So, I was in Greece on vacation, and while I'm here at the Newark Airport Mariott, waiting for my flight home, I decided to write a brief sequel to my previous post:
American Horror
In some sense, Marxist criticism of the horror genre can be traced back to the works of German expatriate Dr. Fredric Wertham on horror comics[1]. Wertham had written several articles in the late 40's and early 50's about the dangerous influence of horror comics, particularly the ones done by R&B Comics. His criticism of the "anti-social" nature of these horror books (in particular, how they seem to show people not being accountable for their actions and the prevalence of murder) were echoed in later battles over horror films (some of which were influenced by R&B comics). However, with freedom of speech laws enforced greatly in the UASR, this ultimately didn't amount to much, with bans and regulation proven unconstitutional, and horror comics being impeded and Wertham himself would distance himself from this research, when the discussion began to border on outright censorship. (Indeed, it was calling attention to Wertham's often questionable research methods)
There was no official government censorship of films, as enshrined in the Declarations of the Rights of Persons, Toilers,etc. However, filmmakers and the cinema collectivization system would clash over the depiction of severe violence. Often, approval depended on cutting several minutes of footage, mostly severe violence or moments depicting societal corruption. Often, this was targeted towards the "exploitation" side of the American horror spectrum. There was a double standard in the depiction of violence, as many "Sinclairain horror" films, which were more arthouse and avant-garde in tone, were often approved and even given preferential treatment. For instance, the 1972 film "The Village", set in a generic unnamed late 19th century village, as the peasants are slowly degraded, and eventually resort to cannibalism by the masters of capitals, with very graphic depictions of sexual depravity and people killing and consuming their fellow man for most of the film, was approved fairly quickly, and was even distributed to international film festivals. In contrast, the 1968 film "Night of the Living Dead", which had a single scene of zombies consuming human flesh, and was otherwise tamer than the former film, was the subject of a massive conflict between the WFPL and George Romero, over supposed "intense violence" and "anti-social elements" (supposedly, the fact the zombie apocalypse hadn't been subdued by the end undermined confidence in the militia system). Ultimately, Romero won out, and Night was released uncut, but the incident highlighted the somewhat interesting relationship the WFPL had with horror.
One particularly taboo topic was serial killers. Unlike the USSR, the heavily decentralized UASR acknowledged the existence of serial killers in a communist society, but claimed that they were a rarity, and that potential serial killers were encouraged more under capitalism, with socialism alleviating systemic mental illness. This attitude was reflected in the cinema collectives. When Charles Pierce tried to create a film about the real life series of murders that occurred in rural Georgia in the late 40's,[2] he found opposition not only from the town that suffered through the murders, but also the cinema collectives, who felt that the depiction of the killer as a highly influential member of a local steel workers union (which was a fact of the story), would undermine the impression that serial killers were "anti-social loners", who weren't productive members of society, and were remnants of the capitalist system. The film ended up never getting made. John Carpenter had some problems making Halloween, due to the fact the main killer in the story was released due to bureaucratic errors in the asylum he was being held, after he had murdered his family. Again, it was considered to undermine socialist rehabilitation, and the idea that killers could be produced in such climates. However, this time, he succeeded, and the WFPL had no major objections to the film.
After the period of the Second Cultural Revolution, this attitude slowly diminished. In modern times, the gap between Sinclairian horror and exploitation horror is being bridged. Indeed, many modern films have significant elements from both thoughts, and are being made from filmmakers who were influenced by both.
[1] And before you criticize me for having him be in the UASR instead of Cuba, he was actually very liberal (and also, as a Jew, he would probably not like the openly anti-Semitic MacArthurist regime much) , contrary to sources who say he was a McCarthyist. In fact, his clinic in Harlem (where most of the research for Seduction of the Innocent was done) was named for Paul Lafargue, Karl Marx's son-in-law. Although, here, he is less influential.
[2] I'll presume that most of the OTL major serial killers (including the one that inspired The Town That Feared Sundown) are butterflied away, but there are probably other such murders to replace them.
And I'd love a Tintin cinematic universe, it seems perfect in fact for a long series of films. It is probably partially due to the fact I find *serious* films unwatchable in the cinema, unless they are The Martian, and prefer to buy them on DVD or Blu-Ray. On the other hand, the mixture of grim-dark obsession in FBU culture and the higher pressure for profits, could mean that the FBU multiplexs are overrun with Batman vs. Superman quality films rather than Captain America: Civil War...
