Each month in Horror Queers, Joe and Trace tackle a horror film with LGBTQ+ themes, a high camp quotient or both. For lifelong queer horror fans like us, there’s as much value in serious discussions about representation as there is in reading a ridiculously silly/fun horror film with a YAS KWEEN mentality. Just know that at no point will we be getting Babashook.

Be sure to check out and subscribe to the Horror Queers podcast! We’re still writing one article a month, but we release one podcast episode each week and discuss one film per episode. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Stitcher, TuneIn, or RSS.

***SPOILERS for Eyes of Laura Mars to follow.***

Synopsis: Famous fashion photographer Laura Mars (Faye Dunaway) develops a disturbing ability to see through the eyes of a killer targeting her and those closest to her.

Queer Aspect: Laura’s best friend/manager Donald (René Auberjonois) is a big ol’dandy who dies in drag. Plus: the theme song is sung by gay icon Barbra Streisand!

Joe

Trace, we’ve been working overtime on the podcast getting ready for some exciting fall stuff that we totally missed our monthly column! Anyways, we’re back with this late 70s gem and everything is right with the world again.

Yes, folks, we’re talking 1978’s Eyes of Laura Mars, which really does have something for everyone. You’re a Star Wars fan? This is directed by Irvin Kershner, the guy behind arguably Empire Strikes Back, the single greatest entry in the franchise! You’re a John Carpenter fan? He co-wrote the screenplay! You’re a fan of iconic Hollywood actress Faye Dunaway’s ENORMOUS eyes? Well good, because she’s basically acting with them the entire film!

Seriously, though, Eyes of Laura Mars is such a bizarre oddity. Released the exact same year as Halloween, this is basically an American Giallo that also utilizes the killer POV that Carpenter’s breakout became famous for (reminder: Black Christmas actually did it four years earlier). It’s a horror film set in the world of photography and high-end fashion, which essentially means it’s voyeuristic as hell and filled with gasp-worthy photoshoots and outfits, which also means that it may just be one of the most gay-friendly films we’ve ever covered for this column. Sometimes readers accuse us of reaching, but when Faye Dunaway is shooting lingerie-clad lesbian models in front of flaming cars in the middle of New York as her bitchy gay bestie throws shade at a misogynist and showers her in female empowerment bon mots, all I can say is that this is some GAY AS F*CK SHIT.

It’s also extremely my jam. I will fully acknowledge that as a thriller it has all of the usual giallo-influenced plot logic problems. I will also acknowledge that the hamfisted romance with Detective John Neville (a young, beautiful, unibrowed Tommy Lee Jones) is shoehorned into this narrative in the most unnecessary and egregious way possible and that the end result is a film that is probably too long by around ~20 minutes. But who cares when it is all so soapy, ridiculous and gorgeous?!

I’ll also confess that part of my appreciation for this film is nostalgic. I first watched this in university, before I had really begun watching a lot of foreign films. This meant that a lot of the giallo influences felt fresh; I was such a naive baby horror viewer that I didn’t even realize how much the film is paying homage to Bava and Argento!

What strikes me most, to this day, is how literally the film plays with the concept of voyeurism and “the gaze”. It’s something that we’ve discussed before – both here, as well as on the Pod – but the vast majority of cinema tends to be filtered through a male gaze. Typically this is because most directors are men (thankfully this is changing), but also because the perceived film audience is also male, particularly for the horror genre (a ludicrous and antiquated belief that critics, fans and even plenty of academics are still trying to combat). 

According to this belief, the camera is a substitute for male eyes, which is why films – and by extension horror films – tend to focus on women’s bodies, fetishizing them entirely or in parts (exhibit A: Quentin Tarantino’s obsession with toes). This in effect turns films, and by extension audiences, into leering voyeurs.

Eyes of Laura Mars complicates this notion by giving the power of the gaze – both professionally and personally – to a woman. Not only is Laura an in-demand photographer whose work appears on buses and books and sold out gallery shows, but she is literally the only person who can (psychically? It’s unclear) connect with the murderer to decipher his identity. Whether or not the power ultimately helps her is debatable, but the simple idea of inverting the male gaze and giving it to a woman feels pretty revolutionary in a horror film from the late 70s. 

Trace, what was this like as a first time watch? Are you as taken as me with the fabulousness that is Eyes of Laura Mars? And what do you make of the film’s only gay character of note, Donald (“DOOOONNNNNAAAAAALLLLLD”) dying while dressed in Laura’s clothes?

Trace

So good to be back, Joe! It’s definitely been a crazy summer but I’m happy to be back at the keyboard. First, however, I must correct you regarding your little factoid about the killer’s POV: Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom actually pioneered that technique in the slasher sub-genre. The only issue is that, despite coming out the same year a Psycho, it was critically reviled (it has since been reappraised) so no one ever remembers it. Did you learn nothing from Kirby’s quiz in Scream 4?

Anyway, on to Eyes of Laura Mars! I really don’t think there were enough close-up shots of eyes in this movie, but I’m glad you pointed out that it’s essentially an American giallo, because that is my conundrum. As we have discussed at length on the podcast, giallo is simply not my cup ‘o tea (this is especially puzzling considering slashers are my favorite sub-genre of horror). 

I love the standard slasher elements (a mysterious killer, bloody kills, a compelling heroine) but absolutely loathe the meandering narrative that is a common trait of giallo films. The meandering aspect of Eyes of Laura Mars is the shoehorned romance between Laura and John that you speak of (by the way, I found Jones, Raul Juliá and Brad Dourif all to be incredibly attractive in this movie). It’s such a slog and seems to exist solely to make John’s eventual killer reveal more dramatic, but it actually has the opposite effect. It’s downright silly!

What this movie was really missing are the trademark bloody kills that filmmakers like Bava and Argento were masterful at choreographing. Eyes of Laura Mars loves to cut away right before the killing blow, and it’s simply puzzling because this is an R-rated film! It has no shortage of breasts, though, so I guess there’s that. 

It is important to note that John Carpenter only wrote the first draft of the screenplay. You see, Barbra Streisand was originally set to play Laura Mars! It was only when she pulled out of the film (due to its admittedly scandalous themes) that Dunaway was cast. Because of this, the studio demanded that Carpenter’s script be re-written and David Zelag Goodman (of Straw Dogs and Logan’s Run fame) was brought in to do it. Carpenter is still understandably bitter about the experience, but rumor has it that his script had even more giallo elements. I could only imagine how much gorier the film would have been! Oh well, Halloween was released two months after Eyes of Laura Mars so at least 1978 wasn’t a total wash for him.

I find your analysis of the film’s gaze slightly off as well. Yes, the film is told from Laura’s point of view, but when Laura (and the audience) sees it through her eyes, she is still seeing it through the (male) killer’s eyes. So it really is still the male gaze. And there’s still a bunch of titties everywhere so I’m not fully sure I buy into your suggestion that it’s revolutionary, but it is an effort, so I’ll buy into it just a bit.

But yes, this movie is very gay. I want to find the outfit Dunaway wore as she was running through the warehouse and wear it for Halloween. Then, while driving to the classiest Halloween parties, I would pull surprise U-turns as I scream “DOOOOOONNNNNAAAAALLLLLLLD” out the window. I’m sure everyone in my neighborhood would get the reference.

I jest, but I actually love the Donald character. He doesn’t take shit from anyone and, while he doesn’t wave his sexuality around as if he’s on a Pride float, he’s still confident in his queerness. He even manages to avoid the standard “gay best friend” trappings of modern films! I’m not quite sure how I feel about him dying in drag (also: it’s important for us to distinguish between the terms “drag” and “drag queen” in this scenario). The film plays his reveal in Laura’s clothes for laughs, but his murder (again, off screen) is handled with care. I would say this portrayal is more progressive than that of the film’s inversion of the male gaze, though you may disagree.

Joe, what in God’s name do you think of the film’s ending? It certainly made me want to go back and look for clues, but it’s so silly. Are we to believe that John has multiple personalities? Did you find any unintentional humor in the film (mine would be Lulu’s partner being carried off as he’s screaming at Laura)? And how about that Nikon product placement?!

Joe

I would love for you to cosplay as a blind, freaked out Laura Mars for Halloween. I’ll need photographic evidence as soon as it happens, please and thank you.

I’m not ready to let go of “the gaze” yet. Ok, yes, I confess that I did forget about Peeping Tom, but I don’t think that you’re giving the film’s take on seeing, voyeurism and violence enough credit. Consider this: John’s murders are actually reproductions of Laura’s acclaimed, visionary photography staging. So he’s trying to reclaim her eyes and her work, minus the artistic integrity and with more brute force. This makes the film extremely cyclical: she explores violence through art, which he then repurposes as literal violent spectacle, which she then attempts to decipher through her own eyes. Considering that we as an audience side with Laura (we also literally see through her eyes), we’re privy to the experience of being a female creative whose work is appropriated by men and its meaning perverted. That’s so incredibly progressive!

I see a lot fascinating parallels with the aggressive reactions that we recently got tied up with involving Scream Stans and VH1’s Resurrection miniseries. We both had very strong reactions to that series’ commentary about the impact and responsibility of art, which we felt was a perversion of the original film franchise’s intention. The same is true for Laura Mars: after all, John’s rationale for becoming a killer is that he saw his mother brutally murdered and the experience fucked him up. Of course, what that doesn’t explain is why he’s abusing Laura’s perspective – her titular eyes, as it were. Scream: Resurrection apologists attacked us for “reaching” and reading too much into the same killer defense on that series, but just like in Laura Mars, it doesn’t truly explain anything and comes off as an empty, ugly excuse.

The honest truth is that this IS a woman’s film. It’s dominated by Laura, her work and her love life. The men in the film, by comparison, are nearly all completely terrible. There’s the producer/client who only wants to ensure that she integrates lace into the shoot; there’s the potentially violent driver; there’s her ne’er-do-well ex-husband who is both a financial parasite and an emotional manipulator and there is John, the guy who looks good on paper and in the sack and turns out to be a living nightmare with mommy issues. Hell, the best guy is probably the male model who shows up in a tux, looks good and then does as he’s told, which is die.  

Seriously, though, the only really good man in this film is Donald (because queer people are awesome). So yes, I’m torn about his death scene. Unlike other films of its ilk, Donald is never presented as anything other than a supportive advocate for Laura. He’s not a casual cross-dresser or an amateur drag queen who is murdered in costume; he’s being a good friend by providing a distraction for Laura and that just so happens to be the moment that he is murdered. And yet…it is a deliberate decision to knock Donald off at this particular moment (similar to how Lulu and her female lover are murdered after they are glimpsed in what can be read as a mildly sexual situation). Is this a “punishing deviancy” motivation by the killer? Laura Mars doesn’t ultimately confirm or deny its sexualized violence. It’s almost as if the film is content for the audience to make up its own mind, which evokes the opening party where individuals are debating the relative merit of Laura’s work. Art is funny like that; everyone has different opinions on it.

Speaking of art, on this most recent rewatch, I couldn’t help but see all kinds of connections to another text we recently discussed: Yann Gonzalez’s Knife + Heart. As we discussed on the podcast, that film was also influenced by giallo films so the similarly sexualized violence makes sense. It’s more Laura and Anne’s similarly constructed arcs that caught my attention. They’re both powerful women creatives working in a derided artistic field in the 70s; they both have a keen visual eye and they both choose to focus their controversial attention on the intersection of bodies, sex and violence. I know that Laura Mars is an influential, albeit somewhat forgotten text (Ugly Betty memorably recreated the fiery car crash photoshoot somewhere in its run) but I have to wonder if queer director Yann Gonzalez took notice of the utter fabulousness of this film when he was putting together the scenario and the visuals of his genre break-out?

Trace, what do you make of my Knife + Heart connection? Do you see Laura’s influence in other places? What do you suppose a Barbara version of the film would have been like? And how would a game of fuck/marry/kill with Tommy Lee Jones, Raul Juliá and Brad Dourif play out for you?

Trace

You will be the first to know if I dress up as Laura Mars for Halloween, Joe. But yes, now I see what you’re saying. You know just as well as I do that my fatal critical flaw is that I initially view things far too literally. I needed your helpful push to see the error of my ways (I realize that sounds really cunty, but it’s genuine. I swear!). Isn’t it amazing how discussing a film (or in our case, trading written words) can open up one’s eyes? In all seriousness, though: your analysis of the female gaze in your reply makes sense, so shame on me for being so quick to reject it. It’s certainly not revolutionary now, but putting myself in 1978 (which is admittedly difficult to do since I wasn’t alive that year), it makes a modicum of sense. Perhaps the inherent silliness of the ending is affecting my analytical skills?

While Eyes of Laura Mars’ ending isn’t offensive like the finale of Scream: Resurrection is (to me, anyway), it bothers me so much that John’s modus operandi isn’t explored at all. Yes, copycatting her art is a cool gimmick, but why does he do it? And why did he target the people around Laura? What is it about Laura that is so alluring to him?

There are so many unanswered questions, most likely due to the film’s giallo influences; but since you bring up the reactions we got to Scream: Resurrection (many people are fond of calling me a “pussy,” it seems), let me posit a theory. What if Eyes of Laura Mars is a tale of psychotic/toxic/crazed fandom? John is clearly familiar with Laura’s photographs and is re-creating them when he kills, but why bother? The film doesn’t let us in on that (very important) tidbit, so it could be assumed that he is just a crazed fan (or stan, as you so eloquently put it). The crazed fan is no stranger to the horror genre (see: The Fan, Misery or even Copycat for a few examples), but if we read John as a member of that particular community then it recontextualizes everything about that character and maybe even the film itself.

It’s apt that we are discussing this film directly following the aftermath of ScreamGate, because some superfan turning my writing against me (or, you know, murdering me because of something I wrote) is one of my worst nightmares. Though if we read the film that way, it takes away some of the focus from Laura herself and moves it over to the killer, which wouldn’t have benefited this film at all.

I agree with your comparison of this film to Knife + Heart, however. Both have incredibly strong female protagonists and are set in the world of sensuality and sexuality (erotic and violent photography for Eyes and pornography for Knife) and follow a killer killing everyone related to the protagonist, but I admit that I didn’t even make the connection that they were both set in the ‘70s! How apropos! I’m sure Gonzalez made this connection, as the film has acquired quite the cult queer following. It’s thanks to my fellow queers (you included) that I even found out about it!

Another (and lesser) film that I see Eyes of Laura Mars’ influence in is the critically-panned Halle Berry film Gothika, which is about a psychiatrist (Berry) who murders her husband while she is possessed by a ghost and later wakes up as a patient in the hospital where she works. The general premise is different, but it’s still very much a woman’s film (Berry teams up with Penélope Cruz to solve the mystery) and focuses on sexual abuse from a woman’s perspective, but through the eyes of the victim rather than the killer. It’s extremely convoluted and equally as silly as Eyes of Laura Mars, but that’s what makes them so comparable! I don’t think there’s any significant queerness in Gothika, but it has some campy moments!

As for fuck/marry/kill: Kill Dourif, Fuck Jones. Marry Juliá. And I have absolutely no idea what a Streisand version of this would look like. I mean, I’ve never really found Streisand to be particularly sexy (don’t hate me, gays!), whereas I think that Dunaway does exude a considerable amount of sexuality. That being said, Streisand does have a commanding screen presence. I guess it would just be a lot gayer. Dunaway is a queer icon, of course (Mommie Dearest, anyone?) but Streisand is queer royalty. Imagine the melodrama! Imagine her delivery of “DOOOOOOOONAAAAAAAAALD!!!!!” Goddammit. Now I want that movie. 

Let’s cross out Eyes of Laura Mars!

Next time on Horror Queers: We’re bringing it back to the modern age with a look at the super meta (and occasionally queer) sequel to The Town that Dreaded Sundown!

Eyes of Laura Mars is available to stream for $3.99 on Amazon.And don’t forget to catch up on our previous Horror Queers articles here or check out our podcast page here.