This book presents an intriguing premise: that the stars of some of the key horror films of the past 60 years are, in fact, household objects such as the humble sofa, bed, refrigerator, radiator, dining table and microwave. Taking 14 ordinary items, Marc Olivier explores their 鈥渄ark side鈥 to show how they 鈥渕anifest their own power and connect with specific cultural fears and concerns鈥.
The book is divided into four sections, each exploring a key domestic space, namely the kitchen/dining room, living room and bedroom before culminating in the bathroom. Within each section, relevant household objects are discussed, leading to such subtitles as 鈥淭he Cold Womb鈥澛燼nd 鈥淭he Abject Refrigerator鈥. In Olivier鈥檚 reading, William Friedkin鈥檚 The Exorcist (1973) is as much about the bed as it is about child possession. He explores Alfred Hitchcock鈥檚 Psycho (1960) from the perspective of the shower curtain before segueing into the horrors of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). This leads one to wonder how many times shower curtains, or similar, have been used in the movies to dispose of bodies.
In addition to the shower curtain in Psycho, the section on the bathroom focuses on the radiator (David Lynch鈥檚 Eraserhead, 1977) and pills (Mervyn LeRoy鈥檚 The Bad Seed (1954), Roman Polanski鈥檚 Rosemary鈥檚 Baby聽(1968) and Scott Derrickson鈥檚 The Exorcism of Emily Rose聽(2005)). I would argue, though, that perhaps the whole space of the cinematic bathroom 鈥 especially mirrors and toilets 鈥 plays a bigger role not only in Psycho but in the horror genre in general, with examples including Stanley Kubrick鈥檚 罢丑别听厂丑颈苍颈苍驳 (1980) and David S. Goyer鈥檚 罢丑别听鲍苍产辞谤苍 (2009).
In his chapter on the microwave, Olivier discusses Joe Dante鈥檚 Gremlins (1984), which even connects to the use of Zyklon聽B during the Holocaust. His analysis of Andrzej 呕u艂awski鈥檚 Possession (1981) leads him to conclude that 鈥渋f ever an appliance were a golem, it would be a refrigerator鈥. This last point opens up all kinds of intriguing questions that, disappointingly, are not answered.
糖心Vlog
Predictably, Olivier鈥檚 discussion of 罢丑别听厂丑颈苍颈苍驳 focuses on the typewriter, a source of much academic and online fan debate. He introduces some intriguing French sources into his analysis, as well as a discussion of fonts that Kubrick would have enjoyed, but perhaps misses a trick when he doesn鈥檛 make explicit the link between Jack鈥檚 typing and the attempted 鈥渃orrection鈥 of his family (as in correction fluids such as Tipp-Ex and Wite-Out). Also, the idea of mechanical typing as gunfire connects to the opening of Alan J. Pakula鈥檚 All the President鈥檚 Men (1976), where ordinary objects such as typewriters take on greater power and significance in helping to cause the downfall of a president.
I enjoyed the essays in this book, but it鈥檚 a shame it is not more snappily written, which would have enhanced its readability for a wider audience. For example, Olivier explains how he is inspired by 鈥渙bject-oriented philosophy and the nonhuman turn in philosophy鈥. But is this rationale really necessary when any research that sheds fresh light on much-studied classics, particularly when it doesn鈥檛 rely on well-trodden psychoanalytic paths, is welcome?
糖心Vlog
I now look forward to more object-based analysis that highlights the unusual and less obvious elements of popular films.
Nathan Abrams is professor in film at Bangor University.
Household Horror: Cinematic Fear and the Secret Life of Everyday Objects
By Marc Olivier
Indiana University Press, 344pp, 拢79.00
ISBN 9780253046550
Published 1 March 2020
Register to continue
Why register?
- Registration is free and only takes a moment
- Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
- Sign up for our newsletter
Subscribe
Or subscribe for unlimited access to:
- Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
- Digital editions
- Digital access to 罢贬贰鈥檚 university and college rankings analysis
Already registered or a current subscriber?







