| |
|
Yeah, I agree. This is as subjective as arguing which Beatle was more important. Does it matter? Not really. As long as the material gives you the willies in the proper place, then it's horror. Since genre is such a slippery sucker, it's almost impossible to gauge when and where horror starts or stops.
For example, I just got into the most vicious argument with some 15 year old at work. She maintained that Evil Dead and Evil Dead 2 are first and foremost horror films (by the by, she had never heard of Army of Darkness. Yowza!). Knowing enough about the history of horror, I argued that they are primarily comedy vehicles. My proof came from the fact that Sam Raimi has said on numerous occasions that the second film was inspired by The Three Stooges. He has also said that the more gore he fit into the first one, the more it made him laugh.
On the other hand, my opponent in this informal debate has a point; the movies are about demons, possessed people, reanimated people, pencils in feets, etc. The horror subject matter makes the film appear to be ultimately, horror films. But, personally, I regard them as brilliant comedy films. So who's right?
To answer the thread's question, I have to say, a horror film contains visible horror types (I'm referring to the old def'n of "type", i.e. archetypes). These horror types may be monsters, demons, angels, psychotics, and/or the supernatural. In a horror film, these types are presented as first and foremost the antagonist of the story. They are the unwanted foreign element, that which is abnormal in comparison to the protagonist's normal state. I'm not just making this up, this theory comes straight from Stephen King himself in an essay (maybe) called "Why We Watch Horror Movies". The horror film is generally about xenophobia, the fear of the unknown. If the movie contains visible horror types, but does not portray them as the obvious antagonist, I wouldn't call the movie's main goal to scare.
Here's an (exaggerated) example: The Man Without a Face, starring Mel Gibson. That movie contains a horror type, the disfigured man, and yet the movie does not aim to scare, so it's not superficially a horror movie. Mel Gibson's scarred character is not the obvious antagonist, so it's not horror. Yeah, I know this example is out there, but I think I've got a good case.
Another example. Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 film called (in America) Bram Stoker's Dracula. This movie does not scare me at all. Not at all. But it's horror. IMDB lists its genre as first, "drama", then "horror", and then "romance". That's what I qualify this movie as, a flawed, but heartwrenching love story. Under my own rules, however, this must be a horror film because the horror type, the vampire, is presented as the villain, the antagonist. But my own rules become loose here. Gary Oldman plays Dracula as a tortured romantic, simply searching for his long lost love. He is a tragic figure then, sort of a Hamlet, or better yet, a Romeo. And Winona Ryder and Gary Oldman are definitely "star-crossed lovers". So his antagonism comes from something not quite foreign, something very personal and intimate, something very human. If the horror film is about the fear of the unknown, then this film cannot be horror, because it is about love.
Even if everybody disagrees with my evaluation of Dracula and The Man Without A Face, my criteria of horror comes from Stephen King, so it's not entirely without merit.
Here's the clincher, though.... What about writers like Clive Barker? An author found in the horror section of my local bookstore, yet most of his oeuvre is not scary whatsoever. It contains horrific elements, and yet is about the human condition, the fragility of our emotions, and the strength of our convictions. He writes about the senses and their information conveyed to minds not ready or not willing to understand. Clive Barker trashes the definition I set out to articulate. Thanks, man.
What's my point? It's too subjective to ever define. Sorry it took me so long to get there. My point is that it's whatever floats your boat, whatever gets your goat, whatever does it for you.... It's simply too large of a genre to ever pin down definitively. We'll never do it.
Okay. Now I'm ready for people to start disagreeing with me. Bring it on. |
|
|
