Review

Nathan Tipton

Harry M. Benshoff, Monsters in the Closet: Homosexuality and the Horror Film.
(Manchester: Manchester U P, 1998.) $18.95.

Come Out, Come Out, Whoever You Are!

"The plot discovered is the finding

of evil where we have always known it
to be: in the other" (97). So wrote Leslie
Fiedler in The End of Innocence (1955),
his summation of the McCarthy-era
horrors. Although ostensibly referring to
the 1953-54 McCarthy hearings, Fiedler
discloses the societal fear of difference
operating within the "Us versus Them"
dialectic. Moreover, by finding evil in
an Otherness "where we have always
known it to be," he acknowledges both
the historical construction and destruction of the Other and, in effect, explains society's
genocidal predilections in the name of moral preservation. Nevertheless, Fiedler's
comment leaves larger questions unanswered. How, for instance, does society arrive at
this conflation of evil and "other?" And does society need to create monsters for the sole
purpose of destroying them?

Harry M. Benshoff "outs" his Monsters In the Closet with the conceit of a "monster
queer" universally viewed as anyone who assumes a contra-heterosexual self-identity,
including those outside the established gay/lesbian counter-hegemony ("interracial sex
and sex between physically challenged people" [5]). For the sake of brevity, his work
focuses on homosexual males and their presence, either tacit or overt, in the modern
horror film. In so doing, Monsters also proposes (with more than a passing nod to gay
historiographer George Chauncey), an extant gay history created through the magic of
cinema. For Benshoff, however, the screening room quickly morphs into a Grand
Guignol-styled Theatre of Blood, and gays become metaphorical monsters whose sole
purpose in horror films is to subvert society before meeting their expected demise.

3. Benshoff draws a provocative, decade-by-decade timeline to illuminate his thesis.

He begins in 1930s Depression-era America, the "Golden Age of Hollywood Horror." In
a chapter entitled "Defining the monster queer," the cultural construction of the modern
homosexual is placed alongside (and within) classic horror films such as Frankenstein
and Dracula (both 1931). Benshoff notes the decade's movement from viewing
homosexuals as gender deviants to those engaging in "sexual-object choice (48)," thus

Copyright © 1998 by Nathan Tipton and Cultural Logic, ISSN 1097-3087

Tipton 2

underscoring the ideological shift from Other-as-Separate to Other-Among-Us. This,

then, becomes his foundation motif for the modern horror cinema: the fears within us are
the fears of us.

While the chapter concentrates heavily on the actors and their presumed sexuality
(including "name" stars such as Charles Laughton and Peter Lorre) rather than the films,
Benshoff highlights an obvious thread of filmic homosociality, particularly in the films
pairing Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi. For example, 1934's The Black Cat features two
"mad" scientists ostensibly competing for one female (although she is later revealed to
have been dead all along). Benshoff convincingly reads this arrangement as a homoerotic
love triangle, with Poelzig (Karloff) and Werdegast (Lugosi) engaged in teasing
flirtation, and finally sado-masochistic torture. The torture scene includes bare-chested
Karloff being menaced by scalpel-wielding Lugosi, who threatens (and then proceeds) to
"flail the skin from [Poelzig's] body, bit by bit"(64). Though Benshoff reads the film's
homosociality as a positive step, he nonetheless fails to critique the rather obvious, time-
honored homosexual tropes of sado-masochism and murderous psychosis.

"Defining the monster queer" also includes a surprisingly short section on director
James Whale (on whose life the current film Gods and Monsters is based). Benshoff
notes, "A discussion of homosexuality and the classical Hollywood horror film often
begins (and all too frequently ends) with the work of James Whale, the openly gay
director who was responsible for fashioning four of Universal Studio's most memorable
horror films: Frankenstein (1931), The Old Dark House (1932), The Invisible Man
(1933), and Bride of Frankenstein (1935)" (40). While Frankenstein is arguably the most
recognizable film in this quartet, Benshoff instead contextualizes Whale's work through
his most explicitly homosexual film, The Old Dark House, in which Whale parodies and,
ultimately, subverts the above-mentioned stereotypical cinematic tropes.

This film, like many "clutching hand" horror films of the period, uses the device of
"normal" people trapped in a defiantly non-normal mansion peopled with maniacs and
monsters. The Old Dark House is occupied by the Femm (!) family members, who each
have gayly-coded personas. Patriarch Roderick Femm is enacted by a woman (actress
Elspeth Dudgeon); son Horace is played by known homosexual Ernest Thesiger in,
Benshoff wryly notes, a "fruity effete manner" (43); and sister Rebecca (Eva Moore) is a
hyper-religious zealot who is, nevertheless, a closet lesbian. The heterosexual Wavertons
(Raymond Massey and Gloria Stuart), along with their manservant Penderel (Melvyn
Douglas), spend the vast majority of the film trying to fend off none-too-subtle
homosexual overtures from the Femms, although they too are viewed queerly as an
"urban ménage à trois" (44).

The story is further complicated by Morgan (Boris Karloff), the drunken butler who
"may or may not be an illegitimate son of the house" and Saul (Brember Wills) "the most
dangerous member of the family" (45), who is understood as a repressed homosexual.
Saul sees in Penderel a kinship but, because of his paranoid repression, must instead kill
this object of his desire (with, Benshoff points out, a "long knife" [45]). In the ensuing
tussle, Saul falls down the stairs, dies, and is carried off by Morgan, who "miserably

Copyright © 1998 by Nathan Tipton and Cultural Logic, ISSN 1097-3087

Tipton 3

minces up the steps, rocking him, his hips swaying effeminately, as if he were some
nightmarish mother cradling a dead, horrific infant" (45).

Benshoff convincingly hints that the film's over-the-top depiction of homosexuality

was the primary cause of its being "kept out of circulation for many years . . . for varying
reasons (legal and otherwise) . . . [and] it was not released on commercial videotape until
1995" (43). In fact, the Production Code established in 1930 forbade any openly (or,
Benshoff adds, "broadly connotated") homosexual characters on-screen and,
subsequently, "banished [them] to the shadowy realms of inference and implication"(35).
But the problem still remains that even in their connotative presence, homosexuals are
portrayed as monsters. Although Whale's Dark House attempts to imbue some non-
normals (such as Morgan) with a sympathetic aura, it does so at the expense of Saul,
whose death seems to connote a reinforcement of normality. This status quo death-by-
design, indeed, becomes a decades-long device in horror films.

As the book progresses, Benshoff moves from homosocial film "outings" to socio-
filmic movie interpretations and, in this
area, he is clearly more comfortable. In
particular, the chapter entitled "Pods,
Pederasts and Perverts: (Re)Criminalizing
the Monster Queer in Cold War Culture"
casts a probing look at the so-called
"perfect" 1950s. This decade becomes a
touchstone for Benshoff because of the
close interrelationship between oftentimes-
surreal politics (the McCarthy/HUAC
hearings) and "real" cinema. Early films
such as Them and The Creature from the
Black Lagoon (both 1954) exemplify the
dialectic between Us and Them while
exploring the dynamic of social denial.
Benshoff notes, "As for the closeted
homosexual, the monster queer's best
defense is often the fact that the social
order actively prefers to deny his/her
existence" (129) and thus keep its
monsters safely in their closets. His queer
reading of Creature, while effective, does
not approach the astute discussion of the
later films I Married a Monster from
Outer Space (1958) and especially the
Black Lagoon sequel, The Creature Walks Among Us (1956), which not only riff on the
Marxist dialectic but present the more insidious scenario of the "incorporated queer."

The title of The Creature Walks Among Us, for example, serves as an overt play on
people's paranoia, both of Communists and Queers (terms which, during the McCarthy

Copyright © 1998 by Nathan Tipton and Cultural Logic, ISSN 1097-3087

Tipton 4

hearings, were used synonymously), and the film focuses on intense male rivalries,
ostensibly over one woman, Helen Barton. However, her husband, Dr. Barton, has
paranoid fantasies about her sleeping with Captain Grant, the hunky captain of Barton's
yacht (which, Benshoff notes, is based in San Francisco). Benshoff easily reads Dr.
Barton as a repressed homosexual who would much rather be sleeping with Grant. At the
film's climax, he murders Captain Grant (thus killing the object of his desire) and is, in
turn, killed by the Creature. Helen reflects on the sad scene by trying to explain her
husband's rather obvious sexual repression. She states, "I guess the way we go depends
upon what we're willing to understand about ourselves. And willing to admit"(136). But
her words also can be read as a plea for societal tolerance of "Them," in whatever form
they appear.

Benshoff furthers his discussion of Them Among Us by exploring the phenomenon of

the "I Was a . . ." films, which "purported to deliver subjective experiences of how
political deviants operated" (146), again through horrifically-packaged political treatises
such as 1951's I Was a Communist for the FBI or "real-life" horror films along the lines
of I Was a Teenage Werewolf (1957). These films seek not only to uncover the hidden
queer but to expose their insidious agenda of pederastic recruitment. However, for the
quintessential 1950s homo-cruitment film Benshoff chooses How to Make a Monster
(1958) which, despite its menacing tagline "It Will Scare the Living Yell Out of You," is
viewed as remarkable for "the wide range of signified to which the signifier 'monster'
becomes attached, and the complexity with which it manipulates these signifiers" (150-
51). Translation: How to Make a Monster contains many not-terribly-subtle queer-
friendly images that are visible the typical moviegoer, hetero- or homosexual.

Benshoff pulls out all the stops in his filmic exploration of How to Make a Monster by
deploying a Laura Mulvey-esque theoretical pastiche of deconstruction, Lacanian
psychoanalysis, cultural criticism, and Marxism. He concludes that "the film hints at the
revolutionary potential of 'making monsters' against those same ideological forces . . .
which simultaneously create and demonize the monster queer" (151).

So what exactly marks this particular Monster for greatness (indeed, a detail of the
movie's poster is part of the book's cover art)? For starters, the film contains all the
elements of a perfectly queer horror flick: a homosexually-coded mad scientist couple
Pete and Rivero (complete with "requisite butch/femme stereotyping" [151]) who are, as
an added bonus, also tacit pederasts. They are balanced by two "normal" heterosexual
teenage All-American boys, Larry and Tony, who nevertheless get "made up" and engage
in a clearly homoerotic "Battle of the Monsters." The story is further complicated by a
Marxist interlude during which capitalist movie studio executives arrive and sever their
ties with the monstrous director and his makeup-artist-partner. Benshoff observes, "The
scene explicitly links the patriarchal order with capitalism, and Pete [the now fired
director] and his monstrous world as opposing it. As Pete turns down the offer of
severance pay, one of the studio executives clucks 'Turn down money -- maybe you've
been living too long with monsters'" (153). Pete, rather than accepting his fate, formulates
a revenge plot against the capitalist studio executives, and herein invokes another horror
film trope -- "that which is repressed (in this case the Hollywood monster movie) must

Copyright © 1998 by Nathan Tipton and Cultural Logic, ISSN 1097-3087

Tipton 5

eventually return." However, Benshoff continues, "these particular monsters are not
going to be of the imaginary/Make-Believe/Movie/ Sexuality kind; they are going to be
deadly" (154).

While this revenge plot is a precursor to the spate of 1980s "Everyman" horror films,
both heterosexual (Falling Down) and homosexual (The Living End, Swoon), How to
Make a Monster utilizes a novel approach for its monstrous aims. As Benshoff explains,
"Back in the make-up lab, Pete tells Rivero of his plan to control the young actors
through a special novocaine-based make-up: 'Now -- this enters the pores and paralyzes
the will. It will have the same effect chemically as a surgical prefrontal lobotomy.1 It
blocks the nerve synapses. It makes the subject passive -- obedient to my will.'" (154).
Ignoring for the moment the clearly Freudian implications of Pete's speech, the special
make-up also predicts date-rape drugs such as "mickeys" or "roofies," thus adding
another sinister aspect to the scene. Moreover, because Pete and Rivero are coded
pederasts, the make-up also predicates accusations of "homosexual agenda" brainwashing
leveled by the present-day Religious Right.

Of course, Freudian phallocentrism is never far away. Benshoff notes, "Rivero

attempts to tell Pete that he thinks Pete has made a mistake in bringing the boys to his
home. Pete cannot accept Rivero's taking an active (vocal) role in the proceedings and
stabs Rivero in the belly with a knife, asserting his dominance within the active/passive
nature of their relationship" (156). The knife, which naturally is read as a phallus, "sends
the boys into a homosexual panic: a struggle ensues and the room is set on fire. Pete dies
with his melting creations á la Vincent Price in House of Wax (1953), and the cops break
down the door and rescue/apprehend Larry and Tony" (156).

All's well that ends well? Benshoff hedges his bets on Larry and Tony, thinking that
they have probably been assimilated (he wryly adds that, before the struggle, the boys try
to escape by telling Pete, "Larry and I have sort of a dinner date" [156]), but more
because they have been repeatedly tainted by the monster queer. Although his overall
critique of the film is favorable by citing its pleas for tolerance, he nevertheless
condemns it on Marxist grounds for remaining first and foremost a product of the
capitalist system. Benshoff argues that, even though How to Make a Monster attempts to
subvert society's view of homosexuals, it remains a product of a system that routinely
exploits women and homosexuals. It does so by constructing their images in
stereotypically specific ways and, he writes, "As such, the film contains within itself the
seeds of its own destruction" (157).

This particular critique is borne out in his viewing of 1960s and 70s horror films,
which, even with the advent of both the women's and gay liberation movements, as well
as the weakening of the Production Code, still resort to the same "tired" tropes. He selects
productions from the UK's Hammer Films (which produced horror films from the 1950s
until 1973) for scrutiny, noting that "the weakening Production Code's loosening
restrictions on sex and violence helped the horror film define itself in new and explicit
terms" (177), and singling out Hammer for capitalizing on this new openness. He further
adds, "For the first time in film history, openly homosexual characters became

Copyright © 1998 by Nathan Tipton and Cultural Logic, ISSN 1097-3087

Tipton 6

commonplace within the genre, sometimes as victims . . . but more regularly as the
monsters themselves (the lesbian vampire)" (177).

This lesbian vampire becomes a recurring motif in late Hammer films including the
"first overtly lesbian film, The Vampire Lovers (1970)" (192), in which hyper-feminine
women seduce and destroy other hyper-feminine women. While this is a welcome change
from the stereotypical "butch lesbian" seen in earlier horror films, Benshoff cites Bonnie
Zimmerman in his enumeration of Hammer's sins: "lesbian sexuality is infantile and
narcissistic; lesbianism is sterile and morbid; lesbians are rich, decadent women who
seduce the young and powerless" (23). The Vampire Lovers, for example, features
Carmilla (taken from J. Sheridan LeFanu's 1872 vampire novel of the same name)
seducing a bevy of "young nubile women in diaphanous nightgowns" (193) and then
draining their blood. Her victim Emma, a "rather dim-witted ingenue . . . who, in all of
her innocence, tumbles into bed with Carmilla after romping nude together through the
bedroom" (193), is nevertheless a heterosexual. After Carmilla expresses love for her,
Emma (who doth protest too much, methinks) refuses and instead asks, "Don't you wish
some handsome young man would come into your life?" to which Carmilla replies, "No -
- neither do you, I hope" (193). Naturally, Carmilla must be and is destroyed by,
Benshoff notes, "patriarchal agents" (194) (although he doesn't specify who these agents
are) and Emma and her boyfriend Carl are reunited.

Benshoff astutely comments on Hammer Films' success among heterosexual males by

noting, "the appeal of these Hammer films was ostensibly directed to the straight male
spectator through soft-core nudity and sexual titillation" (196). The film(s), rather than
focusing on the lesbianism (although this is a significant, though unspoken, "guilty
pleasure"), instead rely on "ample cleavage and sheer peignoirs" (194), and therein lies
their appeal. While these nymphet vampire lesbians faded from view in the later 1970s,
the scantily-clad "screaming Mimi" victims remain firmly entrenched in postmodern
horror films of the 1980s and 90s, although they are primarily coded as exclusively
heterosexual.

The advent of the postmodern horror film in the 1980s and 90s heralds a new look at
old tropes, particularly the monster among us. In "Satan spawn and out and proud:
Monster queers in the postmodern era," these films, repeatedly deploying overt
homoeroticism, riff on the perils of difference, repression, and (not surprisingly) coming-
out, thus giving Benshoff fertile ground for exploration. For example, 1981's Fear No
Evil, a Religious Right-esque shockumentary, pits Lucifer (portrayed initially as Andrew,
a shy, effeminate high-school senior before "coming out") against the forces of Absolute
Good (read: "normal" heterosexuals). The film is highlighted by a nude gym shower
teasing/quasi-seduction scene involving Andrew and Tony, the requisite high-school
bully figure, in which "Tony mockingly asks [Andrew] for a date, and then a kiss. Rather
improbably, Tony does kiss Andrew, to the accompaniment of a rumbling, reverberating,
grunting sound-track and swirling camerawork" (239, emphasis added).

Fear No Evil further exacerbates the thematic homosexual menace with what
Benshoff terms a "retrograde ideology," in that "When the Devil/Andrew again kisses

Copyright © 1998 by Nathan Tipton and Cultural Logic, ISSN 1097-3087

Tipton 7

[him,] Tony . . . manifest[s] female breasts. The implication here is unmistakably clear
and totally in line with traditional notions of gender and sexuality: Devil = homosexuality
= gender inversion. Upon manifesting the breasts, Tony does the only decent thing he can
do . . . and stabs himself to death" (239). Stabbing, indeed, seems to be the preferred
method of dispatch in horror films, and it is easy to see Tony's action as a phallic
impaling. Furthermore, it also reflects back to Larry's and (another!) Tony's homosexual
panic in How to Make a Monster, although the postmodern Tony, who has tacitly "given
in" to his homosexuality, must die.

Two problems, however, immediately arise in Benshoff's reading: his use of the word
"traditional" and the ignorance of the multiple kisses. His pronouncing the pairing of
homosexual panic and gender inversion as a "traditional notion" would be acceptable for
1950s films but becomes highly suspect for postmodern-era films. While not to denigrate
audiences of 1950s schlock-horror, audiences in the 1980s and 1990s are imbued with a
cynicism that, upon viewing this ridiculous scene, would manifest itself in guffaws.
Moreover, Benshoff misses or fails to comment on the view of latent homosexuality
apparent in Tony. What, then, does it really say about Tony that he asks (teasingly?)
Andrew for a date and then kisses him not once but twice, apparently of his own free
will? Benshoff reads the scene as an overt metaphor for homosexual panic as gender
inversion but fails to see the potential (positive?) societal comment that any homophobic
bully is likely acting against his own homosexual feelings.

Additionally, given the "rumbling, reverberating, grunting sound-track and swirling

camerawork" in Fear No Evil, it is surprising that Benshoff doesn't draw a correlation
between the postmodern horror film and outright pornographic films -- other than the
snide comment, "Apparently, the Devil really knows how to use his tongue" (239). His
"Epilogue," however, does comment on gay porno's appropriation of vampiric themes
immediately following the release of Interview With the Vampire. Indeed, these films
acknowledge a number of gay pornographic productions including Does Dracula Really
Suck? (1969), Gayracula (1983), and the non-porno (read: sans explicit sex) Love Bites
(1988) which, Benshoff notes, "approached the generic systems of gothic horror in an
attempt to draw out or exorcise the monster from the queer" (286).

While this reading is plausible, it problematically equates gay porno audiences with
those of "conventional" cinema. The reading elides the fact that the ostensible
"motivation" for any porno film is a memorable climax (and not necessarily from the
film's actors). Benshoff, however, cites Love Bites as exemplary, not for escaping the
confines of porno, but for rewriting "generic imperatives from a gay male point of view"
and "allow[ing] both Count Dracula and his servant Renfield to find love and redemption
with modern-day West Hollywood gay boys" (286). The film, therefore, both creates a
"positive" monster and aspires to mainstream appeal.

Benshoff concludes that mainstream postmodern horror films also show remarkable
progress in the area of homosocial qua homosexual cinematic portrayals. Fright Night
(1985), gay author Clive Barker's Night Breed (1990), and "straight queer" Tim Burton's
Edward Scissorhands (also 1990) receive especially high praise for their positive

Copyright © 1998 by Nathan Tipton and Cultural Logic, ISSN 1097-3087

Tipton 8

attempts at positing an "alternative normal" while not resorting to stereotypical queer

tropes. However, the films share the common subversive element of camp, and it is
through this humor that they ultimately succeed in humanizing the monster queer.
Benshoff quotes Clive Barker as stating, "We should strive to avoid feeding delusions of
perfectibility and instead celebrate the complexities and contradictions that, as I've said,
fantastic fiction is uniquely qualified to address. . . . But we must be prepared to wear our
paradoxes on our sleeve" (Jones 75) and indeed, camp manifests itself as a paradox.

26. Again, however, Benshoff surprisingly misses an opportunity to view the films as
critiques of suburbia and inbred suburban intolerance, for many of the postmodern films
concern themselves with spinning a new urban/suburban dialectic. The urban, ostensibly
viewed as the dangerous inner city (and exclusively home to black and gay ghettos) is
contrasted with the idyllic (read: white heterosexual and, paradoxically, nostalgically
1950s-esque) suburban landscape.

Fright Night riffs on this suburban Invasion of the Body Snatcher motif, but this time
the queers are clearly "out" and bent on infiltrating Fortress Suburbia. In the film, Chris
Sarandon's vampiric alter-ego Jerry Dandridge is posited as a tacitly gay antique dealer,
replete with bourgeois trappings and attitudes. In other words, Jerry is tailor-made for the
postmodern suburbia that Benshoff negatively reads. He subtly voices the same
problematic anti-assimilationist view held by many quasi-Marxist queer theorists and
activists (Urvashi Vaid, former head of NGLTF -- the National Gay and Lesbian Task
Force, being the most prominent) that has subsequently led to fracturing, rather than
unifying, the gay "body politic." This view is further exacerbated by Benshoff's resigned
comment that the film, "despite its fairly realistic representation of what a gay male
couple in the suburbs might look like . . . nonetheless still partakes of the same
demonizing tropes as do less sophisticated horror films: queerness is monstrous" (252,
emphasis added). I accept Benshoff's statement within the book's context, but am
troubled by its pessimistic implication that homosexuals can never rise out of their
monstrous otherness.

Monsters in the Closet is by no means a perfect book. There are flashes of brilliance,
humor, and dead-on cinematic readings and critiques. It is, however, balanced by often
pedantic (or worse, supra-academic) jargon, generalizations, and sometimes far-fetched
film interpretations. More often than not, his cinematic evidence comes through "close
readings" of these horror films but reaches problematic status when he draws tenuous
connections with exploitation (especially blaxploitation) and quasi-horror films (such as
1974's Earthquake).

Benshoff also deploys an authorial predilection for outing that, at times, repeatedly
belabors the queerness of the films. This is particularly troublesome in the first chapter,
which seems more concerned with the sexualities of the stars than how they performed
their roles. In later chapters, he occasionally indulges in outright finger pointing as
illustrated by his noting that "many gay fans considered Tom Cruise's acceptance of the
role of Lestat [in 1994's Interview With the Vampire] more or less a coming-out
declaration" (273). While Cruise's sexuality has been subject to continual speculation in

Copyright © 1998 by Nathan Tipton and Cultural Logic, ISSN 1097-3087

Tipton 9

the gay community, Benshoff's comment adds nothing to his overall critical appraisal of
the film and reads more as his own wistful and wishful fantasy. Moreover, in "Pods,
pederasts and perverts," he perplexingly hides behind the wall of murky Hollywood
history when discussing older "stars like James Dean, Montgomery Clift, Farley Granger,
Sal Mineo, Anthony Perkins, Rock Hudson, and Marlon Brando" whose sexualities
Benshoff cautiously defines as "non-straight" (173). No Signorile he, Benshoff's evident
conflating of the terms "non-straight" and "queer" as anything outside the norm becomes
problematic because it denies the definitively gay identities of Clift, Mineo, Hudson, and
Perkins, thereby lessening any possible socio-political ramifications.

In these respects, it is ultimately weak as film criticism. However Monsters is, despite
its drawbacks, a worthy entry into the field of Gay and Lesbian historical constructions.
Its decade-by-decade "timeline" deftly illustrates, through the medium of film, a recurring
queer presence that survives, transforms, and, against all odds (much like its monstrous
counterparts), keeps popping up in the most unexpected places.

Note

Copyright © 1998 by Nathan Tipton and Cultural Logic, ISSN 1097-3087

Tipton 10

1 Interestingly enough, this "device" was also used in another 1950s "real-life horror
film," Tennessee Williams's Suddenly Last Summer (1959), about which Vito Russo
notes, "Sebastian Venable is presented as a faceless terror, a horrifying presence among
normal people, like the Martians in War of the Worlds or the creature from the black
lagoon. As he slinks along the streets of the humid Spanish seacoast towns in pursuit of
boys ('famished for the dark ones'), Sebastian's coattail or elbow occasionally intrudes
into the frame at moments of intense emotion. He comes at us in sections, scaring us a
little at a time, like a movie monster too horrible to be shown all at once." (117).

Works Cited

Benshoff, Harry M. Monsters in the Closet: Homosexuality and the Horror Film.
Manchester: Manchester U P, 1997.

Fiedler, Leslie. "McCarthy as Populist." An End to Innocence. Boston: Beacon, 1955.

Rpt. in The Meaning of McCarthyism, 2nd ed. Ed. Earl Latham. Lexington, MA: Heath,
1973.

Jones, Stephen, ed. Clive Barker's Shadows in Eden. Lancaster, PA: Underwood-Miller,
1991.

Russo, Vito. The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies. Rev. ed. New York:
Harper, 1987.

Zimmerman, Bonnie. "Daughters of Darkness: Lesbian Vampires." Jump Cut 24.24

(1980): 23-24.

Copyright © 1998 by Nathan Tipton and Cultural Logic, ISSN 1097-3087