FFFI**'*

Series editors:Tony BennettProfessorSchool of HumanitiesGriffith University

POPULAR FICTION SERIES

Graham MartinProfessor of English LiteratureOpen University

In the same seriesCover Stories:

Narrative and ideology in the British spy thrillerby Michael Denning

Lost Narratives:Popular fictions, politics and recent history

by Roger Bromley

Popular Fitm and Television Comedyby Steve Neale and Frank Krutnik

popular Fiction:Technology, ideology, production, reading

Edited by Tony Bennett

The Historic Romance lE90_1990by Helen Hughes

Reading the Vampireby Ken Gelder

Reading by Startight:Postmodern science fiction

by Damien Broderick

THEMONSTROUS.FEMININE

Film, feminism, PsychoanalYsis

Barbara Creed

EILondon and New York

FfFFFs"

Firstpublished 1993

11 New .",,":t l'":1""X*0""n EC4p 4EESimultaneously published in the USA and Canada

2e west ,r,n,PJ"llif1",j%rk, Ny 1ooo1Reprinted 1994

@ 1993 Barbara CreedTypeset in l0 on

_12 point Times by

t Iorencetype Ltd, Kewstoke

,, iH:"l,il,::ffj f,tHH_",,All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted orreproduced or utilized in any form

"i uy .ry "i"it .Jl, ".mechanicat, or other;";;i, ;;; ino*r, o, hereafterinvented, including pfroto"opyinf *fr""oraing, or in anvinformation storage. or retriev af syJtem, *rirr""i rr""rr"lrrf ,irnwriting from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing in publication DataTho Monstrous - Feminine: ,,*:'rTillttT:ychoanalysis. _ (popular Ficrion

Series)L Title II. Series

791.43Library of congress cataroging in pubrication Data

applied for

ISBN0_415_05258_0 0_415_{5259_9(pbk)

CONTENTS

List of IllustrationsAcknowledgements

Part I Faces of the Monstrous-Feminine: Abjection and the Maternal

INTRODUCTION 1'

I KRISTEVA, FEMININITY, ABJECTION 8

2 HORROR AND THE ARCHAIC MOTHER: ALIEN 1'6

3 WOMAN AS POSSESSED MONSTER: ZFIE EXORCIST 31,

4 WOMAN AS MONSTROUS WOMB: THE BROOD 43

5 WOMAN AS VAMPIRE: THE HUNGER 59

6 WOMAN AS WITCH: CARRIE 73

Part II Medusa's Head: Psychoanalytic Theory and theFemme Castratrice

Preface 87

7 .LITTLE HANS,RECONSIDERED: OR.THE TALE OFMOTHER'S TERRIFYING WIDDLER' 88

8 MEDUSA,S HEAD: T}{E VAGINA DENTATA ANDFREUDIAN THEORY 105

9 THE FEMME CASTRATRICE: I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE,slszERs 122

10 THE CASTRATING MOTHF-R: PSYCHO 139

11 THE MEDUSA'S GAZE 151

Bibliography 167

Filmography 172

Index l7g

VI

vll

INTRODUCTION

The hp;-r-or.film is populate.d b.f .tg*g]:"3gfUters'.n1+J oJlbl9l seem to

have. ivotve.d Jipm-images."rnii-frauntdi.tt-e--4f-gepg'. py,ths-and-"q*-iidic

iractices o!gu1..fo1gpearl many.cer-rtu{les^ -qgo. The female monster, or-monstroui-ie*inine, wears many faces: the amoral primeval mother

(Aliens, 1986) ; vampire (The Hunger, 1983) ; witch (Carrie, I97 6) ; woman

as monstrous womb (The Brood, 1979); woman as bleeding wound

(Dressed to Kill,19s0); woman as possessed body (The Exorcist,1973); the

castrating mother (Psycho,1960); woman as beautiful but deadly killer

(Basic listinct, 1992); aged psychopath (Whatever Happened to Baby

iane?,1962); the monstrous girl-boy (A Reflection of Fear, t973); woman

as non-human animal (Cat People, 1942); woman as life-in-death (Life-

force, 1985); woman as the deadly femme castratice (I Spit On Your-Grave,1978).

Although a. great deal has been written aboul t_hq horror

film. verv littl6;i ihat work has aiscgsseO ttre reprqselltalioq of 1v.9m4q-as-'monstei. Instead, emphasig !r-a! been Qn wQman as--yiptim of the (mainly

ffiD- mo.!sFf:- W.ry-lt-lq- lvo-a-n.armonster been neglec,Ied !n. -fgryinisttheory a;d h ui$"qi!t-,alt s!gn$pa11- 1-\qo{eti-qal. -analvs-e"r'sf. "the . FpP^ular

irorrai film?.After all, t!rQ image is ha1-dly, tlgw.'- Ail ho*un societies hfl-ei. -q9199p1"i-oi'g1."tu -ry-o.4ltl9qs-ferqiniag,.qfwtrai ilid about woman thai is shobking,-te1rify.ing, horrific, abjec!. Freud

-link-ed manii f"ut oi *o*an to his infantile belieilhat the mother is-aastfated. *Pfo6abli rio male human being is spared the fright of castration

at ihe sigttt of a female genital', Freud wrote in his paper, 'Fetishism' in

1g27 (p. L54). Joseph campbell, in The Masks of God: Primitive

Mythoiigy, drew attention to woman as castrator and witch'

there is a motif occurring in certain primitive mythologies, as well as

in modern surrealist painting and neurotic dream, which is known to

folklore as 'the toothed vagina' - the vagina that castrates. And acounterpart, the other way, is the so-called'phallic mother,' a motifperfectly illustrated in the long fingers and nose of the witch'

(Campbell, t976,79)

,ji'r i,!i

l

THE MONSTROUS-FEMININE

As well as its expression in surrealist art (see illustrations),,the myt.h.of thevagina dentata is extremely prevalent. Despite tocat variaiions, the mythgenerallv states that *o-"n are terrifying #.;;;; rh", #;;";rh in theirvagi-n3s and that the women must be tam;d or the teeth somehow removedor softened - usually by a hero figure _ before int"r"ourr"

"u;;;l;il;;;place. The witch, of course, is a fimiliar female monster; she is invariabryrepresented as an old, ugly crone who is capable of monstrous acts. During

." ll: European witch trials of recent history she was q"q,rr"J rr rr." ;.;ihideous crimes: cannibalism, murder, castration .i-"f;

"f,o;;;;;ffi;''advent of natural disasters su"h a, stor.societiesarsohave-il;;;;ilil;Ji;fi::":i." j3;J'lJffi;,ytrJ

the blood of helpless, often willing, victims and transforms them into herown kind.

^Classical mythologyJoo, was populated with gendered monsters, manyof which were female. The Sireni o? classical rnylhotogy were desc-ribed as

enormous birds with th6 heads of women. Th"y ur"o til"i, ilgt";l ,;G ;;lure sailors close to shore in order to drive the sailors, stripJinto hiddenreefs. The Sirens then ate their helpress victims. The Medusa and her twosisters also presented a terrifying rigt t. ihey hao h"g" ;;;;;-their hairconsisted of writhing serpents, their ieeth were as rong as boars, tusks andthey flew through the air on golden wings. Men unfortrinut"

"nougr, to lookupon the Medusa with her evil eye weie immediately turned to stone. In

classical times, pendants and othei jeweilery depicting ttr" M"d".;,, iiGni-eSing appearance were frequently worn to lvuia

"ffi;iirp-i.itr,'uno *ur_riors painted the fumale- genitats on their shields in order a ;"*fy;;enemy. Freud takes up this point in his short essay, .Medusa's

head,:If Medusa's head takes the place of a representation of the femalegenitals, or rather if it isorates their hoirifying effects rrom trreirpleasure-giving ones, it may be recaned ttrat iispiayitrg tntg";itat, r,familiar in other connections as an apotropaic act.-whuT urorrr",horror in oneself will produce the same iff""i.rpon the enemy againstwhom one is seeking to defend oneself. we read in Rabelais of howthe Devil took flight when the woman showed him her vulva.

(p.27a)It is not by accident that Freud linked the sight of the Medusa to the.equailyhorrifying sight of the mother's genitars, roi tt

" "."*pi .r ir," ,',inr,rour-femi nine. as constructed-wi th i n/6'y u outiiur"r., ui. nd ;;;ffi;#'iiliil,is related intimately fo the problem of sexual oinei"""e u"iita;*ii*liiwe accept Freud's interpretation that the 'Medusa's tt""J ,rt.ri;;;;;of a representation of the female genitars', we can see that the Medusantvll.ir mediated by a narrative about the dffirence of femare sexuarity asa diff'erence which is grounded in monstrousness and which invokescastration anxiety in the mare spectator. 'The sight of the Medusa's

2

lN'l'RoDUC'l'loN

headmakesthespectatorstiffwithterror,turnshimtostone.'Thcironyofthis was not lost on Freud, who pointed out that becoming stiff also mecna

li""r"g ", "r*""".iit;.'i. the original situation it offers consolation to

it'," -rp?.,uror:

he is still in possessionbf.a penis' and the stiffening reassurcs

him of the fact' (ibid.:ir' O"" *o"deit if the experience of horror - of

;i;;i;g it " t orio, ni- - causes similar alterations in the body of the

modern male spectator. And what of other phrases- tlat ge used by both

male and female "i"*"t. lpttrases such as: 'Ii scared the shit out of me'; '[t

made me feel sick';'It gave me the creeps'? What-is the relationship

between physical .,u,"., fioAify wastes (even if metaphoric ones) and the

honific -in"particular, the monstrous-feminine?

I have used the t".- imon'trous-feminine' as the term 'female monster'

tnl;ifit" ;til; ;^a?r*r'-of ,male monster,. The reasons why-.!he

moristious-feininine ;;;;id"."l"t- u"oi""t" are quiie diiferent tSoln '1tr-'

::;il;:;; rtu *l; -"".,"r ho*ifies his eu{ienee,,Anew term is needed

[;"#;:ttl";;jr#ffi .{*it[ulotnpst"repiip-"sqrth'e-rEmidine';;#;;h ;; *rr;l-; ;' ;:fr" ii' o"d'"a in terms of he.1 pexp4l!1y,, Jhq phrpw

:mS,ii;-", iaiii"i*i "-phasizes

ihe iglportanqe qf.gqnder.in t[9 -cpr1-

strtiction of he1 monstrositY'Before discussing iii" q""ttions raised above' it is relevant to consider

thevariouswaysinwhichtheoristsandcriticshaveapproachedtheques-tion of woman u. .o"ti"t in pop.,tut nh'-Il, e9,.Ir-9t$, t-lqy have adopted

o[. ; the fptlowing-epi.ou"tr"s: simply diicussed femtle moiistroSity as

part of male lnonstt;tttyi argued th-al woman only terrifies when rep-

resented as man's *"t"r;O 6thq1; ie eo to her only- in.passing; or

;;;;;'gteat''femalemonstgrsinthqtradition-ofTgq."d

that .there i ,heorist who has contributed a

Frlankensiein's monstgi or Dracula' One-

;;;T;i;; &ir;"i "ppieciation

of.the horror film is Robin wood; but'

although he is interestei'in gende, relations in the horror film, he has not

discussed the nature oif"tni" monstrosity in any detail' To my knowledge

no one has presentJ a sustained analyiis of the different faces of the

female *orrrt"t or'the monstrous-feminine''GdrardLenneinhisarticle,'Monsterandvictim:womeninthehorror

film', is fairly typicai of those who find the very idea of a female monster

offensive to their *,t*t q"ul"t, but deeply sexist' notions of chivalry'

G6rard Lenne argues that there ,are very few monstrous and disfigured

women in the fantasii", urra so much the bitter'. He appears to believe that

women should u" ,"fr"*"rrted only in terms of their 'natural' role in life. 'Is

it not reasonable tliat woman, who, in life, is both mother and lover,

should be represen*JUy characters that convey the feeling of a sheltering

;;;;;i' (Lenne, tgii, is) He allows that there are female monsters but

then finds reasons *ty tt'"y are not real monsters; for instance he states

that the female ""*rjir" exists but her role is usually 'secondary'; the

schizophrenicte*atemonstersofRepulsionandsistersareunderstandableJ

THE MONSTROUS-FEMININE

because 'schizophrenia is readily assimilated to female behaviour, (ibid.,37). Lenne evades the identification of female monsters such as the half_human, half-animal female hybrids of Isrand of Lost souls andthe .revolt_ing' figure in The Reptile by dismissing them as 'problematic,. .woman

isseldom to be found.among the great psychopaths'and there is ,not onesingle female mad scientist' (ibid.;3g). hie niorc*tis simply the result of a'prevailing trend for making female versions of the grJui ;yth. of thefantastic' (ibid.). The only 'indisputably active role in the fantastic that isexclusively female' is that of the witch 1iuic., 3g). However, i""n" is moreinterested in the 'attractiveness of the- witch' than in her monstrousness.After producing a litany of sexist comments, he concludes that the ,greatmonsters are all male'. In his view, woman exists in the horror filmprimarily as victim. 'perfect as a tearful victim, what she does best is tofaint in the arms of a gorilla, or a lnurnmy, or a werewolf, or aFrankensteinian creature' (ibid., 35).. while it is true that there are fewer crassic female monsters than mare, itdoes not follow that these creatures are not terrifying or truly monstrous.

Lenne does not even mentio" p;",; ttt" ep"-woman of ttre ig+os playedby Acquanetta in both Captive Wild Woman and Jungle Woman and byvicky Lane in Jungre captive - the classic female o,oni", with more thanone film to her credit. Lenne's definition of what constitutes the monstrousis questionable on a number of counts, particularly his statemeni that thehorror of schizophrenia is somehow ameliorated'not orrrv-uecause it isunderstandable but because it is supposedly a ,female, illness.

In his book, Dark Romance, DaiidJ. Hogan examines the sexual aspectof the horror cinema. while he draws attent-ion to those Rtms, within eacnsub-genre, in which the monster is female, he does not examine the natureof female.monstrosity in any depth. wheie he does discuss this issue, hisresponse is ambivalent. on the one hand, he states that horrorfilms withfemale monsters as centrar characters are'a relatively new pheno-enon,and seem to have deveroped parallel with the growth of the women,smovement in the united States and Europe'. Holiever, he dismisses mostof these films as'obvious and childish'(itoga.r, 19g6, rg). on the otherhand, Hogan does draw attention to a 'faicinating subgenre, that appearedin the early 1950s, which he calrs the 'cinema of lost women,. This sub-genre, in which women choose to rive apart from -.o, irr"-t-uo"s tiles suchas: Queen of outer space, The She-ireature and voodoo women. Acentral feature of these firms is 'their insistence upon the adversary aspectof man-woman relationships',.which Hogan finds .disqui"ting;

1lLiO., Of_

il,Lr.i:" t:, generally dismissive of fihJwith female -orrrt""r..'ie does,lgrgujr: acknowledge the contribution of Barbara Steele, known as the'High Priestess of Horror', to the genre. He argues that her appeal residesin her ability 'to express a tantariziirg sort of evil, and a sexual ambivalencethat is at once enticing and ghastlyi In his view, steere represents, more

4

INTRODUC'I'ION

than any other genre star, the connection between sex and death as well nn

the culture's ulnbiguoo. attitude to female sexuality (ibid', 164)' ^

In Dreqdfu! pliagures James B. Twitchell argues that horror films ate

,i-itu, io iformulaic rituals' which provide the adolescent.,with social

information. 'Modern horror myths piepate the teenager fol tl-" ill-"tl:t;i;;;;;iion ' . . they are tautes ot sexualidentitv' (rwitchel!-l?-*,t'.tJ:

He is primarily interested in the monster as {figure of transtormatlonl- tne

i,il;#;';;ti*"1t,-;"tul", psvchspath'- d-n ttt" one hand'. Twitchell

AiuJ" utL"tion to femal" nto"it"t. who belong to these categories, but on

the othdf hand he does noilserioosly examine films, such as Carrie and The

Exorctst,that are made from the perspective of a f."lLl.t.rite of Passa9e,'

rf!: iir*irr"s the female psychopath as rmannish' (i9ig" 257) which

,;;g;.,, he believes that ,femininiiy', by definition, excludes all forms of

assressive, monstrous behaviour'-'6;il;;;;-*rir"r, wnoie-inalysis of llorror draws. on, Jgcent debates

"miin; ;;*"-ot."r,rut difference attempt to come to !9rms

with the

nature of monstrosity in relation to gendei' [n general' .these

theorists

;;;i; in" r'r"oalun position that woman horrifies because she is

i,a;tf';"A.tbp" oi,tt" most substantial analyses of the monster is presented

b;6;;h""-Neale in his uook, Genr:e" Dra*ing on lauqa Mulv-eJ's thdory

;i;"'ilil ;;;il *ut" "u'i'ution

anxietv,,il":t", u'sl".' t^lT,lhe classic

male horror monster ,."fr"r"n,. castration but only in oid"t to fill the lack.

;;;ir;;.* castration and thereby enrertain the male spectator by soothing

;;r #r.#;";#i-",io.'according to N"ui",:most moniters tend' in fact,

;[,,#ffi;tual'-u1"," "specialg

in so far as the objects of their desire are

almost exclusively women' (Neale, L980' 61)'

Inthisrespect,itcouldwellbemaintainedthatitiswoman'SSexua-ti,y, ,t u, *hici, renders them desirable - but also threatening - tomen, which constitutes the real problem that the horror cinema exists

to explore, and which constituies also and ultimately that which is

really monstrous. (ibid.,61)

ln Neale's view, there a-r.q twqway;.pf in{91pr9!jng.1b.;,qt;;'t*} The first is

;il; ;"' ;;;;; Gio". tr,e' to;nau'y uei*"in-tt'61'Jmun end. -tf; e pon-

huriian. The ,e"'.d ;';i;, i;"i."il; ;ui6 r;ui. qf-qistration wtiictr ullim3tgry

ilqr1cer kd a"-i1;""rgt 1be mqnstq_o.ll-sj. Nealg-3,1s99s that manls fasci-

'nation with and t"u. olf"mate s-exuglity fs- endGiily rgworked within the

sig"irvrtg-pia"ii""t of ttt" hqryQ-r film' Thus, the horror fllm offers an

abundant display of fetishistic "tt*t**rtose function is to atlest to the

Hffiii; .iitr" p",tiare,hal.ordgr founded., as it is, on a miscsnception -ih"

"tton"ous belief that woman is castrated'

Asustainedandimportantdiscussionofthemonstrousfemaleispre.sented by Susan turie in her article, .The construction of the ..castrated

5

THE MONSTROUS-FEMININE

woman" in psychoanalysis and cinema,. $$.gqting- $ IRRrS_aqh i1 oppo_sition to Neare's, I,urie challgnges thti-tradiir.rir Fr*iiii;;;.sition byarguing tha-1 mgn fga{. womgn,--.roi because women are castiated but

lecluse tr'"v i'i "ot "ia"t'i

ii"a.'ru'i" ;;;;;;;;;;' #" ;:""rs woriianbe-cair.se.w-oman is not m,utilatpd-tike a -r" -igrr.-u"

-ti i" ,ri"i;J;h#;woman is physically whole, intact and in po"ssession of ufi;";;;;;;ipowers' The notion of the caitrated rb-* ir u prrunturv rrL;[J;ameliorate man's real fear of what woman migr,t ao'io iirl ti r"r*-*"ithe term-'phanrasy' rathei ihaii''fantasy' ,rrr6ugho;;;;;;J; I wish toemphasize phantasy in the Freudian sense in ,,ihi"rr tn" ,"L:""t is rep-resented as a protagonist engaged in the activity of wish fulfilment. .Fan-

tasy' sometimes has the connotations of whimsy * a notion I wish to avoid.)Lnec-rlca11yr f;e

fears that woman could castrat" rri- uolt-psycrricatty and in:j:j:".l.llic.{lv. He imagines the tatter might take prr* a"ri"g t;;";:course when the penis 'disappears' inside woman's .'devouring;;;h'(Lurie, 1981-2, 55). Lurie's

^anarysis is important, particularly her dis-cussion of man's fear of woman is castrating other. It is this'aspect ofLurie's argument thatrwil develop in detail iripart rr oimy urruryrir. nut,

!!-e,N94!e-,.,*r-q"- j:"ltimatslyconcernedontywit-h.r[u--ruor"r"riiu'it#a*iwoman as victim. Shg argues that man deals with rris anxietv ,t "i;uHi,not.castrated by construi-ting her as castrared *irt i"-,t "'riilrr;;;;;ffi;;g'h:.fiF text'-Slg analyses this process in relation to Alfred HitchcociitThe Birds. she claims that the'proriferation oreffortsi,"l+*r*, womanfg rymbolically castrated, palticularly in the romancg genre of ths fictionfilm, 'argues vigorously

i!.iinst tt " t ypott o;, il;;""r";;;0"*;;;;;r""

pricri castrated' (ibid., 56). ' - ., ...

Drawing on Lurie's work, Linda Williams argg-e_.s-,,in her.a.4icle .Whenthe woman loolist, tha! it is woma1,, .po*"r_i",?ir1ffi;iliiOi,."rgi,r"is central to the representation of the monster in horror. She states that;lassii h-o1ror films quCh as No;feratu y_ra rn"'iian:**-;j;t*'";;,;;;frequently represent 'a surprising (and at ,i-"r .ril".ffij

"rr*rrii"-tween monster and woman' in ihat ,"orrrunl, io.t" ""tr.rir;;, ih;'sim ilar status_withi n patriarchar r"r""r", .i r*r $'. ffi i"rl'JJi.,r,-","01; "t"'_:::fi::tjl:il'^:.n.se.

u,ooles represent a fbiiFur i;a=il;;i#hE?;;__.rYLrt]rl: Ili: o.r,

lqportdnt' implicatiorii for the femire spebiator. .sornere rs.a sense in which the woman's rook at the monster . . . is arso arecoglitlgl of their simirar status as potent threats il-""r""r"ur" -"r"power' (ibia., 90). Williams,s argumenichallenges,n"

"rrr.p,i;;;"ffi;monster is identified with masculinity and op"n, the way for u air",rr.io'orwoman's 'power-in-difference'. Although lvilliu-r,, irreris ir-irrrportant,because it challenges conventional appioaches to the horro, fl-, i, ,riltleaves unanswered questions about thl nature of female monstrosiql-yhatexactly is it about woman herself, as_a- being quite separat. t on''trr" ,nur"monster, that produces definitions of femali monstrosity?

6

INTRODUCTION

Apart from williams, nearly all of the articles discussed above deal with

woman as victim in tho horroi fiIm..lhe main reason for this is that most

*ri,"tt adopt Freud's argut4e4t,lhaiwom1 teiriflqd because-she is ca.s'

trated, thatis, atreadlr eoirstituted aqJ.i,.,tt ;'S"t!r a pp;ition olly pe"rvgs to

;;;;f;;"" ;"t.iurihut'a"nnitions of wtifidn which tePres_ellt and reinforce

;;;"t"ltti-"ian tttat *qman,, b).. nful.e,is a vi'ctim' Mv.intention is to

cxplore the representation of wornal in the horror film and to argue that

*o-un ls represented as monstrous in a significant number of horror films'

However, I am not arguing that simply becauqe the monstrous-femininp is

".r."u"iia us u"1ffi9;-iattr"r tha,n passive {euJe thal th!|..image is

ifeminist; or ,tiU".uGal.'tn" pi"r"""" Lt th" moniiious-femiriiiie in'the

;ilil;.im-- ep6uks.to..usmore about maie fenrs than a.go.y1temlle

ffi ;;; f;; t nine suliectivi ty. Aowever' this presence does challen g:. t1'

"i"* it

", ,tr" n.'ul" rp".tuto,. i. almost always situated in an active. sadistic

plritlA" and the fem;l" ,p""tuiot in a passive, nasochistic o,-+*--*l analysis

[i irri- ng"tb aiso ,tecel.itut"s a reiea{inq. of kev as.qects 1f li{udianil:i;, p"ur1i".tr4ty tris theory of the oedlpus qomplex and castration

crlsls.=ttpi* I presents a detailed discussion of at least five faces of the

monstrous-feminine in relation to Julia Kristeva's theory of the abject and

the maternal. (Chapters l and2,with some modifications' were originally

published as a jouinal article: oHorror and the monstrous-feminine: an

i-uginuty abjeciion', Screen 21'1 (1986): 45-:!9,:).1 w-ill ggue that when

woman is representqd as monstrous it is almost always in relation to-h9r

;rirrlr;-tl;J-iioi.or.tive functions. These faces are: the archaic

ilffili"h" .on.iilut *o-b; the witch; the vampire; and the possessed

;;;;. i, p"" II I will discuss the representation of woman as monstrous

in relation to Freud's theory of castration'--Wb-e-r-eas lreud argued that

;";;; terrifies because she appears to be castrated, man]s, fear of cas-

;;;il;'h^;t" ,"y "i"*.lJ t i* ,l construct another monstrous phantasy -;l;;;i

',,[o,,-un

^ "uurutor.*Hg-{g yqmanls monstrousness is linked more

ffi;;ffi;',iil;;;;-,;;i?"ii'" tt'un to the area or reproduction' rhe

h;;'.ir,il;;" as ""rir",or

takes at least rhree forms: woman as the

;ffiit-ir^^, castratrice,.the castrating mother and the vagina-denmta'

Fid;; iiA no, uuutvre minls fears of w.oman as castrator; in.fact.he seems

;;;;;";;ot".seo itris image of woman in his writings about sexual differ-

;;;;;;d il;i, .u,"'nirto-ri".: Of necessity, then, this investigation will,

irrr"'+iifr "nuiyri.'or

popular fictions, entail a critique of some of the main

tenets of Freudian theory and contemporary film theory'

FFFE"T'

KRISTEVA, FEMININITY,ABJECTION

We may call it a_P..g-rder; abjection is above allambiguity. Because,while releasing f rrbro, ri o*r noi *ai"urry "utTrirtn=e'Jiruy"""t

rro,nwhat threatens it - on the contrary, abjection u"r.no*r"og"#to be in""-Pgp-ely'41 danger'

Julia Kristeva , powers of HorrorJulia Kristev a's powers of Horror provides us with a preliminary hypothesisfor an analysis of the representation of woman as monstrous in the horrorfilm' Although her study is concerned with psychoanalysis and literature, itnevertheless suggests a wa{ of situating the monstrous-feminine in thehorror film in relation to ihe maternar"figure and what Kristeva terms'abjection', that which does not 'respect.borders, positions, rules,, thatwhich'disturbs identity, system, ord'er, (Kristeva,.r%;:';;.';"generalterms, Kristeva is attempting to exprore the different *uy. irir"ii"h abjec_tion works within human societies, as a means of separating out the humanfrom the non-human-and the fuliy constituted subject tJ* ,ir" partialryformed subject. Ritual becomes u -"un. bv which societies both renew theirinitial contact with the abject element and then exclude that element.Through rituar, the demarcation lines between the human and non-humanare drawn up anew and.presumabrv made urLth;,1;;;il## process.(one of Kristeva's aims iir ror"u iTiorrori"topr"r"r;";;;ri,i"g or-anyof the ideas and beliefs put forward by ,rr. c"ri"J" ;"t-dffi;;;, ,j""in"u'ythose associated with thi nature of femininiiy, abjection and the sacred. Foran introduction to thephilSsog-trr ga writings of the college see The Coregeof Sociology (1937-39) edited by Denis Holiier.) e- --- ^ ''1

A full examination of this thlory is outJde fh" ,.op" of this project; Ipropose to draw mainly on Kristeva's discussion of the construction ofabjection in the human subject in relation io her notion of iuj'i#.uoro"r,(b) the mother-child relatironship "rJi.)-;he feminine body. At crucialpoints, I shall arso refer to her writingr on it

" abject in relation to religiousdiscourses' This area cannot be ign"ored, for what becomes apparent inreading her work is that definitionJof thsmonstrous as constructed in the

8

1,

KRISTEVA, FEMININI'I'Y, AtsJEC ION

modern horror text are grounded in ancient religious and historleal notlong

oi-uUi..tion - particulaily in relation to the following religioun 'abomlna'

tions,: sexual immorality and perversion; corporeal alteration, decay and

J"uttt; human sacrifice; murdir; the corpse; bodily wastes; the fcminlne

uoovunaincest.Theseformsofabjectionarealsocentraltotheconstruc.tionof the monstrous in the modern horror film'--

it "

ptu"" of the abject is ,the place where meaning collapses" the place

where .I' am not. The abject thrlatens life; it must be 'radically excluded'

iffi;"*; i-Jt82,2) from"the place of the living subject' propelled away

irom the body and deposited on the other side of an imaginary border

*hi"h ,"puratls the ,"lf fro* that which threatens the self' Although the

suUiectmustexcludetheabject,theabjectmust'nevertheless'betoleratedfor that which threatens to iestroy life also helps to define life-. Further, the

activityofexclusion,isnecessarytoguaranteethatthesubjecttakeuphis/hei proper place in relation to the symbolic'

it "

uUi"., can be experienced in various ways - one of which relates to

biologicai bodily funct'ions, the other of which has been inscribed in a

G#ii; (religi,ous) economy. For instance, Kristeva claims that food

loathingis.perhapsthemostelementaryandarchaicformofabjection'(ibid.).iooi, hor""u"r, only becomes. abject if it signifies a border 'be-

tween two distinct entities tr territories' (ibid.' 75). Kristeva describes

how,forher,theskinonthetopofmilk,whichisofferedtoherbyherfather and mother, is a.sign of iheir desire" a sign separatingher world

from their world, a sign which she does not want. 'But since the food is not

an,.other,, for..me,liwho am only in their desire, I expel myself, I spit

myselfout,Iabjectmyselfwithinthesamemotionthroughwhich..I',claim,.'"ri"urtt myself ' 1iuia., 3). In relation to the horror film, it is relevant to

note that food loathing i. f'"q""ntly represented as a major source of

abjection, particularly ine eam! of human flesh (Btood Feast' Motel Hell'

Biood Dr'nLr, rne nitts Have Eyes, The Corpse Grinders)'

The ultimate in abjection is the corpse' The body protects,itself from

bodily wastes srrch as shit, blood, urine and pus by ejecting these things

fromthebodyjustasitexpelsfoodthat,forwhateverreason'thesubjectfinds loathsome. the body ejects these substances' at the same time

extricating itself from thern ani from the place where they fall, so that it

might continue to live:

Suchwastesdropsothatlmightlive,until'fromlosstoloss'nothingremains in me and my entirJ body falls beyond the limit - cadere'

cadaver. If dung signifies the other side of the border' the place

where I am not aniwhich permits me to be, the co{pse' the most

sickening of wastes, is a border that has encroached upon everything.

It is no longer I who expel' 'I'is expelled'(ibid.' 3-4)

THE MONSTROUS-FEMININEwithin a biblicar

:onteIt, the corpse is arso utterry abject. It signifies one ofthe most basic forms of pollutiori- ,rr" uoov withoui a soul.-As a form ofwaste it represents the opposite or ti"".pirituar, the religious symboric. rnrelation to the horror Rtm, it ir rJ"""r, to note that sJveral of the mostpopular horrific fis]1"r are 'bodies witt out souls, (the uu-pir";, the ,rivingcorpse' (the zombie).,. corpse-ea* fii'" gt."il ""i'irr;;.."# or android.what is arso interesting i. trrui'rr"rr'in"i"n, figures of abjection as thevampire, the ghour, irre zomuie a"J ,i" *ir"t iJI" n; i?n",

"n.", *u.that she used corpses for her tit., ot'J'ugic) continue to provide some ofthe most competing.images .il;;;;t in the modern cinema. were-creatures' whose bodies signify ;;l;p* of the boundaries betweenhuman and animal, atso uet8ngioi#"ur"go.y.Abjection also occurs where"the ttlg*^, is a hypocrite, a liar. Abjectthings are those that highlighl;h; *;il;, of the law; and that exist on the

i'fi txl".,'"il:,3 ::l,r;*:*"1"t:",, : trre rivin g ffi t rrom th atsubjectcaneverr"il'=l,_ii'i.;#jii.iipi:'^iff

li:,-"i,,,:T.|",1;the place of abjection, the prace wil;;'r"*]rq cotipses. The subject,constructed inlthrough,rangrage, ,ir."g1 a deire toi-,n"un'ing. is alsospoken by rhe abjecl,.,tr. iru"E or"-J"riirr1*sness - ttrus, ttre subject isconstantry beset bv abjecti,on *rri"rr--rui"rates,desire but which must berepelred for fear ot-r"ir-u.rnir,ri"ii"".'a "ruciar

point is that abjection is;TiH,1l?::,:1: .;1fi *jl'[*jlh];a emph asize s the attraction, as

ABJECTION AND THE HORROR FILMThe horror firm would appear to be, in at reast three ways, an'lustration ofthe work of abje*ion. h'irrt, ,rt" r,Lr.", fi'r- ubounJ. i;';# of abjec_tron' foremost of which rr trt"

"o.prr:;ili" "ro n'"iJlr"i, i.i,r'*". ,,

""array of bodily was::s *"r, _*.ur.olllo_it, saliva, sweat, tears andputrefying flesh. In terms of f*t"uut-rr.llT:l the

fo1de1, when we saytrt":Ji:ff*r; iH" nm 'maoe me i'c"k' o,.'r"ared the shit our or me,,aul""tion:-oi-rit""itlt-ttltding .

that specifi c h.-- di- "*'

u" "'*ork

oft.'...ii-"dtff ;ij,,1JT|; #ftrJ,in a riterar'*'"il"*ing the

;r*t';l;,::T'fl l{;/;"'ffi ,iJ#;,Tilfi :.i,',:?:ffi J:il'i;J#pr"".u," i,, il;J.]l'i?;ffiiilt?f,been mreg *itr' p"*J'lity, takensafety of ,rr" rp""iulr's seat). tn tr ir,"uu?11.,^".1-"o

the abject (from there r a te d to po' u ti n g o u., e cts ; iltd ;; rl ;i; ;l,l JiiJ,;;IlJ :l"HH:,jff:?ili:ijil1l,Jt;,';TT,fi ';:X.',T:,1;;"*',"ru,i*,i,ipliin"Io,*,-"

second' the concept "r " u"ri"r irt""nrrut to the construction of the

l0

KRISTEVA, FEMININITY' ABJECTION

monstrous in the horror film; that which crosses or threatens to crOss th6,border' is abject. Although the specific nature of the border changes from

film to film, ihe function of the monstrous remains the same - to bring

about an encounter between the symbolic order and that which threateng

its stability. In some horror films the monstrous is produced at the bordef

between h.rmun and inhuman, man and beast (Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde,

Creature from the Black Lagoon, King Kong); in others the border is

between ihe normal and the supefnatural, good and evil (Carrie, The

Exorcist, The Omen, Rosemary's Baby); or the monstrous is produced at

the border which separates those who take up their proper gender roles

from those who do not (Psycho, Dressed to Kill, A Reflection of Fear); ot

the border is between normal and abnormal sexual desire (The Hunger,

Cat People). Most horror films also construct a border between what

Kristeva reiers to as 'the clean and proper body' and the abject body, or

the body which has lost its form and integrity. The fully symbolic body

must bear no indication of its debt to nature. In Kristeva's view the image

of woman's body, because of its maternal functions, acknowledges its 'debt

to nature' and consequently is more likely to signify the abject (ibid., 102).

The notion of the material female body is central to the construction of the

border in the horror film. I will explore this crucial area fully in the

following chapters.Intereitingly, various sub-genres of the horror film seem to correspond

to religious categories of abjection. For instance, cannibalism, a religious

abomiiation, is ientral to the 'meat' movie (Night of the Living Dead, The

Hills Have Eyes); the corpse as abomination becomes the abject of ghoul

and zombie movies (The Evit Dead; Zombie Flesheaters); blood is central

to the vampire film (The Hunger) as well as the horror film in general

(Bloodsucking Freaksi); the corpse is constructed as the abject of virtually

ull hortot films; and bodily disfigurement as a religious abomination is also

central to the slasher movie, particularly those in which woman is slashed,

the mark a sign of her'difference', her impurity (Dressed to Kill, Psycho).

The third way in which the horror film illustrates the work of abjection is

in the constrrr"iiott of the maternal figure as abject. Kristeva argues that all

individuals experience abjection at the time of their earliest attempts to

break away from the mother. She sees the mother-child relation as one

marked by conflict: the child struggles to break free but the mother is

reluctant io release it. Because of the 'instability of the symbolic function'

in relation to this most crucial area - 'the prohibition placed on the

maternal body (as a defense against autoeroticism and incest taboo)',

Kristeva urgol, that the maternal body becomes a site of conflicting

desires. ,Heie, drives hold sway and constitute a strange space that I shall

name, after Plato (Timaeus,48-53), achora, a receptacle'(ibid., 14). The

position of the ctritA is rendered even more unstable because, while the

mother retains a close hold over the child, it can serve to authenticate her

t1

. THEMONSTROUS-FEMININE

existence - an existence which needs validation because of her problematicrelation to the symbolic realm.rn the ch'd's attempts,to break away, the mother becomes an .abject,;thus' in this context, where the chiii struggles to become a separatesubject' abjection becomes 'o pr"iiniirton of narcissrsz, (ibid.). onceagain we can see abjection * *ott l" the horror text where the childstruggles to break away from the mother, representative of the archaicmaternal figure, in a context in which_ the iather i, i*uriuury absent(Psycho, Carrie, The Birds). r" tttlr"'hr-s the maternar figure is con_structed as the monstrous-feminine. By t ir.r"gi.^r"ii"o"rri,'n", hord onher child, rn" O."u:l1:-11t:T ,ururf,ip'io proper place in relarion to thesymbolic. partly consumed by the "o"i*

to remain locked in a brissfurrelationship with the 10the1 una p*trv terrified of separation, the ch'dfinds it easy to succumb to the com'forii'ng pt"urure of the dyadic relation_ship' Kristeva argues that a whole

"i"" "ii"rigion has urru-"J ii" functionof tackling this danger:

Ptr i: precisery where we encounter the rituals of defilement andtheir derivatives, which, based ;-th" feeling of abjection and allconverging on the maternar, attempt to symbolize the other threat tothe subject: that of being swamp"iiylrt" duar rerationship, therebyrisking the loss not of. i purt f."rt#i."f but of the totality of hisliving being' rhe -r1n1ion't

,rt3.* r""ious rituals is to ward off thesubject's fear of Imother.

ils very own identity sinking irretrievably into the

(ibid., 64)How' then' are prohibitiols against contact with the mother enacted andenforced? In answering this quEstion,-rriiluu finks the urriu"rruipracticesof rituals of defilement to the n,otrr"r. srr" argues that within the practicesof all rituals of defilem."r, potturirrt'.'j";r ru' rrr,o'-i*o'Jut"gori"r,ffiffiTil:i;;;11"jn,,n*atens identiry" f; the outside ; und ile,,,t,,.ur,themother.ih;;;j;;#:lh.T,'LTti..ff ;,::il:ji:Hf ,:*fj:'."jXfi ;of excrementar objects with the r"*";i;;;re is brought about because ofthe morher's rore in sphincterai;d";;;.'"H"re, Kristeva argues rhat thesubject's first contact wittr .autnoJry;-i,

?rrr, the maternal auihority whenthe child learns, through interactioi *itrt ii" mother, about its-;ody: theshape of the body, the clean ano trre uncrean, the proper and improperareas of the body' It is the concept oi trt" *ut"rnal authority, that, in myanalysis of the monstrous-feminine in rtoiror, I will expand and extend intothe symbolic in reration to castration. Kristeva refers to the processes oftoilet training as a 'primar mapping oi'ri" uoav,which she cari .semiotic,.She distinguishes between maternal 'authority, and .paternar

raws,: ,Ma-ternal authority is the trustee of that -#i;; or trr" ,"ir,, .t";;;; proper12

KRISTEVA, FEMININITY, ABJECTION

body; it is distinguished from paternal laws within which, with the phallic

phase anO acquisition of language, the destiny of man will take shape'

[ibid., 72).; her discussiorioirituals of defilement in relation to the

indian caste system, Kristeva draws a distinction between maternal auth-

ority and paternal law. She argues that the period of the 'mapping of the

selfis clean and proper body' (ibid.) is characterized by the exercise of.authority without goilt" a time when there is a 'fusion between mother

and natrrre, (ibid., Z). However, the symbolic ushers in a 'totally different

universe of socially signifying performances where embarrassment, shame,

guilt, desire etc. com-e inio piay - the order of the phallus'. In the Indian

context, these two worlds "iiri hut*oniously side by side because of the

working of defilement rites. Here Kristeva is referring to the practice of

public iefecation in India. Kristeva argues that this split between the world

of tfr" mother (a universe without shame) and the world of the father (a

universe of shame), would in other social contexts produce psychosis; in

India it finds a .perfect socialization': 'This may be because the-setting up

of the rite of defilement takes on the function of the hyphen, the virgule'

allowing the two universes of fitth and prohibition to brush lightly against

eachotherwithoutnecessarilybeingidentifiedassuch,asobjectandaslaw'(ibid.).

Viitually all horror texts represent the monstrous-feminine in relation to

Kristeva's notion of maternaf authority and the mapping of the self's clean

and proper body. Images of blood, vomit, pus, shit,-etc--are,central to our

culturaliy/sociaily conitructed notions of the horrific. They'signify a split

between two orders: the maternal authority and the law of the father. on

theonehand,theseimagesofbodilywastesthreatenasubjectthatisalready constituted, in re'iation to the symbolic, as 'whole and proper'.

Consequently, they fill the subject - both ihe protago:rist in the text and the

spectaior in ihe cinema - with -disgust

and loathing. On the-other hand they

aiso point back to a time when- a 'fusion between mother and nature'

existed; when bodily wastes, while set apart from the body' were not seen

as objects of embarrasr-"rri and shame' Their presence in the horror film

may invoke a response of disgust from the audience situated as it is within

the social symbolic but at a niore archaic level the representation of bodily

wastes may invoke pleasure in breaking the taboo on filth - sometimes

described u, u pl"arore in perversity - Jnd a pleasure-in returning to tha!

time when the mother--child relationship was marked by an untrammelled

pleasure in'playing'with the body and its wastes'

The modern horror film often'pluyt'with its audience, saturating it with

Scenesofbloodandgore,deliueratelypointingtothefragilityofthesymbolic order in the Jomain of the body where the body never ceases to

signal the repressed world of the mother. ln The Exorcist the world of the

,y-rnboli., represented by the priest-as-father, and the world of the pre-

symbolic, represented Uy a p.rb"s"ent girl aligned with the devil' clashed

t3

l'HE MONSTROUS.FEMININE

head on in scenes where'the foulness of woman was signified by her putrid,filthy body covered in blood, urine, excrement and bile. Significantly, thepossessed girl is also about to menstruate - in one ,""n", f,r,ooo from herwounded genitals mingres with menstrual blood to p.ouio" -"*ot,n" nm,,key images of horror. (See chapter 3 for a detailed discussion of rheExorcist') rn carrie, the film's most monstrous act occurs when the coupleare drenched -in

pig's blood, which symborizes menstrual blood in the termsset up by the film: women are referrid to in the film as .ot*r;, *o-"n .bleedlike pigs', and the pig's blood runs down Carrie,s b;;

"; a?oment orintense pleasure, just as her own menstrual blood ran ao*n rro i"gs duringa-similar pleasurable moment when she enjoyed t ",

uoof il;;" shower.Here, women,s blood and pig's blood flow together, signifying horror,shame and humiliation- In tnii nm, however, tlr" -oir,"i rplut, for thesymbolic, identifying with an order which has defined *oo."ni, sexuality asthe source of all evil and menstruation as the sign of sin. (See chapter 5 forfurther elaboration).Kristeva's semiotic- posits a pre-verbal dimension of language whichrelates to sounds and ione of the voice and to direct

"*pi"".rtn of thedrives and physical contact with the maternal figure: ,it is dependent uponmeaning, but in a way that is not that of tinguisticsigns nor of the symboricorder they found' (ibid., 72). with the su6ject,s "i ry i"io it"lymboric,which separates the child from the mother, the maternar ng.rre and theauthority she, signifies are repressed. Kristeva then argues irrui it i, tt"function of defirement.rites, parti"utariflhose relatiG;;;ruar andexcremental objects/substances, to point to the ,bouridury, -U"i*"en

tfr"maternal semiotic authority and the paternal symbolic law.Kristeva argues that, historicalry, it has been the function of rerigion topllry the abject, but with the disintegration of these ,historical forms, ofreligion, the work of purification now"rests solely with ,that ciiharsi" po,excellence calred art'.(ibid., 17). This, I would argue, is arso the centralideological project of the popuiu, ho'or fitm - pulrrnl,i.,

"iiie abjectthrough a 'descent into the ioundations of the symbolic construct,. Thehorror film attempts to bring about a confrontation with trre afect (trreco{pse' bodily wastes, the monstrous-feminine) i".ro", ir"ii} t"qect trreabject and redraw the boundaries betweenih" hu-un and non-human. Asa form of modern defilement rite, the horror fitm attemfis to-r"frrut" o.rtthe symbolic order from all that threatens its stability, particurarly themother and all that her universe signifies. In this ,"nr",'rfiiG horrorinvolves a representation of, utro u ie"on"itiation with, tire iraternur uooy.Kristeva's theory of abjection provides us with an impo.tani trrlo."ti"atframework ^for.

anarysing, in the horror fil*, th" representation of themonstrous-feminine, in relation to woman's reproductive and motheringfunctions' However, abjection uy its very nature is ambiguous; it bothrepels and attracts' Separating out the n'oth", and her universe from theI4 15

K R lsl'E,VA, lrliM I N t N ITY' All't EC']'l'l ()N

symbolic order is not an easy task - perhaps it is, finally, not even poscible,

Furthermore,whenweUegintoexaminecloselythenature.ofthemon'strous mother we discoverihe also has a crucial role to play in relation to

"urirution and the child,s passage into the symbolic order - issues discussed

in part II in relation to ttre imiges of the vagina dentata and the castrating

mother.