Editorials
‘High Tension’ And the Villainization of Queer Characters
If you plan to go away with your close friend to study in an old farmhouse in the middle of nowhere surrounded by miles of cornfields, where doors creak, lights flicker, and creepy dolls play even creepier music — don’t. But Alexandre Aja insists that we do, so let’s talk about his 2003 film, High Tension. The story surrounds two girls, Marie and Alex, as they travel to Alex’s parent’s house in the country to do some studying. We get an extremely brief introduction to Alex’s family, and Marie begins to settle into her new quarters for the weekend. But before either of them can say, “let’s start studying,” a crazed man who looks a lot like Quint from Jaws shows up and starts murdering the family one by one. Chaos naturally ensues, and there are chases through the cornfield, tiptoeing around the creaky house, French Connection style car chasing, and blood… lots and lots of blood.
BIG SPOILERS AHEAD…
The film’s central character is Marie, a loner of sorts, who is awoken by a dream where she describes “being chased by herself” (keep that in mind for later). Marie is not your typical final girl; she plays a passive role for most of the plot as the horrors all seem to be happening around her. She also has very little interaction with anyone other than Alex and doesn’t take much interest in her family. Horrific things start happening pretty quickly, and even though they are brutal and difficult to watch, there is still an emptiness and lack of empathy felt for them. Some of the more graphic elements were effective in place of emotion, mainly creating the shock value that the New French Extremity movement is known for. This brings me to the most troubling and problematic aspect of this film… the twist ending.
Cinema has for years had a nasty little habit of either overtly or inadvertently writing queer characters as villains in movies. From the scathing and nearly-openly gay Dr. Pretorius in Bride of Frankenstein, to the ruthlessly flamboyant Scar from The Lion King, and yes… to Marie, the murderous lesbian from High Tension. It is made clear early on that Marie is single, and the filmmakers made an obvious choice of distinguishing Marie and Alex by their clothing and hairstyles. Alex’s long hair and floral patterns evoke feminine straightness, whereas Marie’s short hair and nondescript clothes evoke a queerness or “otherness” about her. Marie’s feelings for Alex are finally made clear when she can be seen watching Alex shower from an open window as she sits outside the house smoking a cigarette. This would all be pretty superficial characterizations and maybe not as important to viewers if the big twist hadn’t been that Marie has been the psychopathic killer all this time (remember the dream where Marie was “chasing herself?”). I don’t know what audiences felt at the time that this came out, but I can tell you that I let out an audible groan when that reveal occurred. Time and time again, this “twist” of sorts pops up and continues this false narrative of queer people as being sneaky, manipulative, obsessive, and even dangerous. Marie will stop at nothing to be with Alex, to the point of murdering her entire family and nearly disfiguring Alex’s face with a circular saw unless she told Marie that she loved her. High Tension is not the first or last movie to perpetuate this stereotype. Still, the message is loud and clear: “don’t be friends with a queer person because they will ultimately become obsessed with you and brutally murder everyone you love to be with you.” Not the best message to be sending, intentional or not.
However, there are glimpses of greatness here from director Alexandre Aja who would later go onto direct films like the 2007 remake of The Hills Have Eyes, Mirrors, Piranha 3D, and Crawl. He clearly understood how to create suspense, expertly demonstrated by a scene at a gas station around the halfway point where Marie is attempting to get help from the killer and is trying not to be seen by him. I assure you, you won’t want to take your eyes off the screen for the entire duration of this sequence. Aja even sets us up perfectly with a creepy location and a classic independent filmmaking atmosphere. Top that off with a knack for capping off his suspenseful scenes with an equally shocking and blood-curdling murder that looks so real, you’d think it was. (Shoutout to special effects and make-up artist Giannetto De Rossi for the amazing effects.)
However, I couldn’t help but feel that these shocks and scares were just too few and far between scenes that either don’t go anywhere or don’t make sense once you realize what’s really going on in the story. My feelings on this are pretty torn, as the suspense and special gore effects are really effective, and the atmosphere is perfect for a low-budget home invasion horror film. But the somewhat dull opening doesn’t give the viewer much to hold onto once the terrorizing begins, and the problematic twist ending is cringeworthy and upsetting by today’s standards. So mostly what we’re left with is that great gas station scene, which I think could be recut and made into its own short film. Lucky for us, Alexandre Aja went on to direct some much better films that are more worth checking out than High Tension.
High Tension is streaming on Shudder starting March 1st.
Editorials
The Final Girl Was Never Me, Rewriting Survival in Black Horror
I learned early on that I was not supposed to make it to the end of a horror movie. As a kid, I was drawn to slashers before I fully understood them. The VHS covers promised danger, chaos, and a kind of freedom that felt transgressive. Horror was loud, bloody, and thrilling in ways other genres were not. But the longer I watched, the clearer the rules became. The girl who survives is careful. She is observant. She is often white. She is someone the camera stays with, someone whose fear is treated as meaningful, even noble. Everyone else exists to prove the stakes. Black characters, especially Black girls, rarely make it past the first half of the movie.
The Final Girl as a Moral Framework
The final girl is not just a character archetype, she is a moral system. In classic slashers, survival is tied to innocence, restraint, and respectability. The final girl is allowed to be scared, but not unruly. She can scream, but only when it is justified. She can fight back, but only at the climax, after enduring enough suffering to earn it. Her survival reassures the audience that order can be restored. Those values were never built with Blackness in mind.
When Black characters appear in these films, they are rarely framed as people the story wants to protect. We are friends, sidekicks, background figures, or early warnings. Our deaths are fast and functional. Sometimes they are shocking. Sometimes they are played for humor. Rarely are they treated as losses the film wants us to mourn. The camera does not linger. The narrative does not slow down to grieve.
Watching Yourself Disappear as a Black Horror Fan
As a Black horror fan, I learned to accept this without ever being asked to. Loving the genre meant learning how to watch myself disappear. Horror trained me to identify with survivors who did not look like me, whose fear was treated as universal, while Black pain was treated as inevitable. Even knowing it was fiction, the pattern settled in. Who gets to live tells you who is expected to matter. This is why the final girl feels fundamentally different when she is Black.
When Black filmmakers and writers began reshaping the genre, the shift was not cosmetic. Films like Candyman, Get Out, and later Black-led horror did not simply place Black characters into existing formulas. They questioned the formulas themselves. The threat was no longer just a masked killer or a supernatural force. It was history, memory, and systems that follow Black characters no matter where they go. In these stories, survival is not about purity. It is about awareness.
Survival Through Awareness, Not Obedience
Black final girls do not survive because they obey the rules. They survive because they recognize the trap. Their fear is layered with cultural knowledge and lived experience. When danger appears, it is rarely surprising. It is familiar. The horror comes from seeing it made literal.
When a Black woman runs in a horror movie now, she is not just running from a monster. She is running from everything that has told her she should not be there, that she is disposable, that her fear does not deserve space. Her survival feels radical because it contradicts the genre’s long history of erasure.
Complexity, Joy, and Humanity in Black Horror
What makes this evolution powerful is that Black horror does not limit itself to suffering. Even when it confronts violence and trauma, it also makes room for humor, desire, anger, and joy. Black characters are allowed to be complex without being punished for it. They can be loud, flawed, scared, and still deserving of survival.
For me, the first time I saw a Black character positioned as someone the story wanted to protect, it was disorienting. I did not realize how much I had internalized until that moment. I was used to bracing myself for disappointment, for the early exit, for the confirmation that this ending was not meant for me. Seeing a Black woman make it to the final frame did not just change how I watched horror, it changed how I understood its power.
Survival as Defiance in Black Horror Cinema
Horror has always been about fear, but fear is shaped by context. For communities that already live with heightened vulnerability, survival fantasies carry a different weight. Black horror understands this. It treats survival not as a reward, but as an act of defiance.
When Black creators take control of the genre, they do more than add representation. They reframe what horror is allowed to care about. The final girl no longer exists to reassure the audience. She exists to endure, to remember, and to refuse erasure.
Loving Horror While Watching It Change
I still love classic slashers. I still enjoy their excess and chaos. But I watch differently now. I notice who the camera follows, whose pain is given time, whose death is treated as unavoidable. Horror did not always love us back, but Black creators are teaching it how.
The final girl was never me, until she was. And the genre is stronger for it.
Editorials
Choosing Shock Value Over Writers Is Very Telling
There is a huge difference between a movie being remembered for being good and a movie being remembered because it’s controversial. As a writer, I can forgive an okay film with an amazing script. However, I find it frustrating when it feels like no one believed in the project, so just leaned into the controversy. Stunts were pulled, shock value was sought after, and I am now wondering when the creatives stopped believing in their project.
Animal Cruelty as Shock Value in Horror Cinema
Cannibal Holocaust, a pivotal step toward found footage horror films as we know them today, is remembered for all of the scenes of sexual assault and the murder of actual animals. This takes away from its historical significance because the first thing I remember about it is watching a turtle get murdered and ripped apart. I have a similar issue with Wake in Fright. It’s hard to remember Donald Pleasence, Gary Bond, or the queer implications of this thriller because the filmmaker had kangaroos executed for this film. The scene feels like it goes on forever, and I’m yet to understand why murdering animals needed to be part of the process.
I finally watched Megan is Missing a couple of years ago, and the exploitative nature of the assault of a fourteen-year-old is what stays with me. Whatever Michael Goi’s intentions were, they were lost because the shock factor of that moment outweighs everything else.
When Shock Value Replaces Meaningful Horror
It feels gross and like yet another male filmmaker mishandling assault on camera. Meanwhile, the film was serving its purpose and had other truly disturbing imagery that would have gotten a reaction out of audiences. It also would have allowed for more discussion about the film as a whole, instead of that scene that becomes the conversation. It’s another instance of male filmmakers mishandling the weight of sexual assault on film.
Things Aren’t Getting Better
However, the movies mentioned above are from different eras. We’d like to think filmmakers by now understand that shock factor doesn’t equal a quality movie. We would be wrong to assume that, though, because Dashcam (2021) didn’t stop at basing a character on an awful person. They actually cast the Trump-loving, anti-vax, and very vocal bigot Annie Hardy to play the character. This led to horror fans familiar with her brand of ignorance being turned off before the movie was even released. It also undid a lot of the goodwill that director Rob Savage earned with his previous movie, Host. To make matters worse, Savage repeatedly defended the choice all over the internet. At one point, he tried to blame her behavior on mental health, and people pointed out that doesn’t excuse racism, antisemitism, and homophobia.
Some of Annie’s Infamous Tweets
This is an especially head-scratching situation in this case. The team was riding the steam of a very popular found footage film. They were also primed to make a video game called Ghosts that had a successful crowdfunding campaign. People would have shown up for this before casting for shock value became the priority. We have had multiple films similar to this that sidestepped using known monsters. What was the reason? The idea came about because of her show, but any actress could’ve pulled that off. It was irresponsible to attempt to give this woman an even bigger platform . It was also the ultimate sign that no one was serious about this project.
Have We Tried Trying?
While making chaotic choices is one way to be memorable, is it worth it? In theory, someone(s) spent a lot of time and energy writing these stories. Wouldn’t actual storytellers prefer people to compliment their work instead? Celebrating their imagination, uniqueness, and skill instead of yelling about controversy and shock value. This isn’t a censorship thing. I’m used to being unimpressed with movies and asking, “What was the reason?” As a writer, I also know that there are ways to elicit responses from people without traumatizing them. We are literally tasked with putting characters and situations on the page that make people think and feel. Which is why going through the process of getting an idea greenlit and then leaning into something ghoulish like animal cruelty is baffling. Instead of casting a known Twitter bigot, you could just write a character based on assholes of that ilk.
Whenever I see films coming out that seem more interested in courting controversy than trying to find their audiences, I pause. I cannot help but wonder who really decided this. Clearly, someone didn’t believe in the script and felt that upsetting people for the wrong reasons was the move. That outdated idea that any press is good press snuffed out whatever spark initially got people on board for the film. It is sad that someone(s) didn’t believe in the power of the written word. They doubted the effectiveness of storytelling and decided to go big in the wrong ways. Instead of stepping it up in the script department and figuring out if the proposed stunt is a band-aid for something missing on the page, they decided to go nuclear. They shocked us in the worst of ways, and now we are stuck on impact rather than intention.
How Did We Get Here?
I’m not trying to sound like a boomer, but the rise of social media has made this worse over the years. Studios seemingly want controversial content rather than actual art. The pursuit of going viral has replaced the idea of trying to actually do or say something. It’s all about adding AI to movies to spark outrage and make it trend. The worst people you know are getting cast in movies, so they can cry witch hunt when accountability enters the chat. Shocking the people for the wrong reasons seems to sadly be at main goal too often.
How did we get here? I’m seriously asking. I mean, we know capitalism and people who don’t value art buying studios are a huge part of it. However, I feel like there is a missing piece of this puzzle. Maybe it’s just collective brain rot, and I want it to be more than that because I know the power of a good script. Hell, I know the power of a mid script in the hands of the right person. I want to believe in writers even if their vision is in the shadows of a circus.
Is The Shock Value Worth It?
What do I know, though? I’m just a girl, sitting in front of a computer, asking the industry to believe in writers again. Back scripts that actually say something instead of figuring out how get them canceled. Make movies that spark conversation for legitimate reasons instead of incredibly head-scratching decisions that pull focus. Some of us deserve smart movies that challenge us for the right reasons. That’s why we flock to the original ideas, live for international films, and look to indie filmmakers. We crave disrupters who manage to break the cycle of crap we constantly get spoon-fed.
That’s what inspires me to keep beating my head against the wall. It’s what gives me hope that I’ll get to make things one day. Maybe I’m naive, but I want to at least try because I love writing. I don’t want to just cast a real bigot and call it a day. Not when I can write characters based on bigots and hopefully prompt actual conversation. I want my people discussing my dialogue and metaphors, instead of animal cruelty that makes people sick. In a perfect world the system would allow more room for that. We deserve scripts that can stand on their own without shock value leading TikTok to talk.


