Won’t Somebody Think Of The Poor Supernatural Monsters?

 If you needed more proof that the 'Guardian' can cram virtue-signalling into any subject, here's Hallowe'en: 

There is something sadomasochistic about being a horror fan with a disability. For as long as I can remember, I have been drawn to the intoxicating cycle of dread-terror-release that a genuinely frightening horror film can bring – the simultaneous feeling of “I hate this and want it to end” and “This adrenaline rush is making me feel fully alive.” But I have also come to expect certain tropes that I know will make me feel a different kind of dread, which other people in the cinema may not necessarily be attuned to.

Of course not Kathryn, you're special aren't you? 

Guillermo del Toro’s handsome adaptation of Frankenstein, which received a 15-minute standing ovation in Venice this August, powerfully makes the case that we ought not to be afraid of difference. However, given that the story is widely regarded as an allegory for disability, it is disappointing that the film stars only able-bodied performers and that a creature repeatedly referred to as “deformed” is portrayed by Jacob Elordi.

Well, I'm pretty sure Equity doesn't have many actors on its books that are made up of spare parts, so Del Toro didn't really have much choice, did he? 

While the creature is shown to be gentle despite his “obscene” appearance, the audience is heavy-handedly invited to conclude that “the real monster” is his creator, Victor Frankenstein (in case you hadn’t understood the book).

Jeez, spoilers, Kathryn, there might still be one or two people reading the 'Guardian' that haven't read the book. 

Though come to think of it there's probably not more than one or two people reading the 'Guardian' anyway these days, since the begging adverts are getting larger and more obtrusive every week... 

Unfortunately the film then drives home the point about Victor’s moral degradation by making him increasingly disabled – in a departure from the original novel, he is given a prosthetic leg, facial scarring and amputated fingers.

Once again, SPOILERS!  

The portrayal of disability in film generally, especially horror, is famously problematic.

To whom?  

Over the years, progress has been slow but incremental. Film-makers are more cautious about making antagonists explicitly disabled – the BFI has refused funding for films that feature facially scarred villains – but the prejudice presents itself in subtler ways. A number of recent horror films centre around someone who “doesn’t look quite right”, featuring some variation of exaggerated facial features and ungainly proportions.

Because it's ingrained in the human psyche, like a fear of spiders and snakes. 

In Yorgos Lanthimos’s remarkable Poor Things, Willem Dafoe’s prosthetics-assisted “deformed … scary face” (as it is described in the screenplay) and Emma Stone’s character’s intellectual disability are not a sign of moral depravity but are nevertheless presented as “creepy and uncanny”. The saddest thing is that these are some of my favourite films. I have no wish to publicly criticise them, but feeling excluded from them is particularly hurtful.

She says, publically criticising them. We aren't told just what Kathryn's disability actually is, but I'm going with 'being a 'Guardian' columnist or 'mentally retarded'...but I repeat myself.