12 Mar 2013
Death Proof and the convention of slasher/stalker film
This film surprised me a lot when the unexpected unconventional elements of slasher film showed up. Both Clover and Dika assert that the killer usually keeps off-screen or is masked. In this film, the killer reveals his face in the beginning, and audience gets to know a lot about him. When he first appears, he is sitting in his car in the dark and audience doesn't see him clearly. Then his eyes are revealed in the mirror, though the shadow still covers part of his face. This is a conventional way to present the killer to the audience, by not telling the audience everything about him only a dim figure in the dark showing his existence. The lighting also highlights his creepy behavior, which differentiates him. It is not until he eats the soggy and disgusting food, audience finally sees his figure.Compared to the young people who either judge him at his back or drink beers or smoke marijuana with a dirty mouth, the killer looks polite and self-disciplined. The victims seem deserve to be punished.
Another unusual element is the death of the girl who senses the threat in the beginning. As both readings state, unlike other victims, the heroine is usually the only one that is watchful and level-headed, can feel the potential danger and be more careful . Butterfly seems to be that kind of girl. Compare to her friends, she is independent and cool-headed at first, which makes her outstanding and heroine-like. However, there are also some conventional characteristics prove it wrong. She is lightly dressed Feminine , drinks a lot and smokes, which make her the same as other sexual girls. She agrees to make out with her boyfriend, though she presents masculinity compared to her boyfriend who whines for sex. Later she becomes completely a male-gaze object when feminine she gives a lap dance. Even though she is the only one who feels the threat,all these details indicate that she is the same as the victims.
Even though the narrative is separated into two parts, unlike Dika's theory that the first part is how the killer becomes a killer and second part is the killer's vengeance, Death Proof presents two parts in the same narrative but with different characters. The first part, that the killer successfully kills the girls implies the masculinity. His deathproof car is a phallic symbol. Each time he crashes into the girls' car implies the sex with the girls. In the second part, on the contrary, when the girls fight back and crash his car, the masculinity of heroine overpowers the killer even though he looks like a tough, strong and masculine man. His inability to fight back implies castration and makes him as a helpless feminine.
Furthermore, there are more conventions that can be found in the film. For example, like Dika writes that the killer usually travels from the old place/the past to new place/the present to conduct the killing. In the opening, it shows the empty road, even though it is unknown who the car belongs to. With the small statue in the front of the engine hood, the audience can discover it is the same car as the killer's, which the standing statue also signifies his erect phallus and masculinity . As for the final girls, most of them are gearhead. They love racing movies but not romance, and they like to do dangerous stunts with the car. These portray the girls as masculine, and make them the real final girls. This film is completely a triumph of femininity.
View more about Death Proof reviews
