BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

When Horror Goes Bad!

  
 
Benny the Ball
11:52 / 10.01.08
Horror films of the past seemed so much more exciting, from a story telling point of view, to me. There was always an idea that, despite the restraints of budget and acting talent, the makers always had a wonderful sense of the time that they were making their films in and often contained metaphors for deeper messages than the genre may initially seem to lend itself to. However, of late, the films that used to excite my imagination so much as a youngster, now seem tacky, ill thought out, and more interested in shocking for shocking's sake, have no hidden messages and are more than likely poor remakes of earlier, smarter work, or reinturpretations of overseas styles.

Is the Horror Genre turning bad? Have the money men or new formats hurt the creativity?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:06 / 10.01.08
Interesting question- I think it's more a case that horror has become mainstream. By which I don't mean "oh, it was much cooler when not many people liked it" or any of that bollocks- not at all. There have always been bad horror movies- these days, because it sells better, there are more of them and they have a higher profile.

Remember that all the really cool stuff- Romero, Evil Dead, what-have-you- wasn't really "big". I Am Legend has billboards everywhere. Evil Dead never got that.

There's still great stuff being made- The Descent, 28 Days Later (OK, that was referencing older movies but was still great), and of course Lynch is still going strong (bit of a controversial one, maybe, but to me saying Lynch isn't a horror director is as crazy as these TV reviewers who say the new BSG isn't really SF, because it's intelligent and has characters and meaning).

As an aside, am I the only one who feels a faint surge of fanboy pride every time they see Peter Jackson or Sam Raimi (who in some strange way I think of as being "ours") getting given a shitload of money to make a huge movie, whether it's any good or not? Kind of the "local boy makes good" mentality, I suppose, only without the geographical connotations.
 
 
rizla mission
13:14 / 10.01.08
I think you'll probably find that, in terms of straight-faced analysis of cinematic quality, the vast majority of horror has always been "bad" ; much as I love it, that's kind of the point to a certain extent. If you ever expect it to be "good", in the sense that, say, an Altman film is "Good", you're setting yourself up for a lifetime of disappointment.

Geniunely great, challenging films made within the horror genre by people like Romero and Cronenberg have, for better or worse, always been massively outnumbered by examples of absolutely mindless, goofy trash, and whilst it can often be argued that the makers of trashy movies are motivated at least partly by love of the genre, the prime motivation has always been to make a quick buck.

The only real difference these days is that public taste has relaxed sufficeintly to allow unashamed exploitation horror movies to hit the multiplexes and pick up mainstream attention - hence Saw, Hostel et al.

Now, it almost goes without saying that I find all these softcore torture-porn films as crappy, distasteful and borderline offensive as anyone else - perhaps even more so BECAUSE they are deemed mainstream acceptable, rather than existing as some fringe, weirdo scene as in past decades - but at the same time I have no doubt that in years to come they will be seen in the same way that we (by which I mean grown-up, critically aware filmgoers) view, say, '70s European porno-vampire movies or '50s monster movies, eg as a kitsch, OTT and massively enjoyable excercise in the genre conventions and pop aesthetics and cultural obsessions of a certain era.

As time moves forward, even '80s video nasties and low budget slasher flicks are viewed through the kitsch-obsessive lens, their basic stupidity, misogyny and venal reasons for existence in terms of cinema as a whole being disarmed as they are instead viewed and judged according to their merits as *examples* of their time and place in history, and for their post-modern psychotronic entertainment factor.

The interesting question thrown up therein IS:

Why do so many of us (myself included as a prime example) exhibit an instant, kneejerk dislike for the commerical exploitation films of our OWN era, whilst still getting major kicks and giggles out of previous eras equivalents of basically the same thing....?

I don't really have an answer to put forward.
 
 
rizla mission
13:32 / 10.01.08
(That's a very simplified view of course - obviously trash films aren't ALL trash, and one of the great thrills of being a horror fan lies in discovering unheralded masterworks within the realm of "trash" which are made with intelligence, wit, skill and transgressive/satirical intent, whether it's "Horror Of Beach Party", "Blood On Satan's Claw", "Possession" or "Ginger Snaps"..)
 
 
Spaniel
14:36 / 10.01.08
I think something which has been missed in this thread is that horror films aren't at their best when they're great exemplars of a moment in history and/or an era's pop culture, or when they're dealing in clever allegory. Nope, as far as this human is concerned, horror films are at their best when they're fucking scary, and with that in mind I'd say that the noughties has been one of the best decades yet for the genre. Ring, Audition, The Descent (a film that I'd argue is considerably stronger in its first half than its second, mainly because the scares in the first half are fucking awesome), The Grudge, The Blair Witch Project (okay, okay, it came out in '99), and bunch of other films I can't think of at the moment, all scared the hootiwoozles out of me. And that's before I even start to think of creators who skirt the genre but do sterling work, like Lynch.

As the man says, there's always been a lot of crap, and the fact that the genre is finally overground means that said crap is a lot more visible than it has been previously.
 
 
grant
16:18 / 10.01.08
I think to a degree what's *scary* is always going to be allegorical for something in a culture at a particular time, but it's only a certain amount of distance that makes it seem clear. Too close, and you're *being scared*, while too far away and you're seeing all the seams and wires holding things up.
 
 
Spaniel
17:06 / 10.01.08
I think words "to a degree" are key there, as some themes tend to have more longevity than others, and some scares are rooted in visceral reactions (disgust, being made jump) which may only have a weak link to cultural factors.
 
 
grant
18:43 / 10.01.08
Well, yeah - but also, what constitutes "culture" is also elastic, and scariness is culturally mediated. Biological response, but filtered through culture. Dead things disgust humans, but rotted meat is going to squick yer typical Connecticut WASP suburbanite more than an average Inuit traditional grandfather because the WASP doesn't have any delicacies that involve fermenting flesh. I imagine a culture with more hunters is going to have more anxieties over predators (and being hunted by them) and less fears of blood.

I think both of these fears come to play in the first couple Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies, by the way, which are viscerally terrifying, but expressed also as a suburban fear of rural culture. Bad meat and violence.
 
 
Shrug
21:02 / 10.01.08
I suppose the most basic setup of any horror movies occurs when normality is threatened by a monster or (insert another comparable threat here). This monster or threat is sometimes indicative of an outside or foreign threat, some internal repression, or some kind of primordial body horror concerned with some form of abjection (maybe?).
I'm not terribly sure that this, at least, is being compromised anywhere in modern interpretations of the horror film.

Is this a good hypothesis if being forgiveably broad?
50s horror- An external threat? And the Secure Horror wherein groupings/ authority figures/ sometimes the armed forces intervene to stop the threat.
60s/70s- Often Paranoid Horror and as Andrew Tudor describes incorporating: “failed human intervention, authorities as unreliable, escalating disorder, internal threats, victim groups, diffuse boundaries and an open narrative." In effect Cynical Horror.
80s- Somewhat a return to the Family as refined unit of Civilization and thus they are often the focus of the horror. A lot of evocation of the Military too. Quite a few subversive takes on the 80s politic in here too.
90s- An ironic mode of horror which remains wholly self-referential.

No idea on the 00s, really.

I suppose the re-imagining of things like Ringu, The Grudge and Dark Water are absented of alot of cultural context as eiga-kaidan (which have a long cinematic history there, along with the specific tropes involved). It also misses out on a history of Kabuki and Noh theatre for alot of Western audiences and are even almost ambiguously problematic in their referencing the Japanese as vengeful ghosts attacking American protagonists.
 
 
Spaniel
21:32 / 10.01.08
Oh, I apppreciate that, Grant, I just think it's worth remembering that some squicks are more universal and longer lasting than others, and that's probably part of the reason why some horror movies have such enduring appeal. That and the technical way they're put together - the edit, how suspense is built...
 
 
Aha! I am Klarion
04:52 / 11.01.08
I would argue that horror seems to go bad when the film fails to connect to the audience on the level of verisimilitude.

I find that the higher quality horror films (excepting the those which contain some kitschy irony attached to them) reflect some vague truth or powerful worldview in either their pyschological aspects or an interesting slant on life.

For me, horror films seem to work the best when they act as Kafkaesque fables. By this I do not mean that they follow dream like pattern of logic, but that they enact the potency of dreams. So I usually give preference to films like Jacob's Ladder, Hellraiser (the first one only), the King of Comedy, Videodrome, Audition, Dawn of the Dead, and the Vanishing.

Also, I would argue that David Lynch continues to create some form of horror film anytime he produces a picture. Both Muholland Dr. and Inland Empire contain a great deal of horrific imagery. In Inland Empire, Lynch alludes not only to ghosts stories but also creepy polish folk tales.

I would note that several horror films, such as Sawn of the Dead, Hot Fuzz (lets not forget the cult of murders aspect of the film's plot), Death Proof, and Murder Party, succeeded in both qualities (kitschy fun and quality fable). That they seem just as much comedies as horror fails to disappoint me. Rather, I find these signs encouraging. I prefer a richer viewing experience, so if the traces of comedy in these horror films disqualifies them of some sort of recognition, then forget that I said anything.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
08:03 / 11.01.08
(lets not forget the cult of murders aspect of the film's plot)

Sure, let's not forget that. I haven't forgotten it.

Nevertheless, Hot Fuzz is not a horror film.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
14:25 / 11.01.08
I'm no expert on the genre, but for my money a lot of the recent films people have been talking about seem to lack a sense of humour - or perhaps 'sense of fun'.

Now this might seem an odd assertion, because, yes the 90s films are very self-referential/ironic, and the 00s films certainly seem to be getting a kick out of being nasty and laughing at people in pain - but I'm not sure either of these things exactly qualify as 'humour' or 'fun'. Whereas, say, the Wicker Man, while not being a 'funny' film does seem to have both of these good qualities, as does something like Theatre of Blood and even the Evil Dead films (and Quatermass, if that counts).

What I guess I'm getting at is that there's a sense of these older films existing for our enjoyment, a kind of scary, horrifying but still grand entertainment - whereas something like Saw or Hostel really just made me feel as though we were expected to smirk, were never expected to care about any of the characters. You're not watching them to be scared - that doesn't seem to be what's on offer anymore. Rather you're watching them to look down on people.

It gives you the sense that the people who made them were doing something rather similar to the unviersity-educated media workers who construct The Jeremy Kyle Show. Did anyone else feel this?
 
 
grant
16:23 / 11.01.08
I haven't seen any of the latest round of torture porn (unless Audition counts), but they all *seem* to be tied up with anxieties over bureaucracy and the idea that irrational powers control our lives.

A bit like Cube, I guess.
 
 
grant
16:29 / 11.01.08
just made me feel as though we were expected to smirk, were never expected to care about any of the characters. You're not watching them to be scared - that doesn't seem to be what's on offer anymore. Rather you're watching them to look down on people.


That's essentially why I don't much care for the Friday the 13th films - just blood and an endless succession of victims. But some folks think of them as *classics*.
 
 
Jackie Susann
21:54 / 11.01.08
Yeah, but you're supposed to care about Jason, aren't you? It's a bit like saying James Bond films are just an endless succession of dead henchmen.
 
 
Jackie Susann
21:59 / 11.01.08
Not that I think you should like them, it just seemed like an odd way of framing your disinterest. I would probably think the same about the torture-porn stuff if I could be bothered watching it (saw Saw and hated it, that was the end of that).
 
 
grant
20:48 / 12.01.08
Yeah, I should say that I've only seen the first one of the FriXIII movies all the way through - I get the feeling Jason becomes more of a person in the later ones. Though by Freddy vs. Jason, he's something else again.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
02:20 / 15.01.08
Erm, I'm almost embarrassed to admit this, given the previous comments, but I fucking love the Friday 13th movies. Well, the even-numbered ones, anyway... it's almost a reverse Star Trek Movie Rule. 8, Jason Takes Manhattan, is a masterclass in the genre, really. 7 sucks. 5 sucks THE WORST. 3 would be OK were it not for the fact that, having been originally intended for 3D, everything takes place at a ludicrous angle. Which would've been impressive with the red/blue specs on, maybe, but in the cold light of day actually looks REALLY STUPID. 5, now that's where they really BETRAY the franchise. 4 having had such a great finale, we get some dumb Agatha Christie shit where it's not even Jason! Fuck that. 6 is fun again, even though it cheats a little by having him brought back to life by lightning (Tommy, from 4, has just been released from juvie, and decides to desecrate Jason's grave. In a thunderstorm. You can't fault his pluck, but our Tommy Jarvis was never the brightest of kids, really). 7, I believe, is when they introduce psychic powers. Now, I don't know about you, but for me, Jason was always better than Freddie (bear in mind, at this point, Meiers is out to pasture as far as we know) because he doesn't cheat. This was the psychic shark-jumping moment for me, really.

Actually, hang on, I'm not sure anymore. What happens in 9? I know 8 was where they really seemed to get back on track, with the boat, and the kid-stabbed-with-flying-V and all, so what happens in 9?

I know I've seen it. It clearly wasn't that memorable.

Then we get Jason X. Which is SHIT as a low-class slasher movie (which was what we all WANTED), but absolutely brilliant as a metatextual take-the-piss-out-of-slasher-movies thing in a way that the Scream movies WEREN'T, because you knew they were trying to do that. (DESPERATELY trying not to do spoilers, even though I know nobody cares, but it's a principle, DAMMIT!!!)

Does that make any sense at all?

Freddy v Jason sucked, though. But, hey, let's look on the bright side. It was better than Aliens v Predator. Except it didn't have Lance Henriksen in. If it had, it would've been just about passable.




D'you know, I originally came to this thread to say that horror isn't dead, it's just that we in the West aren't producing the best stuff right now but that DOESN'T MEAN IT'S DEAD, and had some ACE examples of why that should be (I just saw the Korean movie Phone, for example- first half hour, you'll be thinking you've seen it all before. You haven't. It's actually fucking brilliant) but decided I couldn't actually do that justice in my drunken state, so thought I'd go off on one about Mr Vorhees (and his mum, God rest her soul) instead.
 
 
Benny the Ball
07:24 / 15.01.08
FriXIII pt. IX is notably only for the flimsy "his spirit can enter any body, he could be anyone!" premise and the ending which sees his mask drop to the bowels of hell, and then get grabbed by Freddy's gloved hand (cue evil laugh).
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
20:59 / 15.01.08
Ah yes, I remember now...
 
 
Baroness von Lenska
01:13 / 17.01.08
I suppose the most basic setup of any horror movies occurs when normality is threatened by a monster or (insert another comparable threat here).

I'd go a little bit further with this and say that good horror relies on a sense of normality inversed. I'm not much of a fan of horror-as-genre, but in the work of Cronenberg, Lynch, Higuchinsky, and that ilk, there seems to be an underlying thread of everyday life or mundane situations warped and twisted into something everyday-but-not. Obviously difficult to articulate, and a tangent to be sure, but Lynch's portrayal of small town America coexisting uneasily with a shadowy underworld, all the townsfolk in Uzumaki still going through the daily motions even after some really weird shit has just gone down, etc. What truly frightens doesn't necessarily have to rely on a threat from the Other, but any situation in which the Ordinary and the Other meet head on, or when the lines between the two are deliberately blurred (Videodrome, Twin Peaks...). Sort of a collage consisting of familiar elements and alien elements all snuggling up with each other. Familiar experience stuck in an elevator with the unknown, shuffling its feet, coughing politely, and so on. In this sense, I enjoyed the newer Dawn of the Dead film somewhat more than I'd expected to; having much of the run time devoted to watching the characters adjust their daily lives to a new situation, rather than running from zombies, hit a note I'd like to see more often. It's more interesting and, in a way more frightening, to watch survivors of a zombie outbreak trapped in a single building wake up, make coffee, make sure their defenses are still intact, and worry about food and electricity more than being eaten.

It's the vagueness of these kinds of films that really work for me. So much is left to the audience's imagination; and the monster always seems larger that way

Which has nothing to do with the topic itself, of which I have no real thoughts; I find the parade of torture-porn and international-remakes totally uninteresting and, like AAR, rather cynical and nasty. But have actually seen none of them, so there you go..
 
 
grant
14:34 / 17.01.08
any situation in which the Ordinary and the Other meet head on, or when the lines between the two are deliberately blurred (Videodrome, Twin Peaks...). Sort of a collage consisting of familiar elements and alien elements all snuggling up with each other.

The word you want is unheimlich, I think.

The not-homely. Familiar as uncanny.
 
 
Baroness von Lenska
02:12 / 18.01.08
After a few minutes' worth of poking around the Googlenet, I think you're right. Thanks, grant.

From Wikipedia:

Because the uncanny is familiar, yet strange, it often creates cognitive dissonance within the experiencing subject due to the paradoxical nature of being attracted to, yet repulsed by an object at the same time. This cognitive dissonance often leads to an outright rejection of the object, as one would rather reject than rationalize.

Which perfectly describes the feeling of horror. Moving inevitably toward an undesirable conclusion, realizing one's connection to the monstrous and responding with denial and externalization. Making a monster out of the monstrous. The overwhelming alienation of crowds becomes a horde of hungry zombies, animal instincts and impulses put on werewolf makeup etc.

But do the "trashier" examples of the horror genre actually do this? Do slasher gorefests reflect any unseemly aspects of society or the individual? And if so, what, exactly?
 
 
grant
14:16 / 18.01.08
Well, the idea behind the slasher is that it could be anyone, which is kind of an unheimlich idea, but the way those films are generally executed, they're more about visceral shock than actual creepiness. "Horror" in the sense of "the horrors of war," maybe.

Peeping Tom gets pointed to as an ancestor of the psycho-slasher film, although it *does* operate on an unheimlich aesthetic... the creepy guy who lives upstairs, socially awkward, secretive, what's he doing up there anyway?

I much prefer uncanny films myself - that gradual transition from the real into something that's not right.
 
 
grant
18:57 / 18.01.08
Actually, from the perspective of the opening post:
However, of late, the films that used to excite my imagination so much as a youngster, now seem tacky, ill thought out, and more interested in shocking for shocking's sake, have no hidden messages and are more than likely poor remakes of earlier, smarter work, or reinturpretations of overseas styles.


It's worth noting that Blood Feast came out in 1963 and really was just shock to make a buck, no hidden messages filmmaking, and is generally credited with being the first gore film.

Blood for blood's sake. It's mainly remembered now for its first-ness and for its camp qualities.
 
  
Add Your Reply