copyright 2012, Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media
Jump Cut
, No. 54, fall 2012

Jeepers Queerpers: exploring queer identity in Jeepers Creepers 2

by Patrick Bingham

Sexuality is not an uncommon or even reticent discourse within the realm of horror, particularly in the slasher subgenre. Carol J. Clover elaborately deconstructs the “slasher’s” gender roles, focusing primarily on the heteronormative positioning of women within this sphere of brutality and chaos. The “Final Girl,” Clover’s term applied to the last surviving female victim, an ever-present figure in the slasher genre, is “abject terror personified.”[1] [open endnotes in new window] She is the character that experiences the wrath of the hyper-masculinized, knife-wielding maniac. Clover claims that she represents a feminist liberator from male domination in society and the bedroom.[2] While slasher film and much of the horror genre have been looked at in these terms of gender identity and feminist thought, very little on horror, especially the slasher film, has been said about its arguable queer undertones. Harry Benshoff seemingly lends that queer interpretation to the slasher genre by isolating the monster—in the monster films from the Golden Age of Cinema—as representative of the Queer “Other.”[3] However, the monster of classical horror cinema is as far as his interpretation leads. For the purposes of this paper, I will be extending this notion of the monster queer to the slasher film’s killer, hoping to focus a queer lens on the psychosexual slasher film and the subsequent characters/victims within these films.

Additionally, I will utilize Benshoff’s definition of Queer, as his definition allows for a fluid and non-conformative understanding of queer identity as “any people not explicitly defining themselves in ‘traditional’ heterosexual terms.”[4] The monster in the slasher flick, the killer, is typically a marginalized figure, usually male, though with exception (Friday the 13th (1980), Happy Birthday to Me (1981)). That killer arguably exists outside of the heteronormative binary (male/female).[5] [6] I will use the term Queer, rather than homosexual, gay or lesbian, as this term is representative of the multi-faceted, varying identity formations that comprise the slasher film character makeup. Therefore, and in order to offer a queer interpretation of this subgenre, I will be looking at the way in which those queer elements appear in the sequel Jeepers Creepers 2 (2003).[7] While the original Jeepers Creepers (2001) conforms to this queer interpretation, I will focus on the sequel because of the larger character pool and the monster’s pursuit of a variety of male characters—versus his pursuit of one male character in the original.[8]

Jeepers Creepers 2 tells the story of a high school basketball team that becomes stranded on a desolate, open country road as the young people are returning to their hometown after a game. As night falls, and the authority figures are killed by the Creeper (the film’s slasher figure), the frightened teenagers are picked off one-by-one. As the characters dwindle in numbers, all they can do is wait out the night, for this is the last day of the Creeper’s 23 days existence every 23rd year.

In the first section of this paper I will explore the slasher subgenre as it is set out technically and the ways in which slasher films use archetypal representations of masculine identity. This will provide the context for the killer/victim model that is apparent in Jeepers Creepers 2, and I will show how that model conforms to Clover’s understanding of the “slasher.” The second section will look at the Creeper (the slasher himself) and his victims as forms of desire. For this section, I will be using close textual analysis, highlighting the Creeper’s actions, facial expressions and positioning throughout the film to provide a better understanding how this killer/victim model expresses desire. Finally, I will employ Mulvey’s theory of the “male gaze” the functioning of that desire.

“Slasher” as a subgenre

“Slasher” is often characterized in terms of its narrative construction and stylistic techniques, relying on shadows and penetrative camera work to display the deconstruction of the body as graphically and gratuitously as possible. Clover defines the slasher film as:

“the slasher (or splatter or shocker or stalker) film: the immensely generative story of a psychokiller who slashes to death a string of mostly female victims, one by one, until he is subdued or killed, usually by the one girl who has survived.”[9]

Her definition provides a context for the slasher, or the killer, to be encoded as masculine and attributes victimization to female or arguably feminized victims. Furthermore, that definition considers the character pool, typically comprised of mostly female characters, in terms of pursuit and ranges of power. In other words, power is attributed to the masculine encoded psychokiller, and weakness and inability are lent to the female or feminized victims. Moreover, power shifts occur only as the final victim, “the one girl who has survived,” undergoes complete pursuit showing how she can shirk the killer’s advances repeatedly. However, these advances do not include an expression of the killer’s sexuality. The topic of sexuality in the slasher films has engendered many critical discussions, such as that of Robin Wood who discusses the slasher killer as being sexually incompetent (immature) and consequently repressed.[10] Psychopathic killers have been viewed as incapable of consummating their relationships with the opposite sex, or in the case of this essay, with the same sex.

In this definition, the slasher functions on the level of a killer stalking a slew of potential victims, picking them off one by one. Rick Worland agrees with Clover’s definition of the slasher film, moving further to define the range of films as

“the gory slaughter of contemporary American teenagers by a deranged serial killer in everyday surroundings.”[11]

Worland’s definition does not connote gender, suggesting that the victims and the killer vary in gender. Adam Rockoff claims that the films operate as

“a subgenre of horror movies which share similar formal and stylistic elements and adhere to a fairly rigid paradigm… It is a rogue genre, and like the films it encompasses it is tough, problematic and fiercely individualistic. However, there are some distinctive and consistent elements which are prevalent in enough films that a workable, however malleable, definition of the slasher can be formed.”[12]

Rockoff’s definition focuses on the elements and narrative constructs of this subgenre,”insisting that the genre is “rogue” and difficult to pinpoint. I find that the narrative paradigm as suggested by Clover and Worland, coupled with analyzing the subgenre’s strategic camera work and cinematography, provide the best method to identify a “slasher” film.

Finding methods to define the slasher genre as comprehensively as possible provide the viewer with a framework that sets a baseline from which to evaluate films that subscribe to these paradigmatic formulae. Where there is often crossover between the slasher subgenre with other subgenres and, occasionally, other genres, the most substantial elements (i.e. – lighting, first person POV, narrative adherence, etc…) provide the best context to define a film as a slasher. Jeepers Creepers 2 contains all of the formal aspects of a slasher film, especially in regards to Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), whereby the psychokiller is not necessarily “living” but still adheres to recognizably human actions and personalities.[13] Furthermore, as these films’ killers shift the oftentimes-human killer towards a supernatural representation, the films provide a situation that allows for the killer’s apparent indestructibility. Clover affirms this notion, claiming that: “in one key respect, however, the killers are superhuman: their virtual indestructibility.”[14] “Indestructibility” supplies an explanation for how the killer is mutable, in that he or she will consistently regenerate form and physicality regardless of whether stabbed, drowned, crushed, decapitated, etc.. Conscious of his/her evident “indestructible” form, it allows the psychokiller to pursue victims continually and without respite.

In the slasher film, setting is just as integral to the narrative as the killer’s ability to pursue unsuspecting victims or the inability of that slasher to perish. Rockoff identifies the setting as varying:

“the location is often a universally recognized place associated with adolescence: summer camp, high school, college, or even the comforting streets of suburbia.”[15]

The sense of familiarity and then the destruction of these places’ associated comfort suggest a deconstruction of that familiarity. In other words, the positivity harbored in these locations gets fractured by the slasher or psychokiller, creating utter chaos for the unwitting victims. Even when specific locations in the slasher film are unfamiliar, the “characters have come from there.”[16] Jeepers Creepers 2 operates in this manner, where the victims are on the cusp of adulthood but young enough to still warrant some kind of chaperone: the female bus driver; the hyper-masculine, white male coach; and later the paternalistic African American male coach. The young people then get stuck in a broken-down high school bus on the road home. Though this stretch of the road is unfamiliar to them, it is still a route that leads them homeward, evoking a sense of familiarity, enough to elicit in them idle boredom and minimal fear.

Eventually that bus becomes their safeguard, a weak fortress that provides the inhabitants a false sense of security. Against the Creeper the bus is nominally protective, but then it becomes a harbinger of victims, similar to Clover’s argument concerning The Terrible Place:

“the house or tunnel may at first seem a safe haven, but the same walls that promise to keep the killer out quickly become, once the killer penetrates them, the walls that hold the victim in.”[17]

Clover’s Terrible Place recalls Rockoff’s claim that the genre’s settings evoke familiarity, but she moves further to argue that the teens’ entrapment within a particular setting suggests a monstrosity in and of itself. In this film, where entrapment satisfies the slasher, it heightens agony for his/her victims, especially as he/she taunts the victim laughingly through the window or from a position that separates killer and victim enough to present danger but not enact a killing. The Creeper does just that through the windows of the locked bus and through holes he created in the ceiling by an incredible display of strength. Such a display of “penetration” shreds the false sense of security their apparent safe haven should provide.

Much of this display is heightened by the refracted shadows in the bus and the detailed facial features of the Creeper. He gives long, penetrating stares at many of the victims in the bus, selecting which unsuspecting person he will devour or kill. In terms of the slasher genre this portentous display of choosing is embellished by first person point of view shots. As camera angles and the cinematography exemplify the victims’ increasingly vicious situation, so too does the camera and cinematography work to enhance the features of the Terrible Place, the slasher and ultimately the Final Girl. Clover defines the Final Girl as the one girl who survives her killer’s repeated attacks, the displays of her friends’ bodies piling up, and “is presented from the outset as the main character.”[18] What most defines the Final Girl is that “abstinence and rectitude evidently give final girls the power to fight back and survive.”[19]

While there is a clear-cut Final Girl (Minxie) in Jeepers Creepers 2, her ability “to fight back and survive” stem not from her own victimization but that of her friends. Moreover, Minxie exhibits similar supernatural abilities to the Creeper, giving her agency to understand and anticipate the creature/psychopath. This insight comes in the form of a vision, whereby she encounters the deceased victim from the original Jeepers Creepers; it’s a golden-hued encounter set in a flashback of the initial victim from Jeepers Creepers 2.

While there is a female Final Girl who does battle with the masculinized Creeper, the array of victims do not adhere to the traditional model of killer/victim as set out by Clover, and arguably perpetuated by Worland. Though there are primary characters that are female, none of those characters perishes at the hands of the Creeper, except the female bus driver. Rather, those victims who are most sought after are male, virile and, evidently masculine. They consist of an amalgamation of masculinity types: alpha and beta males: hyper-masculine ones, submissive ones, and ones in between. These identity types represent the multi-faceted nature of masculinity, but more importantly, the variants contained within the homosexual community. In turn, this paves way for the Creeper to examine these figures much in the same way that one peruses a potential partner in a public setting. It is therefore uncharacteristic that a killer, whom viewers typically identify as in pursuit of female or feminized characters, to stalk and destroy the lives of those types of male victims.[20] The one female who does die is portrayed as ostensibly masculine, her hair in a tight ponytail, rugged jeans and a blue, button-up shirt covered by a navy blue sweater. From afar, she is indistinguishable from the male coaches and attempts to fix the flattened bus tire herself.

Representations of desire: killer as queer

As the Creeper in Jeepers Creepers 2 decidedly picks off his victims, one by one, those victims’ body parts become subject to the Creeper’s desires. Desire, in this case, functions as a restorative property for the Creeper. He therefore selects his victims based on the most desirable body part (i.e. – the head, the eyes, the hands, etc…) in a process that can only be described as “sniffing out” or “smelling” the desired thing. This occurs because he must harvest these body parts for his 23 years hibernation and also replace parts of himself that are destroyed by his victims. The Creeper is then what Harry Benshoff defines as the “monster queer”: a monstrosity that accounts for the sexual Other, oft disrupting heteronormative romance or intentions. As the monster queer disrupts heteronormative romance, he too disrupts heteronormative narratives: the central fragmentation present in the slasher film, further evinced in the fractured body, as the Creeper selects this part or that.[21]

As the majority of these victims are men, it appears he is looking to select the most attractive portion of that victim’s body to better equip himself. Attractiveness is evident in his selection, because each victim adheres to a specific body type and specific appearance—comparable to what conventional standards defines as attractive. It is therefore suggested that the Creeper selects these victims based on his apparent attraction or “desire” for these male characters. Consequently, the Creeper aspires to be a more attractive form, in spite of his inability to mutate his physical appearance indefinitely – each time he adds a victims’ appendage, the appendage is recognizable as the victim’s for mere moments and then the monster restores back to his original self.

Physical desire and reconstituting one’s self as desirable seem to be the Creeper’s intention; and more importantly, that intention is centred onto masculinized victims. In other words, the Creeper is regenerating himself in order to attract potential same-sex sexual partners. Clover previously established that the victims in these films were often portrayed as feminized during their moments of demise. Her initial assumptions regarding the ostensibly masculine slasher, who desired the female victim and disposed of the male would, suggest that a renegotiation of the slasher’s desire is in order. Clover argues the point

“that violence and sex are not concomitants but alternatives, the one as much a substitute for and a prelude to the other as the teenage horror film is a substitute for and a prelude to the ‘adult’ film.’”[22]

Consequently, if the desire for these men is self-indulgent, as it seemingly is for the Creeper, he awaits the perfect “mate” or “partner” and will utilize these victims as identities he decides will better his body. Not using the victims solely for a sexual engagement, he will use violence to satisfy that need.

Identity and gender constructs play an integral role in heteronormative society, as displayed through the characters on the bus: an all male basketball team accompanied by extremely delicate, feminine cheerleaders. Heteronormativity, as defined in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Queer Psychology: An Introduction, refers to “the perceived reinforcement of certain beliefs about sexuality within social institutions and policies.”[23] Inherent in these “beliefs about sexuality” are the implications that sexual preference should be heterosexually influenced, that a “family” constitutes a heterosexual coupling, and that marriage is limited to one man and one woman. The film’s characters epitomize this definition of heteronormativity, as they build the foundation for the film and for the types of victims the Creeper chooses. Each male victim displays prominent attractive features and represent the varying masculine identities typically encountered in a U.S. high school. Generally, such students might find homosexuality unnatural or monstrous, often bullying or provoking a queer student. Benshoff supports this claim, arguing:

“certain sectors of the population still relate homosexuality to bestiality, incest, necrophilia, sadomaschism, etc. - the very stuff of classical Hollywood monster movies. The Concepts ‘monster’ and ‘homosexual’ share many of the same semantic charges and arouse many of the same fears about sex and death.”[24]

This irrational fear regarding the “monster” and the “homosexual” works to create a disingenuous identity formation, which propagates further fear and misunderstanding of queer identity. In other words, the monster is just as feared as the homosexual; and queer identity, because of its apparent monstrosity, becomes an identity construct to mistrust.

Just as the Creeper displays extreme monstrosity, his victims display a similar monstrosity as their ostensible masculinity battles the Creeper’s sexually violent advances. In these instances, the characters label the victims as the Creeper’s choice, instigating a verbal argument between the trapped boys divisively deciding to kick those he selects off the bus. These singular moments in the film occur as the male victims are trapped in their Terrible Place, with the Creeper looking in at them erotically through the bus’s many windows. Desire is at the forefront of this voyeurism, recalling Laura Mulvey’s psychoanalytic concept of the male gaze:

“In a world ordered by sexual imbalance, pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female. The determining male gaze projects its phantasy on to the female figure which is styled accordingly.”[25]

While the Creeper does not project his “phantasy on to the female figure,” he projects that desire onto the male form, taking in the men’s attractive qualities, desiring those qualities overtly and lasciviously. It is thus arguable that in this film a queer gaze has been appropriated, whereby a symbolic order remains intact, but the film renegotiates the traditional gender binary from male/female to male/male. The receiving male is sized up by the camera/the Creeper, emphasizing (a) the character’s sexual magnitude and (b) his inferiority to the camera’s/the Creeper’s gaze. This new queer gaze reflects those same controlling properties and overt, bodily exploitations Mulvey detailed in her theory of the male gaze.

Among the men trapped in the bus, they too recognize this form of desire evinced by the Creeper’s sniffing, smirking, toothy-grins and the erotic licking of the bus’s rear-facing window. The rear window is situated within the back door, ironically labelled Emergency Exit. “Back door” is a common euphemism for “buttocks” or “anus”; however, it is even more suggestive of anal intercourse. With the monster queer peering in through this “back door,” going so far as to lick it, it would suggest that what the Creeper desires is the penetrative areas of the male body: the anus, the mouth, and even the eyes. The camera accentuates these actions using multiple shot reverse-shots to highlight the victims’ reaction to the Creeper’s highly suggestive, lascivious advances.  Consequently, the Creeper’s gaze penetrates the bus, evincing his queernes to the passive males within.

His recurring gaze that accentuates his queerness coupled with the act of choosing help to establish the underlying cathexis exhibited by the Creeper’s projected desire. In other words, it is his libidinal energy focused onto that male form that shapes the Creeper’s determined gaze. These men are unaccustomed to the voyeurism directed onto themselves, as they, arguably and suggestively, direct their gaze onto the female form. It is this shift from active/male to passive/male that propagates further a queer interpretation of the monster and his victims. Moreover, it also provides an instance for the homosexual to renegotiate those power structures related to gender that are constituted and rooted in the patriarchal foundations of Western Society.

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick argues in Epistemology of the Closet that as we as humans further subcategorize ourselves into those rigid, restrictive binarisms (hetero/homosexual), we further divide ourselves apart from one another.[26] While she emphasizes the hetero/homosexual binary predicament, she does not focus on any truth labelled out by those subscribing to the “minoritizing” or “universalizing” views of sexuality as she deems their “truths” arbitrary. Rather, her emphasis is on the performative nature associated with minoritizing and universalizing views. In other words, those who view homosexuality and its problems as relevant only to a small set of individuals (minoritizing) would be more inclined to perform homophobic, divisive actions. Thus, this division emphasize how devaluation underpins the monstrosity of the Creeper, because he must exist in a period of  “every 23rd spring for 23 days” when he gets to eat.[27] He can only exist in this period of growth and rebirth (suggested by “spring”) for a miniscule amount of time, because the construction of his queer identity is contrary to the heteronormative ideal of male desiring female and vice versa.[28]

Furthermore, his limited active existence provides him with a fragmented population, from which he can select his victims. It is a notion suggestive of the queer community, whereby queer identity is ostracized to the outskirts of heteronormative society. And where their identity constructs are limited, they too have limited partner choices. Similar to that ostracizing, the Creeper must exist outside the cities and towns of modern United States, isolated to the largely unoccupied frontiers of the Midwest. Vast open fields and extensive road provide the setting for Jeepers Creepers 2, trapping the victims in the bus within this queer terrain dominated by the Creeper. Though his visibility is obvious to the viewer during periods of sunlight, the victims do not encounter the monster queer until nightfall; only the young boy at the onset of the film encounters the Creeper and meets his demise during the day. Here the film depicts its manifold representations of queer monstrosity, which

“manages to equate or conflate homosexuality with most…horror film signifiers of depravity: all manner of sex perversion (bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia), as well as human sacrifice, Satanism, rape, and serial killing.”[29]

Underlying the Creeper’s model for selection is the representation of paedophiliac desire and bodily rape, suggested by the younger, on the fringes of barely pubescent, boy and the bus’ array of men. Furthermore, Satanism is evoked in that the monster queer looks devilish (i.e. – sharp features, sharp teeth, sharp piercing eyes and a demonic aura), suggestive of a supernatural being, a demonic figure. This link between archaic assumptions regarding queer identity as monstrous with the victimization of men epitomizes the monster’s assumed identity formation as queer. In addition, it provokes the specific religious ideology regarding homosexuality and queer identity, where homosexuals are doomed sinners, separated from heaven and ostracized to hell.

Given that the Creeper escapes the fringes of hell and with agency unwittingly consumes his male victims, Christian ideology and Judeo-Christian Western society are placed at odds against an indestructible force. Where the monster queer is indestructible (he is stabbed multiple times in his body and his face), he becomes a force that Western society cannot overcome. Just like the pleasures Christianized Western societies cannot overcome, the monster queer represents that part of queer identity that accepts his/her sexuality and does not shirk the desires for the [same-sex] body. Sedgwick notes:

“Christian tradition…had tended both to condense ‘the flesh’ (insofar as it represented or incorporated pleasure) as the female body and to surround its attractiveness with an aura of maximum anxiety and prohibition.”[30]

Whereas these traditions elaborated the female form as an indicator of pleasure (or the flesh), queer identity labels as the indicator of pleasure the same-sex body. Queer identity constructs, therefore, go against heteronormative ideals to fetishize the opposite sex, but also disregard any sense of maximum anxiety or prohibition of desire. Moreover, as the Creeper consumes his victims’ body parts, he is in turn giving in to the flesh, but he is also working to recreate his own form into that idealized male figure.

The Final Girl (Minxie) works to combat the Creeper’s intention to turn her male friends into a piece of himself, fighting back violently and forcefully. Her position in Jeepers Creepers 2  does not mean she will be saved by a patriarchal figure, rather she will combat the monster queer herself, demonstrating her agency and position within this chaotic sphere. In other words, she, like the “monster queer,” is fighting for her own existence in the hostile, chauvinistic world into which she was born. Clover defines this ending as one of two possible types:

“She alone looks death in the face, but she alone also finds the strength either to stay the killer long enough to be rescued (ending A) or to kill him herself (ending B).”[31]

Being rescued versus her ability to kill him herself gives the Final Girl the cogency to reckon with her own “monsters”; and in this case, the monster threatens her future within the male/female, hetero/homosexual binaries laid out by heteronormativity. Furthermore, she becomes the independent figure to which the male victims can turn as they seek asylum, engraining her future role of matriarch. Minxie, therefore, becomes the Creeper’s own monster, as they both struggle to overcome one another. He must continue his pursuit of male victims, his pursuit for existence, while she must struggle against him to guarantee and maintain her status within patriarchal Western society.

At odds with existence, the Final Girl and the monster queer operate within a sphere of predetermined power structures: an evident hierarchy of male/female, hetero/homosexual and normative/non-normative identity formations. This suggests that these binaries are institutionalized constructions, positioning the first identity in the binary in the active role and the secondary position in the passive. To support such a claim, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick argues:

“the shapes of sexuality, and what counts as sexuality, both depend on and affect historical power relationships.”[32]

In other words, the “monster queer’s” sexuality and the Final Girl’s sexuality are at odds with one another, just as the charaters are at odds with one another for existence and acceptance.

Ultimately the Creeper is overcome not at the hands of any one person but because of his limited time to scavenge his isolated setting for potential victims. Moreover, the film’s ending shows the Creeper tied up in a barn, recalling the bleak images of KKK hangings of African Americans in the rural South. And as the Creeper awaits his next spring, so awaits an aged man, ready to combat this “monster queer.” I find the film’s ending suggestive of the queer awaiting for his/her acceptance and the patriarch waiting to deny that acceptance whenever need be.

In conclusion, I have looked at the ways in which the slasher film has been defined, detailing its specific proponents (as informed by Clover’s work), relating the film Jeepers Creepers 2 to its generic conventions and narrative structure. Furthermore, I have attempted to extend Harry Benshoff’s definition of the monster queer in terms of the slasher film. By looking at the slasher in terms of sexuality and not just gendered power structures, I hope to expand Clover’s gender-based assumptions to consider the slasher film’s relationship with (homo)sexuality.

While I have employed a narrative approach with elements of textual analysis, this essay did not permit the space to examine fully the critical reception and/or queer readings of the film that could have further substantiated the analysis. One could also undertake a more detailed exploration of the director’s own sexuality and his widely publicized paedophilic scandal from the late 1980s. Further research on sexuality and the horror film may focus on queer appropriations of the genre both historically and contemporaneously. This will allow for a more thorough examination of the queer undertones in film narratives, especially in horror. It may also open up debates around film spectatorship including the possibility that the gay community has identified with the figure of the monster in a multitude of ways, something that requires much more consideration.


1. Clover, Carol J. Men, Women, and Chain Saws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film: (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1992), pg. 35. [return to text]

2.   Ibid., Clover.

3. Benshoff, Harry M. Monsters in the Closet: Homosexuality and the Horror Film. Manchester: Manchester University 1997).

4. Ibid., Benshoff, pg. 5.

5. Friday the 13th. Dir: Sean S. Cunningham. Paramount. 1980.

6. Happy Birthday to Me. Dir: J. Lee Thompson. Columbia. 1981.

7. Jeepers Creepers 2. Dir: Victor Salva. United Artists. 2003.

8. Jeepers Creepers. Dir: Victor Salva. United Artists. 2001.

9. Ibid., Clover, pg. 21.

10. Wood, Robin. Hollywood from Vietnam to Reagan: (New York, NY: Columbia UP, 1986), pg. 75.

11. Worland, Rick. Chapter 10 “Halloween (1978): The Shape of the Slasher Film” in The Horror Film: An Introduction: (Malden, MA: Blackwell 2007), pg. 227.

12. Rockoff, Adam. “What Is a Slasher Film?” in Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film, 1978 to 1986: (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc. 2002), pg. 5-6.

13. Nightmare on Elm Street. Dir: Wes Craven. New Line Cinema. 1984.

14. Ibid., Clover, pg. 30.

15. Ibid., Rockoff, pg. 10.

16. Ibid., Rockoff, pg. 10.

17. Ibid., Clover, pg. 31.

18. Ibid., Clover, pg. 39.

19. Ibid., Worland, pg. 229.

20. Ibid., Clover.

21. Ibid., Benshoff.

22. Ibid., Clover, pg. 29.

23. Clarke, Victoria; Soja J. Ellis; Elizabeth Peel; and Damien W. Riggs. “Prejudice and Discrimination” in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Queer Psychology: An Introduction: (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University 2010), pg. 120.

24. Ibid., Benshoff, pg. 3.

25. Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” in Media and Cultural Studies: Key Works. Durham, Meenakshi Gigi and Douglas M. Kellner (Eds.): (Malden, MA: Blackwell 2006), pg. 346. 

26. Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Epistemology of the Closet: (London, England: University of California 2008), pg. 9.

27. Ibid., Jeepers Creepers 2.

28. This could be reflective of the Algonquian folklore regarding the Windigo/Wendigo. See Wonderley’s At the Front of the Marvelous (2009) for more detailed interpretations of the folkloric Windigo narratives.

29. Ibid., Benshoff, pg. 240.

30. Ibid., Sedgwick, pg. 136.

31. Ibid., Clover, pg. 35.

32. Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire. (New York, NY: Columbia University 1985), pg. 2.

Works cited

Benshoff, Harry M. Monsters in the Closet: Homosexuality and the Horror Film. Manchester: Manchester University 1997).

Clarke, Victoria; Soja J. Ellis; Elizabeth Peel; and Damien W. Riggs. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Queer Psychology: An Introduction: (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University 2010).

Clover, Carol J. Men, Women, and Chain Saws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film: (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1992).

Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” in Media and Cultural Studies: Key Works. Durham, Meenakshi Gigi and Douglas M. Kellner (Eds.): (Malden, MA: Blackwell 2006).

Rockoff, Adam. Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film, 1978 to 1986: (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc. 2002).

Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire: (New York, NY: Columbia University 1985).

Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Epistemology of the Closet: (London, England: University of California 2008).

Wonderley, Anthony. At the Front of the Marvelous: Exploring Oral Narrative and Mythic Imagery of the Iroquois and Their Neighbors: (Syracuse: Syracuse UP, 2009).

Wood, Robin. Hollywood from Vietnam to Reagan: (New York, NY: Columbia UP, 1986).

Worland, Rick. The Horror Film: An Introduction: (Malden, MA: Blackwell 2007).


Friday the 13th. Dir: Sean S. Cunningham. Paramount. 1980.

Happy Birthday to Me. Dir: J. Lee Thompson. Columbia. 1981.

Jeepers Creepers. Dir: Victor Salva. United Artists. 2001.

Jeepers Creepers 2. Dir: Victor Salva. United Artists. 2003.

Nightmare on Elm Street. Dir: Wes Craven. New Line Cinema. 1984.

To topJC 54 Jump Cut home

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.