Tori Byrne Portfolio

March 21, 2025 8:50 PM

In 2022, emerging director Ti West released his second pre-quell film “Pearl,” in his modern take on the ‘70s horror slasher genre. A day before the film was released in American theaters, New York Times cultural critic and journalist A.O. Scott published a short critique on the movie’s uniqueness and playful pastiche take of the ‘70s horror slasher. 

At first glance, Scott fills the page with colorful language such as gaudy, portentous, and simpers, challenging the audience’s critical thinking skills and cultural capital. In Scott’s book, Better Living Through Criticism, he defends the ideology behind critiques to enact the public’s critical thinking ability and aims to dismantle the anti-intellectualism movement in our country, as it is inherently becoming “our civic religion.” We, as knowledge workers, can distinguish critics such as Scott from social media trolls and opinion heads because of the language used and the ability to transcend anything from face value. 

Scott breaks down the review with context at the beginning and weaves his way into the meat and potatoes of the narrative. This depiction of storytelling guides the reader through Scott’s thought process and displays the story’s simplicity at face value. Pearl is a first-generation American living on a farm with her “dictatorial” mother and ill father. She dreams of pursuing a glamorous life in Hollywood and becoming a star. Physically, Pearl fits the stereotypical farm girl aesthetic with pigtails and overalls. We see her deranged psyche when a goose wanders into the barn and looks at her funny and she impales it with a pitchfork. Scott connects Pearl’s character arc to moving up the food chain, “from poultry to human prey,” which is a great metaphor as she lives on a farm. In a sense, the audience is the goose looking at this film, questioning its unique take on a ‘70s slasher, some may even laugh at it for the lack of blood and guts until Ti West stabs us in the neck with a strange and intense fever dream feeling film. Scott touches on West’s informal take on the classic horror genre, “It isn’t especially suspenseful — the identity of the killer is never in doubt, and her victims don’t elicit much sympathy — but it has a strange, hallucinatory intensity.” West appeals to the uneasiness of the soundtrack, color scheme, and suspense with the unknown or direction of the film. Scott’s conclusion is subjective, as everyone perceives fear in different ways; furthermore, the suspense came from how impulsive the character is and the unknown future, which gave me anxiety. This conclusion was unsuccessful for me. 

Pearl is a complex character. We can easily say that without a doubt. However, West draws the audience to view Pearl as a heroine, a peculiar heroine. Pearl is isolated on a farm, being criticized and controlled by her mother, and dealing with social and domestic expectations. As a young woman with dreams, she tries to escape her reality and finds her only way out is to go on a killing spree. The public’s modern fascination with true crime and empathizing with killers has become the new fixed taste. Scott generalizes the consumers of culture to be “like-minded” and regards art as “an ornament.”Although this may be true for the majority of consumable art, projects such as “Pearl” bring a new twist to a classical genre and highlight the complexity of characters to appeal to our emotions. Scott acknowledges the character’s heroine traits and the point that West is trying to convey, “West wants you to see that Pearl, a monster in the making, is also a heroine for the ages. Goth will make you believe it. Or else.” This conclusion was successful, as it dismantles that the killer in films has to be shallow and have no character development. West understands the complexity of characters and the realism behind stressors, not that I condone killing, but to grab an audience’s attention you need a deep character. Scott’s conclusion on the heroine of the character repurposes West’s goal. 

Highlighting a female killer was a refreshing take on the horror genre. In classic 70’s slashers, some common tropes have a woman as the prey, focusing on sexually active teenagers being hunted down, and a masked or disfigured killer. Mia Goth’s performance in the film and the “X” universe totally transcended the genre. Scott compares her performance to A-list celebrities such as Judy Garland and Shelley Duvall, which is the best conclusion he makes. Each are known for their distinct roles, Garland in The Wizard of Oz and Duvall in The Shining (one of my all-time favorite films), yet each have a level of “hallucinatory intensity” and depicts a heroine. Scott attributes the film’s success to Goth’s performance, “It’s also a bit thin and undercooked, but Goth’s performance transcends its limits. She is by turns childlike, seductive and terrifying.”  As a rising star, Goth embodied the striving actress Pearl perfectly, as it felt intimate and real, almost like a real cry to Hollywood to be recognized. 

It is clear that Scott is a successful critic, as he activates the “interest of others” by being brave enough to share his expert interests, “one area where a critic risks something is in the discovery and defense of the new.” Scott has made a career doing what he loves and has distinguished his brand as an art. Scott made accurate and plausible arguments, but they seemed vague. Overall, the review was insightful and resonated with the thoughts I had when watching the film.