Clover begins by portraying the fact about how slasher films remain ignored by the reprovers. She uses the example of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Page 67) quoting reprovers who accolade the narrative swears Massacre to be imbecilic and a “vile little piece of sick crap". Although, today slasher films continue to be popular and are not ignored by the viewers especially the teenagers. The reason abaft this is that slasher films are direct in whatever ideology they are presenting, unlike the other genres where they may obnubilate their ideology in tropes. Clover promulgates her intention to expound that it is the very characteristics of slasher films that present a more pellucid view of culture than other, more highly accoladed works. She then explains the slasher films as "the immensely generational story of a psycho killer who slashes to death a string of mostly female victims, one by one, until he is himself subdued or killed, usually by the one girl who has survived” (Page 66). Here she is explicating a pattern in horror films where the killer, mundanely male, is consequently killed by the female lead in the cessation to bulwark herself. For an instance, the writer quotes an example of Halloween where the final girl gets to save herself and escape from the killer. Whereas, in …show more content…
As viewers, we are "supposed" to identify the killer but Clover says it in a different manner. She states that these shots want the viewer to get associated with the killer and get close to the real danger. Then as the story proceeds, after the killer's shots, the point-of-view shots then shifts towards the final girl. Yet, in Disturbia, we see the I-camera shots of Kale and very few shots of the killer. Though, the movie should have shown us as for why the killer killed these people more vividly as they depicted the final girl i.e