Labors of Fear: The Modern Horror Film Goes to Work By AvivaBriefel, JasonMiddleton (Eds.), Austin, TX: Texas UP. 2023. 256 pp. $55.00 paper

From the very introduction of Labors of Fear: The Modern Horror Film Goes to Work, editors Aviva Briefel and Jason Middleton posit that modern horror films challenge the concept of the so-called American dream in unique and complex ways. The editors write that “the essays collected in the following pages restore economic and labor issues to a critical understanding of how horror cinema from the 1970s to the present has rendered ‘the American nightmare’ of our times” (1). The beauty of such a conception is that is allows for a plethora of approaches and associated themes, as evidenced by the chapters that follow. That is to say that while the title Labors of Fear might prompt readers to assume that labor and corresponding topics, such as class, are the main points of scholarly interest within the text, the collection adeptly addresses a myriad of connecting subjects, including gender, race, emotional labor, the climate crisis, and more. The introduction is followed by Marc Olivier's detailed and efficacious “Tools of the Trade: A Statistical Analysis of Slasher Hardware.” Olivier's article explores the findings of his study of both weapons and the attackers that wield them in “119 US or Canadian-produced (or coproduced) slashers from 1974 to 2019” (17). The number of poignant discoveries that Olivier makes in said study is impressive. He writes, for example, that “Nearly half (45.0%) of slasher villains are working class, while half (49.7%) of slasher victims are middle class,” making excellent connections for those looking to explore how class and race play a part in the modern horror film (18). While this particular example may be extremely useful to those horror scholars discussing class or race in slasher films, the numbers that Olivier presents also provide opportunities for those aiming to write on gender, space, domesticity, and even the application of object-oriented ontology to the horror genre. The propitious nature of this article perhaps indicates that the full length single-author text by Olivier mentioned in the contributor section, Household Horror: Cinematic Fear and the Secret Life of Everyday Objects, is one that curious horror scholars ought to investigate further (219). The aforementioned chapter sets a precedent followed by succeeding chapters as each essay might be applied in a variety of ways that far exceed the narrower scope one might assume given each corresponding essay title. That is to say that while the book is divided into three distinct parts, associated with death versus survival, gendered and emotional labor, and racialized labor, respectively, the lines between the parts are blurred. For example, Mikal J Gaines' “Racing Work and Working Race in Buppie Horror” casts a wide but sagacious net in exploring where the white, yuppie horror films of the 1980s and 1990s diverge from what Gaines calls “buppie horror;” “buppie” here referring to horror and thriller films that feature upwardly mobile Black characters. Although race and economic standing are clearly topics of interest from the onset, Gaines' essay might be applied in by those with specific and seemingly tangential interests. In investigating buppie horror, Gaines details the trope of the “white female monstrosity” as a specific intersection of femininity and whiteness that serves as a “sinister” force that “threatens to destroy” the cohesion and peace of the Black family unit (159). Similarly, while Anjuli Fatima Raza Kolb's “Fieldwork: Anthropology and Intellectual Labor in Ari Aster's Midsommer” appears in the section of the book that grapples with racialized labor, her article may be indispensable for academics writing on the use of scene or place, conceptions of the natural world, and the specific terror represented by the mediocre white man or boy who “will always take us all down with him” in a “spectacle of self-immolation” (201). While highlighting the wide applicability of Labors of Fear may spark interest in some readers, it may also be useful to note some of the specific pieces of media and horror creators that the text addresses. The aforementioned article by Kolb is not, for example, the only chapter to take on the widely popular Midsommer. Jason Middleton's “Emotion Work in Midsommar” also analyzes the same film, albeit from a very different angle as Middleton elucidates the use of melodrama and accompanying sexist expectations in heteronormative relationships therein. Likewise, while Aviva Briefel's article, “We Want to Take Our Time” looks at leisure and trauma in Jordan Peele's Us, Peele's work is also discussed in the afterward, “The Work of Horror after Get Out,” by Catherine Zimmer. Fans of George A. Romero will be pleased to find that in the third chapter Adam Lowenstein gives ample attention to the concept of survival work in much of Romero's Living Dead series while those hoping for commentary on The Babadook or The Swerve will find Lisa Coulthard's chapter provides an intricate inspection of the ideas of the working mother and gendered madness in these films. However, to say that Coulthard's chapter is of interest simply due to the specific films discussed is arguably something of a reductionist act and a disservice. In truth, Coulthard's article presents unique discussion of “the sonic menace of Gothic madness” in which “the supernatural sounds of the night are less chilling than the noise of demanding children,” ultimately providing a distinctive focus on sonic studies and the feminine experience (83). Gaines' aforementioned coining of the term “buppie” and the interdisciplinary approach Alanna Thain takes in dissecting visual art, the concept of the artificial womb, and gendered definitions of labor in her article “Reproductive Technics and Time” are two more examples of how Labors of Fear presents ground-breaking additions to the field. Altogether, the innovative nature and plasticity of this text makes it an invaluable addition to the library of many scholars interested in horror studies, film, and associated topics.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.