Book Review: GHOULS, GIMMICKS, AND GOLD: Horror Films and the American Movie Business, 1953-1968 by Kevin Heffernan

Horror is one of the most vital genres in film as it has influenced and changed the way audiences look at themselves, culture, and the history of film itself.  In Kevin Hefferman’s book Ghouls, Gimmicks, and Gold: Horror Films and the American Movie Business, 1953-1968, Hefferman examines the business of horror from ’53 (the beginning of the 3-D cycle of films) to ’68 (the release of George A. Romero’s nihilistic Night of the Living Dead and the birth of adult horror). 

Hefferman breaks up his book in chapters specific to an era of film that not only changed the business of the genre but also made a cultural impact on audiences.  In the opening chapter “Horror in Three Dimensions” he delves into how the success of House of Wax and Creature from the Black Lagoon (among others) altered the business during the first 3-D boom.  In the chapter “The Color of Blood” the success of Hammer Films is examined which added luscious color and sex to the gothic horror film adding new life to a genre that was slowly in a downward spiral.  Hefferman also goes into AIP’s Poe adaptations with Vincent Price (“A Sissified Bela Lugosi”), the impact of grind house and art films (“Grind House or Art House?”), the impact of television on the industry and business (“Television Syndication and the Birth of the ‘Orphans’”), and several others culminating with the release of Night of the Living Dead and how it changed the industry (“Family Monsters and the Urban Matinees”).

Heffernan’s book is not one that recycles reviews and critics of any of the films discussed but rather goes into detail on how these films impacted the industry and signaled a shift and change in the way not only audiences but filmmakers saw the industry and genre.  The ‘50s and ‘60s saw such a diverse array of films being released that the reasons for the many shifts has always fascinated and confounded the industry and Heffernan does a great job of breaking it down here (at least in terms of the American movie business). 

The people that will get the most from this book are those who want to know why and how the horror film endured through so many changes in the ‘50s and ‘60s but even the casual horror fan will enjoy Hefferman’s non-academic style which makes everything more accessible to the casual reader (it could have been real easy for a book such as this to become too academic).

Book Review: SCI-FI MOVIE FREAK by Robert C. Ring

Every sci-fi movie fan should have a book that chronicles some of the best that the genre has to offer but sadly Robert C. Ring’s Sci-Fi Movie Freak is not one of them.  There is no doubt that Ring’s book chronicles a lot of sci-fi films and most notably a lot of classics which have indeed been overlooked over the years (and some even forgotten).  Ring’s book is broken up into 5 main chapters which include “Best of the Best,” “Vital Viewing,” “Further Essentials,” “Lesser-Known Gems,” and “The Failures.”  This amounts to chapters that more-or-less all sound the same except it’s a manner of opinion which would be in the “Best of the Best” verses “Vital Viewing” verses “Further Essentials” chapter.  A more definitive grouping could have been more helpful such as a sub genre designation.  Sci-fi is such a diversified genre that there could have been an infinitely better way of categorizing the films into chapters especially since it is a reference book. 

Ring does put the films in chronological order within each chapter, which is actually a good thing as the reader gets to watch the progression of the genre from one film to the next up until modern day.  He also touches upon a lot of genuine classics but I’m not exactly sure about his tone towards some of the films he’s decided to highlight.  His thoughts on It Came From Outer Space (1953), which is in the “Further Essentials” chapter are, “There are plenty of moments of cliché and simplicity, however like the sappiness contained in the opening…that mar the experience for the modern viewers.”  He also describes RoboCop (1987), “Though RoboCop has shortcomings as a story, it is a smartly made film.  It is packed with stock bad guys and pushes through key elements with a lack of logic…”  I sometimes wonder why he bothered to include these entries in the first place rather than pick other films in their place.

I also question some of his choices of inclusion as sci-fi films such as 28 Days Later (2002), 28 Weeks Later (2007), The Host (2006), or The Return of the Living Dead (1985), to name a few.  These films obviously don’t really fit into the sci-fi mode and Ring doesn’t really explain why he’s chosen to include these films.  This leaves the reader pondering what his criteria is for judging the films.

I do have to give credit to Ring for including a good sampling of animated sci-fi films which usually go absent in these types of books but he does highlight Iron Giant (1999), Akira (1988), Metropolis (2001), and Fantastic Planet (1973), to name a few.  For some odd reason Ring felt compelled to included TV specials in his analysis of the genre with Family Guy: Blue Harvest (2007) and The Star Wars Holiday Special (1978) which seems more to populate the book with additional Star Wars reference films (he lights four out of the six films already plus the spoof Spaceballs).  

For me, there was more wrong with the book than right and with there being plenty of other books on the genre out there this is a book that can be passed by.