When I sat down at the keyboard, I had a totally different idea to begin
this new series of posts on the subject of “monsters carrying girls”. However,
“Fortune Favors the Brave” as the motto goes, so I’ll forge ahead on the
never-ending and tangential narrative path, Quixotic-like, with lance in hand
to ward off the skeptics and cynics along the way.
While reading various blogs and websites, I frequently come across certain
catch-phrases and other colorful labels used to conveniently describe oft-occurring
and familiar thematic features found in seemingly countless horror films. One
of the terms used to define this phenomenon is the word “trope”, which is commonly used to
describe any familiar motif or device – usually, but not always, visual – that
crops up repeatedly (like either a flower or a weed depending on your
perspective) in horror movies. So easy can the term be used for monster flicks that, for their example of the use of the word, the
venerable Merriam-Webster opts to go with the phrase: “the usual horror movie
tropes”.
As in the case of numerous other decorative, academic, and other, highfalutin-sounding words, I believe “trope”, at least in the context of
horror film criticism (and of the kind found online mostly), is very often incorrectly used. I also happen to believe it’s one of those words that come so close
that it seems to best fit what the writer is trying to express when otherwise
too many more words, and perhaps a little more thought, would more clearly delineate
the idea. You see, the proper use of the word “trope” means something – like in
the aforementioned theme or scenic image – that is (eek!) overused, even to the
point of being – heaven help us! – cliché!
Now, I think that most readers, when
they come upon the word “cliché”, they know that it is most certainly being used to
mean “overused”, maybe to the point of being “trite”, “dull”, or even “hackneyed”.
Conversely, I suspect that writers really mean something a little less negative
when they mention tropes. As a matter of fact, I fancy that often they should
really be using another term: “iconic”.
Maybe some horror film situations,
plots, and themes deserve to be labeled as a trope, but I prefer to think lots
of these same ideas are considerably less tiresome than the term implies, and should
instead, be more properly relegated to the loftier realms of the iconic.
But then again, perhaps using the term “iconic”
is not quite accurate, either. An icon, you see, is usually reserved to define
a sculpted bust or statue that has been memorialized, sometimes even being exalted to the state of
being symbolic. All this just might take us down still another, entirely
different road, and end up with the possibility of discussing yet another term -- like “tangential”, wouldn’t it?
Hey, I’ve told you many times before:
this is my blog, and this is the place where I get to write what I want. And
that, dear readers, is what I could honestly call a trope! So let’s get on with
the post, shall we?
 |
| Scene from Universal's MONSTER ON THE CAMPUS. |
As the title of this post implies, the
subject contained in this feature is “monsters carrying girls”, and the image
has been seen many, many times in horror films. For the sake of argument, I’ll
call it iconic.
Besides the immediate feeling of
anxiety, the sight of a monstrous troll or other unsavory, hulking beast
carrying aloft a beautiful woman, whether she be tramp, trollop, or the
All-American Girl Next Door, there is something mighty unsettling going on –
especially in the “what if” department. I think you know what I mean; it’s one
thing to see a beast on two legs carrying away a damsel who’s fainted dead away
– it’s another to think what’s next? And with all that leering, slobbering
and grunting going on, it’s not hard to figure out.
The device of the monster menacing the
maid is not only ubiquitous in horror films, its damn near expected. This
morbid and more than slightly perverse interaction has not been lost on critics,
reviewers and historians alike. Even monster movie magazines picked up on the
recurring theme. For example Jim Warren’s FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND magazine
often showed pictures of monsters carrying girls, a feat not hard to accomplish
as many film studios posed their mon-stars and maidens in this way on photo stills and lobby cards to transfix
the viewer in an instant of quasi-sexual tension, hoping, I'm sure, to stimulate ticket sales. After FM’s first half-hundred
issues, Editor Forrest J Ackerman ran a series of features with the title “Girls
and Ghouls” (later expanded to "Girls and Ghouls Gallery"), replete with photos of swooning and innocent girls being dragged,
carried, or otherwise man . . . er, monster handled. The first installment appeared in issue #64 (April 1970), and featured the BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. It didn't take long, however, for FJ to show what was expected -- the Mummy, with a hapless, swooning beauty under his arm (FM #66, June 1970).
