How X and Pearl made slasher movies uncomfortable again
With their revolutionary approach, Ti West and Mia Goth have hacked away the nostalgia and given the genre a much-needed makeover
Film Features Slasher
When it comes to horror there’s a certain obsession with revisiting the stylistic choices of the past, particularly the ’70s and ’80s, when so many of the movies that became foundational entries for horror fans were released into the canon. As much as the genre is constantly pushing forward, it also reaches back, with neon lights, synth scores, rock ballads, and John Hughes-inspired characters—and the success of Stranger Things, It (2017), and Grady Hendrix’s novel My Best Friend’s Exorcism suggests they speak to something viewers crave.
But using the past to subvert familiarity and create discomfort feels revolutionary in 2022, and revolution is exactly what filmmakers Ti West and Mia Goth have achieved with X and Pearl, companion films released six months apart by studio of the moment A24. While both films use slasher conventions to examine the moral history of America and remind audiences of truths they have forgotten, they also manage to provide a long-overdue update for the slasher genre.
Of course, slashers have always dealt with morality. From Alfred Hitchcock’s groundbreaking Psycho (1960) to the ’80s heyday that followed in the wake of Bob Clark’s Black Christmas (1974) and John Carpenter’s Halloween (1978), the subgenre has always taken a hard (if largely hypocritical) moral stance where perversion and sexuality invite mortal punishment.
Breaking all the rules
Whether intentional or not, the rules to surviving a slasher movie, outlined in Wes Craven’s Scream (1996), speak to thinly veiled racist and misogynistic values of Reagan-era politics and Satanic Panic fear-mongering ginned up by parents’ groups. West successfully evoked this familiar sensation with his slasher-adjacent breakthrough The House Of The Devil (2009). But X, set in 1978, isn’t interested in telling us what we already know or depicting a reality as seen through a former administration.
While X’s location and dusty aesthetic evoked immediate comparisons to Tobe Hooper’s The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), the film is more concerned with invitation than transgression. West reimagines morally bankrupt porn stars, sleazy producers, and a generally filthy and cynical ’70s landscape, instead introducing audiences to a group of ambitious young filmmakers who just happen to make porn.
It’s a pro-sex take, but also a pro-filmmaking one, where Maxine (Mia Goth), Wayne (Martin Henderson), Bobby-Lynne (Brittany Snow), Jackson (Scott Mescudi), RJ (Owen Campbell) and Lorraine (Jenna Ortega) not only believe in what they’re doing but see what they do as a service, an exhibition, and a showcase of their youth. But when their hosts at the farmhouse where they’re filming envy and eventually resent that youth, the results are bloody—though also unexpectedly empathetic. West humanizes both the victims and killers in a way that highlights each individual’s longing to be seen. It’s a film honoring the forgotten and overlooked—whether they’re porn stars, the elderly, or even crew members on film sets.
What’s old is new
Metatextually, Pearl (Mia Goth) and Howard (Stephen Ure) are a physical manifestation of the notion of making the old new again. This idea has guided much of West’s filmography, including in his haunted hotel film, The Innkeepers (2011), his found-footage retelling of the Jonestown massacre in The Sacrament (2013), and the black-comedy western, In A Valley Of Violence (2016).
For West, age masks more interesting realities that challenge our pop culture-influenced ideas about past decades, the people who occupied them, and the values and perceptions that shaped their choices. Maxine stirs something in Pearl—not simply lust, but the reminder of being on the cusp of something, of a sense of hope for the unlimited possibilities life has to offer. The prequel to X, co-written by Goth, adds further context to Pearl’s desires, literally making the old new again, a point further driven home by the film’s release just a few months later, which makes them (and their forthcoming third installment) feel even more connected and cohesive.
Pearl deals with the idea of masks more directly. The film, which takes place in 1918, amid the Spanish flu and first World War, offers up an aesthetic of idealized Americana—friendly, hardworking farm people, war heroes, Douglas Sirk-inspired technicolor, and the musical whimsy of The Wizard Of Oz (1939). But just like Pearl’s innocent demeanor, this carefully curated pop culture backdrop begins to sour as the film progresses.
Douglas Sirk never went there
Cruelty, poverty, and fear of a pandemic strip away America’s idyllic possibilities; as an audience, we’re made aware of certain realities that Sirk’s films would never depict on screen—a pandemic in which masks obscure faces, the hopelessness of women relegated to domesticity, and a maddening isolation offset only by dreams of sex and success (“becoming a star”). Where X highlighted the hidden beauties of the ’70s, Pearl holds a microscope up to the ugliness of the 1910s, reminding viewers that a century venerated for its cultural growth too frequently achieved progress through blood, violence, and sickness.
X and Pearl serve as a game of tug of war between what audiences expect from horror movies set in the past, both satisfying and challenging their desire to see something new. These are films that will certainly remind you of others, yet using those references and influences purposely undermines nostalgia instead of simply wrapping us in its embrace.
With MaxXxine, the recently announced third film in West and Goth’s collaboration, the filmmakers will presumably take the opportunity to break conventions associated with the ’80s and further challenge our collective memories of the past, including the parts we’ve chosen to overlook for the sake of our own comfort. Ti West and Mia Goth have not only made slashers uncomfortable again, but have modernized slasher franchises by making each entry unique—not simply cobbling together entries from the carcasses of their forebears, but sorting through the viscera of filmmaking and history itself for something that cuts significantly deeper.
56 Comments
By all means, check out https://pearlspeepshow.comNSFW
I really do not understand the love for X. I thought it was disappointing and far from an “update” to the slasher genre, or horror at all.But as with many things I’m open to watching it again. I wish someone could give me, like, a sentence, distilling their satisfaction so that I might approach it differently.Mostly I’m sad that Ti West isn’t delivering for me lately.
“But as with many things I’m open to watching it again. I wish someone could give me, like, a sentence, distilling their satisfaction so that I might approach it differently.
OK, I’ll give it a shot: people have different taste.
Fuck, that was easy.
AV seems to really be pumping it up. It was ok, felt a little like a 70s movie. Nothing new though, I forgot about it quickly. Maybe younger viewers are seeing some things for the first time.
I liked X a lot more than I thought I would – then again, I don’t really like slashers much, so take that for what it’s worth. It was fun, stylish, and creepy, and there was clearly a lot of thought and care put into it.
I mean that’s why you dug it, it ain’t a slasher.
Yeah. I don’t get it either. The movie was fine but certainly not ground breaking. I feel like I’m missing something.
you’re commenting this under an entire article about why one might like X
I don’t think X is revolutionary in any way, however, I get the hype it got. I just watched it for the first time a few days ago and noticed I kept thinking about the movie for about 3-4 days after. Not something that I do when it comes to slashers.
I think the biggest thing this movie has going for it is the acting, and how both villains and heroes are sympathetic. None of the main characters did anything to “deserve” their deaths. Compare that to, say, a friday the 13th movie where you can’t wait for Jason to kill the camp counselors (mainly because most of them are portrayed as annoying trash). In X, the characters were actually pretty nice and sweet to the old people at best, and just neutral towards them, at worst.
Mia Goth was pretty mesmerizing in both roles and now I can’t wait to go see Pearl.
I thought the first half was great (especially the little “twist” midway, and Jenna Ortega, who was standout IMHO). The second half wasn’t as inventive, especially one particular death which was right out of Making a Slasher 101.
Still, looking forward to Pearl ‘cause even with it’s flaws “X” was still better than most and Mia Goth has great screen presence.
I just watched X again tonight because a friend wanted to see it. I took them to see Pearl the other night, which they liked. I didn’t care much for X the first time, but after seeing Pearl, I genuinely enjoyed X a lot more. It actually convinced me to give House of the Devil another show, since I fucking hated it the first time around.
To your request, here’s why I like X so much (and I apologize that this is longer than a sentence). These are of course my opinions – I completely understand someone disagreeing!
First, I never went in expecting a slasher. I expected nothing and knew nothing, which may have helped.It’s carefully shot with an aesthetic that West has curated over many years.I found its exploration of the connections between pornography and horror very interesting without becoming too lurid.It presented a fairly unique spin on the villains we see in horror films. I felt levels of disgust and empathy for both the husband and wife that surprised me.I interpreted the real horror of the film to be aging. We see how the fear of aging or being forgotten can be all-consuming. In my mind, it’s an existential crisis that Pearl and Maxine face.In my mind, it was very well-acted, well edited, and had great cinematography.I loved the ratcheting tension throughout X. This is West’s signature and I think X is the best example of his careful construction of dramatic tension.While the older couple’s love scene was maybe played for a gross-out gag, I found there to be real pathos being elicited if you were open to it.I thought the SFX were amazing and very convincing.While the movie had a few indulgent moments like Pearl’s dance in the headlamps, I found those moments to be interesting. (And surprisingly relevant as the plot unfurled).I found X genuinely funny and well-written.I believe that whether one enjoyed or disliked X, there’s very few films just like it. I appreciate being given something new at the very least.I loved West shifting between genres and tropes. I felt like a scene could drift from an exploitation piece to character drama and back within moments.I could go on and on. You can call me a fanboy and you’d probably be right, but I went in with zero expectations and loved every minute of X.
The reason there’s always yet another horror film that “reinvest” or “reinvigorates” the genre is because the genre sucks, has almost always sucked, and is full of no-talent hacks reproducing the same tired movies as cinematic universed surrounding a doll or a house or god knows what else. It’s boring. Grow up and watch some drama.
Grow up and watch whatever the fuck you want bro. Grow up and stop worrying about what other people are watching.
Shame on me. I had always known Mia Goth only in relation to Shia. But after seeing Pearl, the comparisons to Shelly Duvall make sense. She has a wonderfully quirky and magnetic presence on film. Wouldn’t it be cool if she could snag an Oscar nomination for this? I’d love to see a performance like this steal some thunder from the usual, esteemed and Oscar-ready suspects.
Love the Duvall comparison.
I loved X and at 1st I was thinking it wasn’t gonna live up to the hype and then it finished strong. The whole Texas Chainsaw background of it helped alot.Will watch Pearl when I get a chance. I’ve said it before but I also loved House of the dead as it felt like a fucked up 70’s movie.
I thought House of the Devil felt like an indie rock 80s tribute band music video with a couple of wildly stupid “horror” scenes tossed in to qualify it as a genre flick.Diffrent Strokes. I fucking HATE HotD. I think it’s his weakest film by far, including his dumb shorts in V/H/S and ABCs of Death.
I’m not really a fan of House of the Dead, either, but I do at least like the last twenty minutes or so. His V/H/S sequence has no redeeming value.
Yeah both HOTD and X have done nothing for me, dude’s a critics’ filmmaker not a public’s filmmaker y’know? Like he doesn’t do films to watch but films that you say you watched. Which is aight I guess.
HOTD kills me because people who talk it up always mention the tension. That there’s a steady undercurrent of dread. And… No there’s fucking not. The problem is that we know from the title and the genre listing that it’s a horror film. Without that meta knowledge, you have an hour of a girl house-sitting, one quick murder, then however much is left of more house-sitting, then BAM Spirit Halloween Satanists and some ketchup. It’s such a fucking NOTHINGBURGER of a movie! I once read someone liken it to Hitchcock tension, where you watch a character set a bomb on a bus and then you dread waiting for the bomb to explode. Okay, but HOTD is like putting the bomb on the bus and the fucking thing doesn’t go off for most of the movie! It’s all tone but the tone is BORING.Gawd I hate it.
Good for you.
Is it?
I loved X. For me, it totally nailed the 1970s porn vibe and the 1970s/1980s slasher vibe. It was decently acted, the main characters (victims) were fleshed out enough, so you weren’t thinking now it’s the floozy’s time to die.What really put it over the edge for me what Pearl and her husband’s relationships. It felt real, and surprisingly touching when they… they, you know. Then when Pearl goes batshit (at least to us) that brings us up another level of dread.X was a smart, small film. It was not pretending to be anything but what it actually was. I’m looking forward to Pearl.
I really like how Pearl’s husband is afraid that sex will kill him (which is an actual fear among older men with heart conditions), but dragging not-quite-dead bodies around is what actually does the trick.
i’m kind of obsessed with the time period of Pearl and the look. I think Mia Goth in the homesteader look is awesome. I want to see more of that, esp in technicolor.
Can you watch Pearl without having seen X?
Yes it is possible to do that, nobody will force you to watch one before the other
It’s physically possible, but violates multiple legal statutes.
For the most part, yes. Though I also felt like knowing the character from X maybe filled in some of Pearl’s plot a bit more.
I’m not sure that X expects us to take the protagonists at face value – the movie isn’t anti-porn, but it’s very clear that characters are struggling at the lower rungs of adult entertainment (stripping at an oil refinery, shooting low-budget porn). When they express ambition (to make an artful porn movie, to be famous, to make money), it’s a fantasy completely at odds with the reality of the situation – the director’s camerawork is ugly, the sexual pleasure is fake, and everyone’s eating bologna sandwiches in a creepy cabin after work. Elderly Pearl and her husband are trapped in the same culture of destitution and sexual shame, but they express it through violence. And Maxine isn’t an idealist – when she has the chance to kill Pearl and leave, she doesn’t look back. But the real kicker is that when Pearl and her husband finally fuck, the audience is supposed to be squicked out, just like Maxine. The movie takes care with its characters, but we aren’t really supposed to empathize with them. That’s the real danger or excitement in horror movies – the uncertainty about what emotion you’re supposed to feel when somebody gets shot or stabbed or decapitated. Scream didn’t invent the rules of a horror movie, but it helped cement a very limited perspective on 70s and 80s horror movies. They weren’t moral parables of the Reagan administration – conservatives criticized their violence at least as intensely as feminists criticized their misogyny. If anything, they’re nihilistic – they don’t generally ask the audience to relate to the killer (though the worst Nightmare on Elm Street movies kind of do), but they also don’t ask the audience to mourn the dead. They represent a brutal fantasy of survival that’s at odds with most Americans’ lived experience. I think that’s what I enjoy about X – such solid craft telling a nasty story in a nasty way.
100% agree. I felt like Pearl’s sex scene in X was played for horror, not for sentiment or empathy. It made me uncomfortable because it felt weirdly judgmental.
I agree. Having the elderly characters played by younger actors in grotesque makeup – and having them die from a heart attack and a broken hip – is ageist and mean as hell, and that’s where the weird energy comes from. Personally, I’ve never bought the idea that horror is supposed to be “cathartic,” in a generic sense – I think a big part of the genre is how it plays off our sense of empathy. Slasher movies provide a space where the audience witnesses terrible things without feeling empathy.
I definitely agree with you about the “grotesque makeup” part. The ugliness of the older characters was played up to create more of a horror/disgust element. I could argue that that was done to further emphasize the fear around aging, but I don’t know how well supported that would be. However, I fully believe that Howard and Pearl dying in such cliche old-person ways was definitely intended to be ironic. They are able to commit most of the murders because they are elderly and are underestimated as a result. The young, able-bodied protagonists (maybe with the exception of Wayne) could have defended themselves and undoubtedly killed the older antogonists if they had seen what was coming. Howard and Pearl were able to appeal to the empathy of the filmmaking group without any effort on their parts simply because they were old. Which, in my opinion, makes it ironic that they died in the way they did. They committed so many violent acts in such a short amount of time (and with incredible strength at that) and it almost made me as a viewer forget that they were elderly. But at the end of the day, all the envy and hatred in the world couldn’t save them from the fact that they were simply more fragile, unfair as that may be.
“a brutal fantasy of survival that’s at odds with most Americans’ lived experience”Sounds like the Reagan years to me.
the rules to surviving a slasher movie, outlined in Wes Craven’s Scream (1996), speak to thinly veiled racist and misogynistic values of Reagan-era politics and Satanic Panic fear-mongering ginned up by parents’ groupsThose rules were “you can never have sex, you can never drink or do drugs, and never (ever, under any circumstances) say “I’ll be right back””. What does that have to do with racism or the Satanic Panic? And it were misogynistic shouldn’t there be a distinction between men & women in the sexual rules?
My view is that Randy wasn’t giving an accurate depiction of the classic slashers. Halloween’s final girl is relatively virginal, which just meant she was less distracted, but Michael Myers doesn’t actually need any reason to kill anyone. Friday the 13th had a killer explicitly motivated such perceived sins, but the Final Girl survives despite having an affair with her boss and participating in strip poker over beer.
It’s also a bit of a reach to say that 80s slashers aligned with the values of conservative parents’ groups – Christian organizations hated those movies. Also, slight quibble – it really seems like Michael Myers kills his sister and two of the babysitters because he saw them naked (though he also tries to kill Laurie and the two children just because). The first few Friday the 13th movies are more like revenge movies, although the trope of people getting murdered after sex is unmistakable.
Jess from Black Christmas, one of the earliest final girls, was unapologetically devoted to finishing her education and planned on aborting an unplanned pregnancy. The final girl in the original Friday the 13th smoked pot and played strip monopoly. The tropes weren’t universal and took a while to establish.
Black Christmas doesn’t fit the mold of a slasher for a number of reasons, and one of them is that the ending isn’t that triumphant for the “final girl”, so one could still perceive her as being punished.
I liked X a lot. But give me a fucking break. Douglas fucking Sirk??? Really??? You’re gonna invoke THAT name in relation to Ti West? GTFO. You are ridiculous. This is a good article. Well written for the most part. Decently researched. But I can’t take it seriously.Douglas Sirk. Seriously? Jesus Christ, my dude…
Douglas Sirk was regarded during his career as a quality genre specialist with a distinct eye who made movies that were appropriately scaled to his resources and ambitions, and that could be safely siloed off into that ol’ reliable of a category: really good, for a chick flick. It wasn’t until well after he died that he retroactively (and I’d say, appropriately) joined the ranks of the autors. With the caveat that all judgments are provisional until the Last Judgment, I don’t quite see how West is wildly off-base in comparison. Indeed, I thought it was an insightful observation myself, but y’know, different strokes I guess.
I thought it was a hilariously pretentious observation. *Maybe* Pearl reaches the heights of a Sirk but the majority of West’s work is AT BEST visually compelling but largely dull. Either because of his glacial pacing or because of the inevitability of the plot. House of the Devil? A slog. Innkeepers? Better but still very slow and ultimately pretty empty. The Sacrament? Excellently made but completely predictable and again pretty empty. X is the first thing he’s done that I wholeheartedly like and can endorse. Sirk had things to say. His stories had forward momentum. That’s not West. The fact that they were both visualists working with a tight budget is so slight a comparison. Lucky McKee has just as much right to claim the comparison but you don’t see me making it. Hell, the majority of the A24 roster deserves the comparison as much or more than West.
And of course the frustration when film critics began to embrace Sirk is that they decided that his movies were *all* meant to be ironic statements about America, and such. That none of the emotion, the stuff that you know made those silly women in the audience cry, was actually meant to even slightly be taken at face value, etc. Which is just such a pretentious and typical attitude.
But I also felt bringing him into this review was… pretentious. It seems the main reason is because Pearl uses similarly lurid colours to Sirk’s (colour) melodramas? I mean, so did Argento, but I don’t think he was thinking of Sirk when he did Suspiria.
True. If anything Argento was probably thinking of Mario Bava.
For the last fucking time X ain’t a slasher film. It’s a pornographic cum musical cum horror flick yeah but it’s not a slasher film. A slasher film implies that the majority of the deaths should involve some form of slashing, not gun shots and car accidents. Christ is John Wick a slasher film? Is Commando a slasher film? Look I understand why people dig this piece of shit I do. It’s a love letter to cinema, it’s a macabre take on the song “Ripples” by Genesis in which the major villain of the peace (Pearl) is annoyed at the youthfulness she fails to possess now and how the youth of the 70s are pissing away their salad days by making such explicit filth in Pearl’s back garden. I understand that I do, I just wish that motherfuckers would stop trying to tell me that a spade is a trebuchet when a spade is quite clearly a spade.Like this is a character that had dreams, that had aspirations, that had thoughts of making it whatever it is. But due to having a millstone of a dad, like Tracy Chapman in her song “Fast Car” Pearl never could or would afford to be anything and I understand. But again I’m not describing a slasher film.I’ve read up on Wikipedia the plot for Pearl and that seems more like a proper slasher film and a character study on Pearl as well. Like I understand why critics adore it because it has a lot to say but again this was soured on me due to people like you trying to call a film about the ruination of youth and an older woman wanting to feel loved, wanting to be loved, wanting to be wanted as something it never was. Not really. A spade is a spade my man, it well and truly is.
Nobody in the “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” (save Franklin, and only then under a somewhat expansive, chainsaw-inclusive definition of “slash”) is killed with a bladed weapon. Mostly, Leatherface just bashes at ‘em with whatever happens to be lying around. Given that “X” is clearly influenced by “Massacre,” it hardly seemed that out of place when Pearl, another deranged, socially-isolated psychopath with questionable coping strategies, resorts to the same MO. While your steadfast commitment to slasher literalism is kinda touching, and dutifully recognizing the enormous futility of arguing about a movie, I’m not sure that I agree one-hundred percent with your police work there, Klep.
Ok I’ll bite, nobody gets bashed in X either dude. If we take away the slashing/bashing we have one Death By Ran Over, 2 Shootings, A Crocodile Attack and A Heart Attack. Going by your police work, how does one get bashed by a shotgun bullet to the chest? How does one get bashed by a heart attack? Brudda how does someone get bashed by getting eaten?Again X doesn’t count as a slasher if over half of the deaths don’t involve a bashing/slashing.
The only ones we see Michael kill with a knife in the original Halloween is his sister at the beginning and Bob. Annie and Lynda are both strangled, we don’t see how the truck driver was killed, sure, he tries to kill Laurie with a knife, but is unsuccessful, he’s strangling her when Dr. Loomis shows up. That’s the movie that started the slasher craze (and some mistakenly call the first slasher movie). I think you’re being too literal, plenty of slasher movies have little to no slashing, Jason is famous for his inventive kills, plenty not actually involving blades.
And also how one of the first slashers Black Christmas’ most famous image is a suffocation scene. But it’s the mood of it all I guess, like Halloween has the vibe of a slasher film y’know? Also again also Michael Myers doesn’t pick up a gun and go full Dirty Harry on some sumbitches.X doesn’t have the vibe of a slasher film, I don’t know how to explain it but if it was described as a Giallo with the gore and the nudity and whatnot then that would make more sense even if it’s not really Giallo-ey. Like a Giallo without the mystery y’know?I think it’s because again the first hour of the film or so is a porno until the musical interlude wherein Ti West pops up and has his avatar practically turn to the camera and say “HEY AUDIENCE DO YOU KNOW HOW PSYCHO BEGINS AS A CRIME FILM AND THEN HALFWAY THROUGH SOMEONE TAKES A SHOWER AND GETS BRUTALLY MURDERED AFTERWARDS SO THAT YOU THE AUDIENCE KNOW THAT IT’S NOW A HORROR FILM WELL NOW I’M GOING TO TAKE A SHOWER SO HERE COMES THE MURDER PART OF THE FILM”. Which is surprisingly unsubtle from someone who’s entire schtick is be vaguely horrifying.Like X doesn’t have the same vibe as a Halloween or an April Fool’s Day or a Happy Birthday To Me or a My Bloody Valentine or a The Burning or a Sleepaway Camp or a Bachelor Party’s Massacre or a Slumber Party Massacre 2 or a Terrifier or a Child’s Play or a Don’t Go Into The Woods or an Amsterdammed or a Scream or a Final Exam y’know? It didn’t have that vibe and I understand that this is such a weird argument to have trying to argue what genre a film has.I guess it boils down to how “Ripples” by Genesis isn’t a GWAR song but it’s still a fantastic song.
That’s actually a good point about the gun thing, and I do get what you’re saying about vibe, but I guess for me it did achieve that kind of 70’s slasher vibe.
I haven’t seen it yet as still no news about an Australian release date so I don’t know anything about the story but does Barbarian also fall under this description?
but does Barbarian also fall under this description?
in a different way, especially as its humor is much more explicit, but I’d say yes. Hard to go into details as it spoils a fair bit of the plot.
So nobody here has seen [Pearl] yet, is the primary takeaway I’m picking up on — def not the Fck Yeah! Mia Goth she earnestly deserves, imho
I know absolutely nothing about this franchise/Cinematic Universe, but am I supposed to be seeing Girl with a Pearl Earring in the header image? Is that an homage or something? It doesn’t appear to correlate with the names given.
You want to talk about uncomfortable? These two movies have nothing on Speak No Evil.
When I saw the headline that made slasher movies “uncomfortable again” I was hoping for something that made killing people a little less aspirational. What would it look like if every murder was replaced by a rape? A lesser crime but we wouldn’t watch.