I think that the film Peeping Tom is a horror film that of the typical conventions of the horror narrative. One piece of the narrative that stuck out to me was the way that the villain, Mark Lewis, is portrayed. Most horror and serial killer films have a tendency to depict the killer as some mysterious figure, who only shows up when it is time for him or her to commit a heinous act of murder. The main protagonist in a horror film is usually the person that will eventually defeat the murderer, who is usually the main antagonist. In Peeping Tom, however, Mark Lewis, the murderer, is the main focus of the story, as opposed to his victims. This gives a rare introspective into what the killer thinks and feels in regards to his killing ways. It lets the audience get to know the character on a deeper level, to the point where the audience begins to empathize with the killer.
The film allows the killer, Mark Lewis, to explain his motives and reasons for doing what he does. The film makes a powerful statement that many horror films stray away from. Peeping Tom lets its’ audience know that not every killer is born the way they are. Many have experienced some sort of psychological trauma that led them towards their actions. The cinematography adds to the perspective of the killer. Most of the film is from a point of view perspective from Mark Lewis’s camera. We see what he sees, and in some way, we become part of his kill. All of these elements lead towards Mark being considered the “hero” of the story for a profound amount of time. Of course, until he attempts to murder his love interest, Helen.
In his regular interactions with people, Mark does not come off as a killer or psychopath. Mark is timid and quit, but kind. He hides is psychotic tendencies quite well, and presents himself as the last person you would expect to do such a thing. Which is actually a common characteristic among accomplished serial killers. I guess that explains how they get away with it long enough to become serial killers. It even gets to a point where I personally forgot that he was a killer, during his interactions with Helen.
In the 1960’s, it was still controversial to present a killer as the protagonist of a film, which, I think, is what led to this film being so universally panned by critics. It was ahead of its’ time in the level of depth it created within a main antagonist who normally would have no such emphasis placed on back-story. It is also what makes me enjoy the film so much. I love learning more about why characters with evil motives decided to choose their path. It creates an interest and an investment in the character that otherwise would not have existed. Peeping Tom leaves me thinking about what it was like growing up for poor Mark Lewis, and at what point did he snap.
I remember also noticing how interesting it was that the protagonist of Peeping Tom was the main focus of the film. I believe it was appropriate because Mark is such a in-depth character, and it provides the only way for the audience to get inside his mind and truly understand his motives. This unique focus and point of view also provided dramatic irony for the film because the audience knew everything about Mark’s motives, while the rest of the characters were oblivious.
I think you make some great points about how most other horror films depict the killer as being born the way that they are in the film. With Mark, it is the actions that his dad exposed him to when he was a kid. Mark does not seem like your “average” serial killer when he interacts with Helen during the film and I agree that it is a major reason why I was so intrigued by the film, even though I am not normally into horror films. The character progression of Mark is very intriguing and makes you almost root for him to become a good guy and not murder anyone else.
Peeping Tom is a film that was ahead of it’s time in the fact that the audience feels emotion and sorrow for Mark, even though he is the killer in the film. The director made sure to exploit this and kept the audience intrigued and engaged throughout the entirety of the film. My only question is: Why did Mark have to kill himself? Why could he have not just stayed alive and been with Helen?
I had a very similar reaction to the film. It was really interesting to see the “villain” as the protagonist in the film. It’s not something that we see in the modern horror film, but in my opinion is something that brings an element of uniqueness to the film. It would be really interesting to see the modern horror films like “Saw” or “Paranormal Activity” from the point of view of the villain instead of the victims. The only problem that I see with that though is that it could change the film to more of a drama instead of a horror film. I alse really liked how you brought up how the villian came to be. In most horror films we assume that the villiain was just born that way, but in this, we learned that it was the product of his father. It was how Mark was brought up, and all he wanted to do was continue his father’s legacy, and ended up paying for it with his life.
I agree that this film is way ahead of its time. I feel the critics didn’t really know how to handle this film and their lack of skills to break down this film and look deeper doomed it when it hit the box office. I’m with Aeddie on why Mark killed himself, I really feel like the film should have let mark live and added a cliff hanger to add to the horror film.
I agree that making Mark’s character the protagonist in the film was revolutionary but also controversial. And I do agree that this distinction makes the viewers sympathize with Mark, but I don’t necessarily agree with the extent to which you argue viewers might take that sympathy. Yes, Mark is a somewhat normal guy and not necessarily the guy you would first assume to be a horrific psychopath serial killer, but that is in fact what he is and we know it throughout the entirety of the film. So I, personally didn’t sympathize with him a whole lot. Except about his upbringing, but dude had other choices.
I agree in sense that we see Mark as the protagonist and a killer at the same time. It was weird to see that he actually acts normal in public, but inside, he a deep motive to film the reactions of women right before they are about to die. I also found it interesting to see a horror film from the killer’s point of view because we don’t see this in modern day horror films.
I had not thought about how it is uncommon for horror movies to portray the protagonist as the murderer as well. I suppose this was why I came away from it thinking it was unlike any other horror film I had ever seen. I also touched on the fact that his public demeanor was entirely different than in public. Exploring the nurture he underwent during his childhood reveals a lot about how he turned out to be as an adult. His obsession with film and fear stemmed from the way he was raised by his scientist father. This incorporates the genre of psychological thriller into the story.
A lot of interesting points made in here. Some of the other comments touched on interesting topics as well. One thing I found particularly insightful is what you said about this film showing it’s audience that not all killers are born a certain way. I had not thought about this film being a kind of defense for murderers, but that does make the story much more complex, and it explains why Mark had so much depth as a character. Do you think that the filmmaker wanted people to know that this was a kind of defense for murderers, or do you think he intended to hide that motive?
I had never really thought about how unique this films portrayal of a serial killer is until this post. You are completely right that based off of the horror genre, a killer more or less shows up just to kill then disappears from the screen until he kills again. However in Peeping Tom the killer is the entire story and it really does give a unique view into his mind and choices. By the end of the movie, some may actually feel for him because of the fact that he can’t get the shot that he wants, and is literally prepared to die for it. I really enjoyed your post and it inspired a lot of thinking.
You bring up an interesting point in the last paragraph when you talk about why this movie was not accepted well throughout society. I think that is completely true. While watching this movie I found myself to feel bad for Mark and to emphasize with him. I think this idea of connecting with the killer was a scary thought for society. In most horror films you are supposed to hate the killer and want justice to prevail. But in this movie it almost brings in this new feeling where you kinda like the killer and feel bad for him. I can see why this would be a scary thought for society at the time and why they wouldn’t want this movie to be shown.
Very great post.
I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have truly loved browsing your blog posts.
In any case I will be subscribing on your feed and I hope you write again very soon!
Feel free to visit my website ✅
온라인 카지노 게임
스포츠 토토 일정
토토 라이브 스코어
온라인 카지노 사이트
안전 카지노 사이트
https://www.j9korea.com
e perspective of the killer. Most of the film is from a point of view perspective from Mark Lewis’s camera. We see what he sees, and in some way, we become part of his kill. All of these elements lead towards Mark being considered the “hero” of the story for a profound amou altyazılı film izle