1514623 Helen Wheatley
Hammer Horror: A Cinema of Sexual Repression?
Robin Wood outlines two forms of repression. He states that “basic repression is
universal, necessary and inescapable. It is what makes possible our development […]
into a human being.”1 Therefore, suggesting that some repressions are necessary to
human advancement. The suppression that becomes a problem is “surplus
suppression.”2 This is “specific to a particular culture and is the process whereby
people are conditioned from earliest infancy to take on predetermined roles within
that culture.”3 The predetermined roles that this essay will concern itself with are
those thrust upon women. Roles that force women to remain ‘pure’ and childlike
while remaining an object of male pleasure. This essay will use Hammer’s ‘Karnstein
Trilogy’ as evidence for these claims. The Vampire Lovers (1970), Lust for a Vampire
(1971) and Twins of Evil (1972) each provide examples of “othering female
sexuality”4, a “righteous male perspective”5 and “stereotypes that have been
attached to lesbianism at least since the nineteenth century.” 6 Assessing these
conventions along with the context in which the films were produced will help
evaluate the extent to which Hammer horrors are involved with and guilty of
reinforcing ideas of sexual repression among women.
First, it will be useful to detail the social historical context of the 1950s to the
1970s within and outside of the film industry. Harper suggests that, in the 1950s,
“the British film industry was in a state of extreme flux.”7 Due to the uncertain state
of the industry, larger companies “such as Rank and ABPC could not make popular
1
Robin Wood, Hollywood From Vietnam To Reagan ... And Beyond (New York: Columbia
University Press, 2012), p. 63.
2
Ibid., 64
3
Ibid., 63
4
David Baker, Stephanie Green and Agnieszka Stasiewicz-Bieńkowska, Hospitality, Rape And
Consent In Vampire Popular Culture, 2017. P. 205
5
Ibid
6
Bonnie Zimmerman, "Lesbian Vampires By Bonnie Zimmerman", Ejumpcut.Org, 2018
<https://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC24-25folder/LesbianVampires.html> [Accessed
9 May 2018].
7
Sue Harper, "Beyond The Forest: Terence Fisher And Transylvania", Studies In European
Cinema, 3.2 (2006), p. 144 <https://doi.org/10.1386/seci.3.2.143_1>.
,1514623 Helen Wheatley
costume films. Only Hammer […] consistently managed to make history profitable.” 8
Hammer, founded in November 1934, is a company “synonymous with horror,” 9 but
has nearly 300 titles based in thriller, noir, sci-fi and historical epics; in addition to
horror. It must be noted that, as a British company, Hammer was not bound by the
rules of Hays production code. Therefore, it may be suggested that its films were
more experimental, liberated and ultimately; less repressed. Wood suggests that
“the Classicism of Hollywood was always to a great degree, artificially imposed and
repressive,”10 that Hays code typified an ideology of repressing artistic expression.
“The need for the code (negatively denouncing sexuality in all but its most
patriarchally orthodox, procreative form – and displays of it even then –
positively upholding the marriage, the family, and the status quo) testifies …
to the strength and persistence of the forces it was designed to check: its
requirements, passively accepted by studios and audiences, corresponded
neither to the films people wanted to make nor the films people wanted to
see.”11
Wood, here, gives one a lot to unpack. Firstly, he suggests that code regulated films
enforced patriarchal values of the (nuclear) family and the sexual repression of
women. He then goes on to say that these ideals were not of the type that artists
were keen to create, or audiences keen to consume – especially in a social and
political climate so chaotic and increasingly progressive. This would, therefore,
suggest that some of the popularity of Hammer came with its representation of
sexual liberation and a shattering of patriarchal values. This may be contested, but
first it will be useful to assess the regulation that Hammer was actually under.
8
Ibid.
9
"About Hammer", Hammer Films, 2018 <http://www.hammerfilms.com/about-hammer/>
[Accessed 30 April 2018].
10
Robin Wood, Hollywood From Vietnam To Reagan ... And Beyond (New York: Columbia
University Press, 2012),. p. 43
11
Ibid.
, 1514623 Helen Wheatley
British films were (and are still) regulated by the BBFC; the British Board of Film
Classification. “The BBFC did not have any written rules or code of practice like the
Motion Picture Production Code […] Policy evolved along practical lines, whilst
seeking to reflect public attitudes;”12 the BBFC website here paints a picture of a
democratic policy; balancing public needs and attitudes with what the BBFC felt was
appropriate. It is suggested that, during the 1960s, there was a “strong shift in public
opinion,”13 supported by evidence such as the acquittal of D. H. Lawrence’s Lady
Chatterley’s Lover. John Trevelyan, the BBFC Secretary at the time, stated that the
BBFC:
cannot assume responsibility for the guardianship of public morality. It
cannot refuse for exhibition to adults films that show behaviour that
contravenes the accepted moral code, and it does not demand that ‘the
wicked’ should also be punished. It cannot legitimately refuse to pass films
which criticise ‘the Establishment’ and films which express minority
opinions.14
Trevelyan’s speech radiates ideas of acceptance and tolerance, and his use of the
term ‘establishment’ is interesting. Whether ‘the establishment’ was the
government, dominant societal ideologies and/or the values of Hays code – it is clear
that, according to the BBFC; films in Britain at this time had much greater creative
freedom than those of the US. Of course, during this time there was still regulation of
“verbal and visual ‘indecency’” as well as sexual violence, “particularly where it
seemed that the portrayal of rapes and assaults were intended as a ‘turn on’ to
viewers,” but Fermans attitudes and policies (permitting increasingly “explicit
12
"BBFC History | British Board Of Film Classification", Bbfc.Co.Uk, 2018
<http://www.bbfc.co.uk/education-resources/student-guide/bbfc-history> [Accessed 30 April
2018].
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid.
Hammer Horror: A Cinema of Sexual Repression?
Robin Wood outlines two forms of repression. He states that “basic repression is
universal, necessary and inescapable. It is what makes possible our development […]
into a human being.”1 Therefore, suggesting that some repressions are necessary to
human advancement. The suppression that becomes a problem is “surplus
suppression.”2 This is “specific to a particular culture and is the process whereby
people are conditioned from earliest infancy to take on predetermined roles within
that culture.”3 The predetermined roles that this essay will concern itself with are
those thrust upon women. Roles that force women to remain ‘pure’ and childlike
while remaining an object of male pleasure. This essay will use Hammer’s ‘Karnstein
Trilogy’ as evidence for these claims. The Vampire Lovers (1970), Lust for a Vampire
(1971) and Twins of Evil (1972) each provide examples of “othering female
sexuality”4, a “righteous male perspective”5 and “stereotypes that have been
attached to lesbianism at least since the nineteenth century.” 6 Assessing these
conventions along with the context in which the films were produced will help
evaluate the extent to which Hammer horrors are involved with and guilty of
reinforcing ideas of sexual repression among women.
First, it will be useful to detail the social historical context of the 1950s to the
1970s within and outside of the film industry. Harper suggests that, in the 1950s,
“the British film industry was in a state of extreme flux.”7 Due to the uncertain state
of the industry, larger companies “such as Rank and ABPC could not make popular
1
Robin Wood, Hollywood From Vietnam To Reagan ... And Beyond (New York: Columbia
University Press, 2012), p. 63.
2
Ibid., 64
3
Ibid., 63
4
David Baker, Stephanie Green and Agnieszka Stasiewicz-Bieńkowska, Hospitality, Rape And
Consent In Vampire Popular Culture, 2017. P. 205
5
Ibid
6
Bonnie Zimmerman, "Lesbian Vampires By Bonnie Zimmerman", Ejumpcut.Org, 2018
<https://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC24-25folder/LesbianVampires.html> [Accessed
9 May 2018].
7
Sue Harper, "Beyond The Forest: Terence Fisher And Transylvania", Studies In European
Cinema, 3.2 (2006), p. 144 <https://doi.org/10.1386/seci.3.2.143_1>.
,1514623 Helen Wheatley
costume films. Only Hammer […] consistently managed to make history profitable.” 8
Hammer, founded in November 1934, is a company “synonymous with horror,” 9 but
has nearly 300 titles based in thriller, noir, sci-fi and historical epics; in addition to
horror. It must be noted that, as a British company, Hammer was not bound by the
rules of Hays production code. Therefore, it may be suggested that its films were
more experimental, liberated and ultimately; less repressed. Wood suggests that
“the Classicism of Hollywood was always to a great degree, artificially imposed and
repressive,”10 that Hays code typified an ideology of repressing artistic expression.
“The need for the code (negatively denouncing sexuality in all but its most
patriarchally orthodox, procreative form – and displays of it even then –
positively upholding the marriage, the family, and the status quo) testifies …
to the strength and persistence of the forces it was designed to check: its
requirements, passively accepted by studios and audiences, corresponded
neither to the films people wanted to make nor the films people wanted to
see.”11
Wood, here, gives one a lot to unpack. Firstly, he suggests that code regulated films
enforced patriarchal values of the (nuclear) family and the sexual repression of
women. He then goes on to say that these ideals were not of the type that artists
were keen to create, or audiences keen to consume – especially in a social and
political climate so chaotic and increasingly progressive. This would, therefore,
suggest that some of the popularity of Hammer came with its representation of
sexual liberation and a shattering of patriarchal values. This may be contested, but
first it will be useful to assess the regulation that Hammer was actually under.
8
Ibid.
9
"About Hammer", Hammer Films, 2018 <http://www.hammerfilms.com/about-hammer/>
[Accessed 30 April 2018].
10
Robin Wood, Hollywood From Vietnam To Reagan ... And Beyond (New York: Columbia
University Press, 2012),. p. 43
11
Ibid.
, 1514623 Helen Wheatley
British films were (and are still) regulated by the BBFC; the British Board of Film
Classification. “The BBFC did not have any written rules or code of practice like the
Motion Picture Production Code […] Policy evolved along practical lines, whilst
seeking to reflect public attitudes;”12 the BBFC website here paints a picture of a
democratic policy; balancing public needs and attitudes with what the BBFC felt was
appropriate. It is suggested that, during the 1960s, there was a “strong shift in public
opinion,”13 supported by evidence such as the acquittal of D. H. Lawrence’s Lady
Chatterley’s Lover. John Trevelyan, the BBFC Secretary at the time, stated that the
BBFC:
cannot assume responsibility for the guardianship of public morality. It
cannot refuse for exhibition to adults films that show behaviour that
contravenes the accepted moral code, and it does not demand that ‘the
wicked’ should also be punished. It cannot legitimately refuse to pass films
which criticise ‘the Establishment’ and films which express minority
opinions.14
Trevelyan’s speech radiates ideas of acceptance and tolerance, and his use of the
term ‘establishment’ is interesting. Whether ‘the establishment’ was the
government, dominant societal ideologies and/or the values of Hays code – it is clear
that, according to the BBFC; films in Britain at this time had much greater creative
freedom than those of the US. Of course, during this time there was still regulation of
“verbal and visual ‘indecency’” as well as sexual violence, “particularly where it
seemed that the portrayal of rapes and assaults were intended as a ‘turn on’ to
viewers,” but Fermans attitudes and policies (permitting increasingly “explicit
12
"BBFC History | British Board Of Film Classification", Bbfc.Co.Uk, 2018
<http://www.bbfc.co.uk/education-resources/student-guide/bbfc-history> [Accessed 30 April
2018].
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid.
