Connect with us

Editorials

Inside the Head of Pamela Voorhees [Part 2]!!

Published

on

Broadcast Thought is the collective name for a creative cabal of three forensic psychiatrists (H. Eric Bender, M.D., Praveen R. Kambam, M.D., and Vasilis K. Pozios, M.D.) who also happen to have a vast and unquenchable thirst for pop culture knowledge.

Last week we published Part One of their look inside the head of Pamela Voorhees and now it’s time to conclude the process. Which means we’re getting to the REALLY juicy stuff. You might want to refresh a bit by visiting last week’s article first. Then come back here and dive in.

Be sure to follow BTdocs on Twitter and head below to go Inside The Head Of Pamela Voorhees!!
Mrs_Voorhees_Broadcast_Thought_5_5_14

DISCLAIMER 1: In real life, we would need an adequate evaluation:

Various diagnoses might help explain Pamela Voorhees’ mental state as seen in Friday the 13th (1980), but to truly understand her struggles, we would need to conduct a psychiatric evaluation and gather necessary information to properly diagnose anything. It might be tough to interview her given that she’s been decapitated.

DISCLAIMER 2: There is an overblown link between mental illness and violence:

While we can try to offer hypothetical explanations for Mrs. Voorhees’ behaviors, clinical mental illness, in and of itself, doesn’t typically increase one’s risk for violence except in a few narrow circumstances (e.g., alcohol and drug use disorders, acute paranoia).

We know that most serial killers can’t be classified as “insane,” and that her status as one wouldn’t be directly related to a mental illness. That being said, was Mrs. Voorhees a serial killer?

Dr. Bender: Technically, yes, according to the 2005 FBI Serial Murder Symposium’s definition of serial killing: “The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events.”  Also, it appears Mrs. V had a “cooling off period,” or period of time in which no killing occurs, between her killings, which is an element of serial killing.

Dr. Pozios: But we may not really consider Mrs. V a serial killer, even if she meets the FBI Symposium’s definition.  In the real world, the semantics of the definition and intuitively knowing that someone is a serial killer are two separate things.  Additional characteristics that aren’t formally part of the definition would be considered – things like motivation, modus operandi, rituals, and signature aspects of the murders.

Dr. Kambam: These characteristics are also carefully analyzed by law enforcement agents, like members of the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Units, in the investigation of possible serial murders.  The agents might also consider whether the killer is getting any gratification from the killing.  Most experts would argue that the killings of serial killers involve some sort of psychological gratification – and often some aspect of sexual gratification.

Dr. Bender: Instead of psychological gratification, it could be that the purpose of her killing was to try to shut Camp Crystal Lake down and keep it closed.  In this way, she might be considered an instrumental offender: the killings were simply business.  Instrumental killers, like mafia hitmen, kill for such gain and are generally not considered to be serial killers, even though they may meet the semantics of the FBI Symposium’s definition.  

Dr. Pozios: Unlike an instrumental offender, she seemed emotionally invested in the killings and was not killing to achieve an external material gain, such as money or goods.  Mrs. V’s killings seemed more vengeful, much like some school shooters or disgruntled employees “going postal.”

Dr. Kambam: But back to arguments for her being a serial killer… Mrs. V’s killings perhaps reflected some rituals – need-based behaviors that are unnecessary for the successful commission of her crimes – like posing a body, displaying a body, overkill.  Ritualistic behaviors are often seen in the acts of serial killers; her tying up Steve’s body and displaying Bill’s body might have reflected such rituals.  And perhaps Mrs. V could be categorized as a “visionary” serial killer, a type of serial killer that experiences psychotic directions or commands to kill.  Mrs. V may have experienced commands from Jason to kill the counselors, as she conveyed when talking with Alice.  Additionally, like most visionary serial killers, Mrs. V is focused on the act of killing itself, rather than getting than getting off on the a longer process of torturing and killing (she’s “act-focused” as opposed to “process-focused”).

Friday_The_13th_Bill_Broadcast_Thought

Dr. Bender: Mrs. V’s pinning of Bill’s body to the door and throwing Brenda’s body through the window could be viewed as meaning to induce fear in the remaining victims, right?

Dr. Pozios: Possibly, but Mrs. V’s style of killing may be considered more “disorganized” rather than “organized.”  (Visionary serial killers typically engage in more disorganized killing.  The disorganized nature of the killings and crime scene may be an extension of disorganized thinking, due to psychosis).

Dr. Kambam: Right.  An organized killer will usually kill in one place and deposit the body in another.  They painstakingly plan out their killings and are careful about not being detected.  Disorganized killers, on the other hand, are haphazard in their killing.  They are more impulsive and will often leave murder weapons and the bodies of their victims where they were killed.  Recall the axe in the bed left by Mrs. V…

So was she insane? If she had been caught and charged with these multiple counts of murder, would she have been able to plead insanity?

Dr. Kambam: To examine this question, we need to talk about what it means to be “insane?”  Insanity is actually a legal term, not a colloquial term meaning “crazy” or even a medical term.  And each state has its own definition or guidelines for insanity.  Current New Jersey insanity statutes (http://www.newjersey-legal-guide.com/) indicate that someone is not criminally responsible for his or her actions when acting as he or she did if “at the time of committing the act the defendant was laboring under a defect of reason such that he did not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.”  [Note: In real life, we would need to use the legal statute in effect at the time of Mrs. V’s acts, i.e., 1957 (killing of two counselors), 1958 (poisoning of the water supply), and 1980 (murdering several counselors and a camp organizer).]

Dr. Bender: Okay, so, let’s tackle the first part of this: Did she have a mental disorder at the time of her crimes?  Well, there is some evidence that Mrs. Voorhees might have had some sort of psychotic disorder or dissociative disorder at the time of her crime(s) as we discussed previously.

Dr. Pozios: For the other part of the insanity test, what evidence do we have that Mrs. V knew that what she was doing was wrong?

Dr. Kambam: Even if Mrs. V were genuinely experiencing a hallucination of hearing Jason’s voice telling her to kill, there is no evidence that she believed that killing wouldn’t be illegal.  What’s more, even if she were genuinely experiencing a delusional belief that the camp personnel let Jason die, this belief would not prevent her from understanding that killing is illegal.

Dr. Pozios: She also had the rational alternative motive of seeking revenge (maybe partially driven by guilt) for Jason’s death as opposed to killing because of psychotic command auditory hallucinations.  

Dr. Bender: More evidence to show that Mrs. V knew wrongfulness is reflected in her possible efforts to avoid detection and capture.  She presumably cut the phone line (although we don’t see her do this).  She turns off the generator and lights (so as not to be seen).  When she needs to find Alice to kill her, Mrs. V later turns on the generator and lights.  Mrs. V hid Ned’s body (hiding evidence) from the others.  She hid under Jack’s bed, then grabs him before spearing him through neck.  She also tied Steve’s body to a tree branch (presumably so no one finds him).

Dr. Pozios: Okay then, what about evidence that Mrs. V knew the nature and quality of her acts (and therefore was not legally insane)?

Dr. Kambam: Even while possibly psychotic and having a conversation with herself, Mrs. V explicitly talked about killing and not letting Alice live.  This indicates that she understood that she was not only killing but killing a person, not a doppelganger, alien, or some other non-human entity.  She also specifically targeted the camp personnel because she thought that they failed in their duties as counselors to supervise children in the camp.  This indicates that she understood that they were human beings with a specific job.

Dr. Bender: We all know the lawyers would argue about this… The defense would undoubtedly bring up various counterpoints.  They might mention that Brenda was already dead when Brenda was thrown through the window.  And Mrs. V displayed Bill’s dead body by pinning it to the cabin door with arrows.  If Mrs. V were trying to avoid detection, why would she do this?

Dr. Pozios: Well, the prosecution’s argument would probably be that Mrs. V was trying to induce fear in the surviving counselors.

Dr. Bender: But Mrs. V didn’t wear any disguises, gloves, or clothing to conceal her identity.  She didn’t run away from the camp to avoid capture after her acts.

Dr. Kambam: Maybe she just wasn’t finished killing yet.  She wasn’t caught in the past.

Dr. Bender: Her hiding and turning off the lights may just indicate that she was trying to ensure that her actions were carried out without resistance (i.e., an effort to most effectively attack her targets).  If she believed that what she had been doing wasn’t wrong, she would want to ensure that her actions were carried out.  

So there you have it. Mrs. Voorhees, based on the evidence at hand, was technically a serial killer. And, while she might have had psychotic symptoms or episodes, she would not be a good candidate for the insanity defense since most signs point to her knowing that what she was doing was wrong. But, as evidenced above, this case is just as complicated as Mrs. Voorhees herself.

Happy Belated Mother’s Day, Pamela.

 

 

Screen Shot 2013-08-15 at 11.06.04 PM

 

Editorials

Finding Faith and Violence in ‘The Book of Eli’ 14 Years Later

Published

on

Having grown up in a religious family, Christian movie night was something that happened a lot more often than I care to admit. However, back when I was a teenager, my parents showed up one night with an unusually cool-looking DVD of a movie that had been recommended to them by a church leader. Curious to see what new kind of evangelical propaganda my parents had rented this time, I proceeded to watch the film with them expecting a heavy-handed snoozefest.

To my surprise, I was a few minutes in when Denzel Washington proceeded to dismember a band of cannibal raiders when I realized that this was in fact a real movie. My mom was horrified by the flick’s extreme violence and dark subject matter, but I instantly became a fan of the Hughes Brothers’ faith-based 2010 thriller, The Book of Eli. And with the film’s atomic apocalypse having apparently taken place in 2024, I think this is the perfect time to dive into why this grim parable might also be entertaining for horror fans.

Originally penned by gaming journalist and The Walking Dead: The Game co-writer Gary Whitta, the spec script for The Book of Eli was already making waves back in 2007 when it appeared on the coveted Blacklist. It wasn’t long before Columbia and Warner Bros. snatched up the rights to the project, hiring From Hell directors Albert and Allen Hughes while also garnering attention from industry heavyweights like Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman.

After a series of revisions by Anthony Peckham meant to make the story more consumer-friendly, the picture was finally released in January of 2010, with the finished film following Denzel as a mysterious wanderer making his way across a post-apocalyptic America while protecting a sacred book. Along the way, he encounters a run-down settlement controlled by Bill Carnegie (Gary Oldman), a man desperate to get his hands on Eli’s book so he can motivate his underlings to expand his empire. Unwilling to let this power fall into the wrong hands, Eli embarks on a dangerous journey that will test the limits of his faith.


SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

Judging by the film’s box-office success, mainstream audiences appear to have enjoyed the Hughes’ bleak vision of a future where everything went wrong, but critics were left divided by the flick’s trope-heavy narrative and unapologetic religious elements. And while I’ll be the first to admit that The Book of Eli isn’t particularly subtle or original, I appreciate the film’s earnest execution of familiar ideas.

For starters, I’d like to address the religious elephant in the room, as I understand the hesitation that some folks (myself included) might have about watching something that sounds like Christian propaganda. Faith does indeed play a huge part in the narrative here, but I’d argue that the film is more about the power of stories than a specific religion. The entire point of Oldman’s character is that he needs a unifying narrative that he can take advantage of in order to manipulate others, while Eli ultimately chooses to deliver his gift to a community of scholars. In fact, the movie even makes a point of placing the Bible in between equally culturally important books like the Torah and Quran, which I think is pretty poignant for a flick inspired by exploitation cinema.

Sure, the film has its fair share of logical inconsistencies (ranging from the extent of Eli’s Daredevil superpowers to his impossibly small Braille Bible), but I think the film more than makes up for these nitpicks with a genuine passion for classic post-apocalyptic cinema. Several critics accused the film of being a knockoff of superior productions, but I’d argue that both Whitta and the Hughes knowingly crafted a loving pastiche of genre influences like Mad Max and A Boy and His Dog.

Lastly, it’s no surprise that the cast here absolutely kicks ass. Denzel plays the title role of a stoic badass perfectly (going so far as to train with Bruce Lee’s protégée in order to perform his own stunts) while Oldman effortlessly assumes a surprisingly subdued yet incredibly intimidating persona. Even Mila Kunis is remarkably charming here, though I wish the script had taken the time to develop these secondary characters a little further. And hey, did I mention that Tom Waits is in this?


AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

Denzel’s very first interaction with another human being in this movie results in a gory fight scene culminating in a face-off against a masked brute wielding a chainsaw (which he presumably uses to butcher travelers before eating them), so I think it’s safe to say that this dog-eat-dog vision of America will likely appeal to horror fans.

From diseased cannibals to hyper-violent motorcycle gangs roaming the wasteland, there’s plenty of disturbing R-rated material here – which is even more impressive when you remember that this story revolves around the bible. And while there are a few too many references to sexual assault for my taste, even if it does make sense in-universe, the flick does a great job of immersing you in this post-nuclear nightmare.

The excessively depressing color palette and obvious green screen effects may take some viewers out of the experience, but the beat-up and lived-in sets and costume design do their best to bring this dead world to life – which might just be the scariest part of the experience.

Ultimately, I believe your enjoyment of The Book of Eli will largely depend on how willing you are to overlook some ham-fisted biblical references in order to enjoy some brutal post-apocalyptic shenanigans. And while I can’t really blame folks who’d rather not deal with that, I think it would be a shame to miss out on a genuinely engaging thrill-ride because of one minor detail.

With that in mind, I’m incredibly curious to see what Whitta and the Hughes Brothers have planned for the upcoming prequel series starring John Boyega


There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.

Continue Reading