUY IT NOW (USA)