RoR: Forum

I think the unspoken truth is that horror movies are not about fear. They are about disgust. Good thrillers evoke suspenseful fear. There is no real suspense in a slasher flick, you know they will all die. The fascination is in seeing how disgusting the death will be, the grusome decapitations, the disembowlings, the look on the person's face as they die.

That is truly sick.

Post 21

Thursday, August 20, 2009 - 5:53pm

Exactly, Ted.

Thursday, August 20, 2009 - 7:45pm

Steve and Ted have made some good points. I sanctioned Steve's post 15 for two reasons: I think in at least some cases his psychoanalysis may be valid, and I think he has given the best summary of what might be the Objectivist case on this thread.

However, I've caught a few problems with Ted's post 20.

Ted cheats by bringing up slashers when we are talking horror. I'd agree readily that slashers are primarily about gore, the genre title is a pretty good clue.

Ted contrasts horror with thrillers, which also are about fear. I had anticipated this in my post 13 when I mentioned that the medium of a horror is supernatural, monstrous, or eerily unfamiliar. This is what I think distinguishes horror from thrillers.

There is a movie out now called The Perfect Getaway. A week ago, a friend of mine described it as a horror and I retorted that it seemed more like an Agatha Christie thriller/mystery (one can only hope...). I said it would be horror if there were a twist that involved a curse, monster, etc. The movie is obviously supposed to inspire fear, and it might even have a slasher element, but the commercials have no suggestion of horror. Notice I mean that slasher is not a subgenre of horror, that a thriller could be one too.

Ted also says that knowing the ending takes all suspense out. This is only true to a degree. You can still find yourself caught up in fear if you know what's around the corner.

My working definition for horror is: an existential movie that provokes fear with supernatural/monstrous elements.

And I'm changing my favorite horror movie to The Exorcist.

Post 23

Thursday, August 20, 2009 - 9:04pm

First, the point of a thriller is not fear per se, but suspense. To say that thrillers and horror movies are about fear is to mention a common property but not an essential one. One might analogously say that romantic comedies and pornography are both about sex. The implied package deal is invalid.

Second, and more importantly, my central point is to say that there is a type of movie that deals in innovative new ways to kill people (think of the arrow through the neck in the original Friday the 13th) and that the evocation of disgust is essential to that sort of movie, whatever you call it. I think your definition, Doug, by the category supernatural/alien does describe a certain category. But is that category horror? Again, I will give the example of Signs, which I think is a most excellent movie. It has aliens and plenty of suspense and fear. But it forgoes disgust. The car accident victim's injuries are not shown. You can be quite sure that the accident itself would have been shown if Signs were a horror movie.

Now consider Alien and the Shining, both of which were excellently done movies. What makes these two movies horror movies is the gushing blood in the elevator, the decaying body of the woman in the shower, the exploding stomach, the disembowled victim. That is just gore and physical revulsion. It is not the alien per se nor the supernatural per se which makes them horror movies. If it were, ET and Ghost would be horror movies. They are not. Your criteria amount to definition by non-essential.

Post 24

Thursday, August 20, 2009 - 11:17pm

Ted,

You may be right to point out that thrillers aren't primarily about fear, but suspense. Could you give me some examples of pure thrillers? May I ask how you would class "And Then There Were None" or the new "The Perfect Getaway" (having only the commercial to go on)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UxFNWyhA2I

Your 3rd paragraph is nonsense. If Alien and Shining did not have those select scenes, yes, they would definitely be horror. If ET ran after kids like Chucky or if the guy in Ghost was a stalker gone poltergeist, yes, horrors they would be. You divorced my distinguishing characteristic from it's genus. That's your second logical fallacy of the day, Ted.

I am tempted to say that signs would be a horror. Though I'll admit it isn't clear cut. Perhaps because it isn't particularly existential. Which is the other genus I'm toying with.

Post 25

Thursday, August 20, 2009 - 11:43pm

"Your 3rd paragraph is nonsense. If Alien and Shining did not have those select scenes, yes, they would definitely be horror. If ET ran after kids like Chucky or if the guy in Ghost was a stalker gone poltergeist, yes, horrors they would be. You divorced my distinguishing characteristic from it's genus. That's your second logical fallacy of the day, Ted"

You can drop the smug and, frankly, silly retorts.

So far as I can tell your are begging the question, defining horror as "horror (genus) in which there are supernatural or alien elements (differentia)." Maybe you could focus on the clarity of your own points, rather than the personal remarks? I am not quite sure, also, how Shining and Alien would still be horror if all such gory elements (not just my examples - you know what examples are, I assume) were removed. Alien would be retitled The Belly Ache, and The Shining would be retitled Severe Writer's Block?

I haven't seen the two movies you asked about, I'll have to check out the youtube clip. I would name North By North West as a thriller. I'll think of some more examples.

Post 26

Friday, August 21, 2009 - 5:51am

Hi Luke,

I avoid horror films generally, but in the late 90�s Walter persuaded me to see Silence of the Lambs. That is definitely partly horror and quite stunning in its two protagonists. I could not resist seeing the sequel Hannibal when it came out for rental. Within my very limited exposure, I would rate Hannibal as the greatest horror film. It is truly horrifying, has an intelligent inescapable evil (partly evil) protagonist, and is very artistic.

Daniel Ust has done some thinking about horror literature in Toward an Esthetics of Horror.

Stephen

(Edited by Stephen Boydstun on 8/21, 8:24am)

Post 27

Friday, August 21, 2009 - 7:36pm

Ted,

I was reading some smugness in your previous responses. After reading them again, I realized that tone wasn't necessarily there, so I will drop that. Although the silliness was right on target, I thought.

I'm looking forward to your thoughts on that trailer. And Then There Were None hasn't been made into a movie as far as I know. It's an Agatha Christie classic that I would rank as a defining thriller. It is also known as Ten Little Indians. I'll have to look into North by Nor West.

More on The Shining, Exorcist, and Alien: Being an upstanding Mormon til my late teens, I saw these movies edited a few times, and unedited only recently. Frightening and dark movies, even without the revulsion.

As for my definition, I said:

My working definition for horror is: an existential movie that provokes fear with supernatural/monstrous elements.

There are three parts to this definition, where perhaps there should only be two. I can't see how you think I'm begging the question unless you are thinking fear is equal to horror. I don't see why you would think that. Besides, I think it is fair to use the desired effect a movie has as a characteristic.

Post 28

Friday, August 21, 2009 - 7:57pm

from Wiki -

There have been several film adaptions of Agatha Christie's novel. The first was adapted for the cinema screen in Ren� Clair's successful 1945 US production. The second cinema adaptation of the book was directed by George Pollock in 1965; Pollock had previously handled the four Miss Marple films starring Margaret Rutherford. This film transferred the setting from a remote island to a mountain retreat in Austria. Another variant of And Then There Were None made in 1974 was the first colour English-language film version of the novel, directed by Peter Collinson from a screenplay by Peter Welbeck. This version was set in the Iranian desert. A version from the USSR, Desyat' negrityat (Десять негритят "Ten Little Negroes") (1987) was written and directed by Stanislav Govorukhin and is the only cinema adaptation to use the novel's original ending. The most recent film, Ten Little Indians, directed by Alan Birkinshaw, was made in 1989 and is set on the African safari.

Post 29

Friday, August 21, 2009 - 8:04pm

Just read "Toward an Esthetics of Horror", the article Stephen linked to in post 26. It's definitely worth a read.

Thanks Stephen!

Thanks also to Robert. I'll have to check those out.

(Edited by Doug Fischer on 8/21, 8:11pm)

Post 30

Friday, August 21, 2009 - 8:17pm

Either the Nightmare on Elm Street Trilogy (3-5) or Behind the Mask the Rise of Leslie Vernon because it summed up everything I liked about those three movies.

Long live Final Girl.

---Landon

Post 31

Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 8:45pm

Doug, And Then There Were None is certainly not horror, it's semi comic, although it would depend on the adaption. Getaway looks like typical soft-porn trash, a date movie meant to excite conflicting emotions of arousal and a need for protection in the girl and a vicarious thrill in the guy. This is the sort of movie that depends on a huge first-weekend turnout with 18-34 y/o men choosing what the couple will watch. I love Jovovich but not enough to sit through that sort of crap.

I still object that your differentia doesn't differentiate. I don't see how ghosts or aliens are essential to making scary movies horror movies. And I have no idea what you mean by existential, if you want to elaborate. I do recommend you see North by North West and 39 Steps (which is available free at hulu.com) ASAP. Two of Hitchcock's best.

Post 32

Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 9:00pm

Usts' very brief essay deals with the Gothic, not with what is nowadays considered horror. Where is his discussion of the shower scene in Psycho and its aesthetic value? Or The Hills Have Eyes and Saw? It's brief because what lays beyond what he mentions is not an open vista but an irredeemable waste. Perhaps in an earlier day, Gothic horror truly was shocking. (I actually kind of almost enjoy Lovecraft - as science fiction.) But indeed it is the shock that is essential, the shock which today has escalated to immagining different ways to kill oneself. If horror were truly based on fear induced by the supernatural, The Others would have been horror. But sorry, no gore, no shock, no horror.

Post 33

Sunday, August 23, 2009 - 1:58am

For what it's worth:

[all emphasis mine]

Wikipedia lists The Others as a horror film

Wikipedia on horror films:
"Horror films are movies that strive to elicit the emotions of fear, horror and terror from viewers. Their plots frequently involve themes of death, the supernatural or mental illness. Many horror movies also include a central villain.
Early horror movies are largely based on classic literature of the gothic/horror genre, such as Dracula, Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, The Phantom of the Opera and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
More recent horror films, in contrast, often draw inspiration from the insecurities of life after World War II, giving rise to the three distinct, but related, sub-genres: the horror-of-personality Psycho film, the horror-of-armageddon Invasion of the Body Snatchers film, and the horror-of-the-demonic The Exorcist film.
The last sub-genre may be seen as a modernized transition from the earliest horror films, expanding on their emphasis on supernatural agents that bring horror to the world.[1]
Horror films have been dismissed as violent, low budget B movies and exploitation films. Nonetheless, all the major studios and many respected directors, including Alfred Hitchcock, Roman Polanski, Stanley Kubrick, William Friedkin, Richard Donner, and Francis Ford Coppola have made forays into the genre"

Wikipedia on horror literature:
"Horror fiction is a genre of fiction in any medium intended to scare, unsettle, or horrify the audience. Historically, the cause of the "horror" experience has often been the intrusion of a disturbing supernatural element into everyday human experience. Since the 1960s, any work of fiction with a morbid, gruesome, surreal, or exceptionally suspenseful or frightening theme has come to be called "horror""

From Encyclopedia Britannica
"motion picture calculated to cause intense repugnance, fear, or dread. Horror films may incorporate incidents of physical violence and psychological terror; they may be studies of deformed, disturbed, psychotic, or evil characters; stories of terrifying monsters or malevolent animals; or mystery thrillers that use atmosphere to build suspense. The genre often overlaps science fiction films and film noir."

(Edited by Doug Fischer on 8/23, 4:47pm)

Post 34

Sunday, August 23, 2009 - 5:54pm

Ted,

About my existential genus I'm toying with:
Movie reviewer James Travers said about an existential film: it conveys the "bleakness of an existence in a godless universe". This quote seems to capture a tone common to existential films. I'd say that in the Objectivist lens, an existential film takes a malevolent universe. Zombie movies in particular seem to fit that existential fixation of alienation. Often I'd say there is an element of absurdity in horror, that I'm not sure fits better with existentialism or nihilism.

Is this enough to answer your question?

It seems our primary difficulty is that when you say horror you mean a current trend of movies we call horror. I think of horror as a genre with more breadth than that, and that the movies you're referring to are better classed as slashers.

I thought of another movie I'd like your opinion on. How would you classify Jurassic Park? I have mixed feeling about classifying it as a horror even though it has monsters and a handful of pg-13 gore, but enough to match some pg-13 horrors. I've been told the novel was more intense, and more graphic.

Like with signs, I think Jurassic Park fails as a horror because of an overall tone. They both have some of the parts associated with horror, but not the core.

Thanks for the recommendations. And I second your disappointment in Jovovich's choice in roles.

Post 35

Sunday, August 23, 2009 - 7:30pm

Zoolander is hilarious, and Fifth Element is one of my all-time favorites.

Jurrasic Park is adventure.

Fear is simply too broad to be a useful category. There is a difference between worrying for the hero and simply being startled. Horror aims to startle for the sake of startling. I don't think it matters whether that is done by aliens, ghosts, or simple, every day murderers. 28 Days Later might be an example of a horror movie with enough redeeming aspects to make it worth seeing.

Post 36

Monday, August 24, 2009 - 7:46am

I categorically do not like horror films myself. The schlocky gore-fests many film makers produce are embarrassing. There is rarely a quality film made that really builds up the audience's suspense, and then delivers the true sense of horror it set out to elicit.

Nevertheless, I'd name "The Innocents" with Deborah Kerr, and Tom Tyron's "The Other" which I thought was true horror. When done well, you don't have to see the gore to feel the true horror. And I have a weak stomach for such things anyhow.

jt

Post 37

Monday, August 24, 2009 - 8:36am

"Like with signs, I think Jurassic Park fails as a horror because of an overall tone. They both have some of the parts associated with horror, but not the core."

This is why Signs is a perfect disproof that a hooror movie is a scary movie with alien or supernatural elements. The movie is quite scary. Not shocking-disgusting scary. Just plain scary. And in no sense whatsoever can you say that the movie is a failure on its own terms. You describe it as a failure as a horror - as a scary alien movie. But it is not a failure as a scary alien movie. It is the definition of horror as a scary alien movie that fails here. Signs is a scary alien movie. It was never intended to be a horror movie. It suceeds brilliantly at not being a horror movie.

But you did say scary alien existential movie. Okay, what does that mean? It means nihilistic. It means values have lost their value. It means a jaded audience that cannot feel. Unless it is disgusted, unless it is shocked.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/24, 8:39am)

Post 38

Monday, August 24, 2009 - 6:17pm

Firstly but minorly, existentialism =/= nihilism. This is either a sloppy reduction, or needing justification. You so quickly want to say that horror is only for the dead inside, who can only feel when shocked and disgusted. I offer Rosemary's Baby as a counter example. No gore, no cheap scares, but a damn fine and most definitely horror.

I brought up Jurassic Park because even if it had gore worthy of an R (for radical!) rating, I wouldn't class it as horror. For the reversed reason you say Signs proves my definition wrong, I say Jurassic Park proves your definition wrong. Watchmen is another non-horror movie that uses grotesque imagery. A History of Violence was directed by a horror guy, uses lots of grotesque imagery, but is not a horror.

Fear may be broad, but after asking a hand full of people and looking into a few definitions, this is a universally held criteria for the making of a horror. The second thing mentioned is always supernatural or monstrous. Every source I've asked has either mentioned gore as an after thought, or not at all (from fans and non-fans).

It is precisely that fear is broad that I use supernatural/monstrous for differentia.

And also, I nod to 28 Days Later, Zoolander, and The Fifth Element.

Post 39

Monday, August 24, 2009 - 8:47pm