Legacy of Blood
A Comprehensive Guide to Slasher Movies
By Jim Harper
         The slasher film has always been one of the more reviled sub genres in horror.  It's not uncommon for a critic to praise a horror film like Night of the Living Dead, but it's something else entirely to praise a slasher film.  In some cases a critic my try to convince themselves that the film in question is not in fact a slasher film at all.  That's when Halloween becomes a formalist masterpeice, or something along those lines.  The other route to critical kudos for the slasher film is much more common and trendy these days - deconstucturalism.  All of a sudden slasher films knew they were slasher films, and that made everything okay.  In the early 80s, high profile critics like Roger Ebert were up in arms at the reaction of teenagers to titulating slashers.  With the dawn of Scream in 1996, a whole new generation of kids were going to the movies to be in on the joke.  They were laughing at all the cliches and shortcomings of the slasher films.  That was far more acceptable to critics.
         If slasher films were indeed rubbish, why were they so profitable in the 80s and beyond?  I wouldn't go as far as to defend the movies by saying that high box office returns equal automatic legitmacy.  The fact remains though, slasher films have been a persistent part of our pop culture off and on since the late 70s and early 80s.  While there are plenty of worthwhile books on the horror genre as a whole, the slasher subgenre seems to be treated mostly as an afterthought.
         There is very little critical thought devoted to slashers, which are more often than not dismissed as cheap and misogynistic.  Jim Harper looks to do his part to change this with his book Legacy of Blood from Headpress.  While Harper succeeds in making a book that is a fun and breezy read overall, the book is at times deeply flawed.  although it is admirable that Harper attempted to approach this often over looked group of films with dignity and intelligence, Legacy of Blood is frustrating in its uneven and somewhat skewed facts and overall unrealized potential.
        To begin with, the book is well laid out and easy to read.  The first sixty pages are devoted to essays regarding slasher films and their main ingredients.  These are presented nice and concisely, but at times seem under whelming and leave something to be desired.  The section on the Heroine or Final Girl has many obvious examples of this.  Examples are thrown out left and right, but there is hardly ever any good detail given on them.  Just flipping open to page 34, there are so many names and film titles thrown out that this section reads more like a list than an essay.  Most of the time Harper presents fine examples but offers nothing in the way of depth.
         After the essays, we get into the meat of the book.  There are a little under 200 reviews in about 120 pages.  The first problem that arises here is redundant information.  It almost seems like this book was meant to be released in separate volumes, or at least that the reviews were meant to stand apart from the essays.  To be fair, most people look up films one at a time instead of reading it straight through.
        One of the more annoying habits Harper has throughout is spoiling the endings of just about every single movie he reviews.  Granted, most people that will buy this book have seen a majority of slasher films, but the ones that they haven’t seen will probably be spoiled for them.  Especially with reviews that are so short, Nail Gun Massacre (p129) being a good example, there is no need to spell out the ending.
        The biggest recurring flaw to me is the factual errors that seemed to have slipped by and made it into the finished product.  With the volume of films Harper looks at, some errors are inevitable (it’s admittedly easier online, where things can be changed when someone notices an error).  It’s tough to accept this many though in a book that I paid almost $20 for.  Here are a few of the more frustrating errors that caught my eye.
        Other problems I had with the book were more stylistic.  I don’t like how he shortened names when writing reviews at times.  The Sleepaway Camp review again comes to mind when he starts referring to the director as Rob Hiltzik.  This isn’t a major flaw by any means, just an annoyance.  I would never refer to Lucio Fulci as Luch or The Fulc.  Maybe is I was his friend.  He also makes a habit of describing a movie as having a little nudity when I know for a fact that there is none!  I also wouldn’t describe Sleepaway Camp 2 as having much silicone in it.
         Another issue I have with Harper’s book is simply that I disagree with his opinions frequently.  How many pot shots does he have to take at Harry Manfredini?  He even takes a cheap shot at him when he wasn’t involved with the film!  He takes time to defend Maniac, which is always welcome, but tears apart New York Ripper.  What’s most strange about that though is the fact the New York Ripper made his cover.  He spends a good deal of the book defending almost ever slasher against claims of misogyny, except for New York Ripper.  I got the impression that he was embarrassed about having New York Ripper being associated as one of the films he studies.
         It should be noted that, while flawed, this book is far a waste of time.  It stands as one of the more comprehensive guides to this type of movie and I found it to be more worthwhile than John Stanley's Creature Features movie guide.  I never had the urge to put the book away and looked forward to sitting down with it whenever I had a moment. I was reminded of several great movies from my childhood and even made a list of movies I haven't seen that I would like to seek out.  Still, for the money, my favorite review guide on the market would be Fab Press's two volume DVD Delerium set.
Click on the curious head to email me!
Review by Joe Canistro 07/07/2005