In Defense of Horror Movies, Even 'Friday the 13th'
Wednesday, July 30, 2008 at 1:19AM I know a guy who hates martial arts films. Discounts them immediately and vocally. I knew a critic for a major American newspaper who refused to see Amelie because, "I don't like French things." The same man also predicted nobody would remember Harry Potter 20 years from now.
The point of all of this is that good movies and bad movies are everywhere. I once had to judge a documentary film festival and despite what people in tweed blazers think of non-fiction film, let me just say picking a winner was easy that year. There is no genre better than any other, as evidenced by the mastery of Billy Wilder, Howard Hawks, John Ford, Steven Spielberg, and even Ridley Scott over several of them. To declare that one type of film is somehow worse than another implies that, by extension, one genre is superior to all others. And if you believe that, you're automatically disqualified from adult discussions.
And yes, there are even good horror movies. A lot of them, as it turns out.
The difference is, because your appetite for gore and shock has to be more desensitized, horror movies have never gotten their due among mainstream critics and anyone currently over 50. The dismissive ones think there's too much blood and the situations could never happen. Well, first of all, they're not really bleeding. You've heard of make believe, right? Secondly, I've seen Heaven Can Wait. Damn thing got Oscar nominations. I'm just sayin'.
These lowest-common-denominator movies usually involve teenagers getting stalked by indestructible killing machines wearing some sort of mask, detractors will say, which is easy to counter through equal oversimplification like, "Don't all Westerns have gunfights and one-dimensional villains," or "Why the hell do people in West Side Story just start singing like that? And how do they know ahead of time it's going to rhyme?" Don't even bother asking about the logistics of an impromptu duet.
I believe there's not enough appreciation for horror movies. Some of the greatest directors today honed their craft by sharpening knives for slashers. A bunch of Oscar nominees and Oscar winners, for that matter, launched their careers with a blood-curdling scream (paging Tom Hanks...).
Ghost stories have been with us as long as any other kind. There's no real difference for the audience between hearing a campfire ghost story and watching one on an 80-foot screen. You're still clutching your seat, hanging onto every detail, hoping not to be scared but knowing it has to come eventually. In a way, an effective horror movie gets more emotional response from a viewer than any other, even the ones people are afraid to watch. Maybe even especially those.
But it's true that the state of contemporary horror is a mixed bag. You have the major studio projects, which are stylized remakes of American and Japanese horror flicks, and those have not been terribly good in the past few years. The Saw series is at least trying to be complex, although it's probably too much thinking for its opening weekend audience. If you look hard enough, though, you can find movies like High Tension or Frailty, or even Shaun of the Dead, movies that play by most of the same rules of traditional horror movies but have found ways to stand out from the crowd, which is what made horror movies popular in the first place.
There's a great article I just read at Film.com that touches on the same subject in general terms, and specifically the railroading of Clive Barker's Midnight Meat Train by its distributor, who's throwing it into way too few theaters this weekend. Please check out that story.
Also, we finally have a clean copy of the Comic Con poster for the new Friday the 13th, which is one of those remakes we described above. I wish people would get this stoked over The Strangers.
Reader Comments (38)
If you're anything like normal, seeing real violence will make you feel sick.
While regular action films make violence look stylised and abstract, horror films often try to emulate that sickening feeling of real violence.
Therefore, I am slightly suspicious of anyone who is overly fond of the genre.
Then you must hate war movies, where the body counts are significantly higher, and disaster movies, too, where the world is helpless as thousands upon thousands of people die at once.
What in the hell is a "regular" action film, by the way? For that matter, what does "anything like normal" mean?
Different things really.
Civilian murders and assaults are horrific because they are personal and you can feel the base malice and disregard for human life.
Wars are terrible too, but if properly conducted between regular armed forces they are not personal. They have rules and codes of conduct. It's fairly random at the basic level but with skill and some luck you can survive.
I've been in the army and I've also seen a lot of civilian violence in the course of my current work so I know a little about the difference. Historically, a lot of regular soldiers, especially conscripts, have found killing difficult and sometimes tried to avoid it on a personal level.
It's the murderous malice that makes you feel sick and which is explored and exploited in horror films.
Well, wars are not really well-known for their overall regard for human life. Civilians have been savagely killed in every war man has ever fought. Plenty of villages have been pillaged, and women raped in the name of property and ideology. Tell the families of those victims it's not personal, but rather part of a coordinated effort conducted properly. I'm sure that'll be a big help. You've heard of the Holocaust, right?
There's malice in every murder. That's what separates it from manslaughter. If you were to make a movie about Jack the Ripper - who, incidentally, never saw a slasher flick - how can you avoid the grisly facts? Read Shakespeare or, hell, history, and there's plenty of brutal murder on which the wheels of history turn. Read the account of the plot to assassinate Rasputin. That'll make you think twice about dining with the Russian aristocracy.
You seem to have a bias against the actions depicted in horror movies, which are far less likely to occur in real life than similar violence you can see in a Martin Scorsese movie. I say that because you call anyone who doesn't see it the way you see it not normal.
But it doesn't bother me because I know it's titillation, a marketing gimmick, used in much the same way as the slogan "zero money down, no interest until 2011." It's a hook, a device, just like the red LED meter attached to a bomb in a spy movie. And in 90 minutes, the haunted house is over, and hopefully, you've got something to talk about over coffee.
Hi,
I would just like to say that I don’t think a horror movie has to necessarily be extremely violent.
I’m a bit sensitive about seeing violence, I don’t like at all, yet there are horror movies I think are terrific (The Ring, for one). The same way there are action movies with too much explicit violence. I couldn’t agree more Colin, we shouldn’t stereotype a genre.
I absolutely loved Shaun of the Dead, but I don’t think it’s aiming to be a horror movie. It has its moments, but I think it’s mostly a dark comedy, isn’t it?
Cheers
It is a dark comedy, but it's bloody as hell. And the story has the same structure as a zombie movie not going for laughs.
Scorcese does violence in a way I can stomach. It's a bit more realistic than most but his films are never about gratuitous violence. Rather, they show someone for who they really are. If we watch films by other directors we might think that goodfellas are good fellows, which most of them aren't. Scorcese reminds us of that, which is a good thing.
Personally, I was rather upset by the knifing by the lake in Zodiac, as an example, because it resembles a real life murder. Bullets and grenades cause worse injuries but generally, in a combat situation they are not deliberate. Most people who blows someone away in a combat situation would rather not do it to someone in the park.
There is criminal scum in wars too but as we have seen in Germany, Bosnia and Iraq, they will get prosecuted for it.
Shaun of the Dead worked for me because it kept signalling to the viewer that it wasn't real and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Very well written article, Colin. I agree that it's important never to feel above any genre but in the same token, I feel like in the grand scheme of things, horror films get far more press than the genres of art-house/independent and foreign films put together and to me, that's the real tragedy.
While, as another reader pointed out, some truly excellent scary movies have been made, I'm never been a big fan of horror flicks myself. However, I think that there's something to be said for having a willingness to explore every genre and evaluating each film individually as opposed to just dismissing an entire genre. I mean, some horror films are allegorical just like some westerns weren't really about cowboys like High Noon was covertly about the Hollywood blacklist.
Similarly—and this is a general wish and not a Colin dig as he is a respectful and intelligent writer-- I wish more critics would stop dismissing films as <shudders> "chick flicks” or perhaps as an experiment, avoid labeling works altogether. Perhaps, instead of ridiculing what they feel is only fodder for females (although there are plenty of us who dislike the anti-feminist Pretty Woman), maybe-- like that critic who dislikes French things-- it’d be cool to try going into a film without pigeonholing it into a genre and just analyzing it as an individual work. I’m definitely trying to take this approach to horror films and going with the fundamental critiques on content and execution as much a way to better experience it as a viewer as to avoid any preconceived stereotypes that go along with the loaded label of “horror” or “slasher” film that I carry around as someone who dislikes too much blood and guts.
On a different note—it’s always great to see a film noir shout-out. However, an I say this with affection as someone who considers Laura to be one of the all-time greatest film noirs but man, I never thought Gene Tierney could act her way out of a paper bag in that film. Now, the rest of the cast on the other hand-- wow!
I remember reading a few years back that musicals went the way of the Dodo because the production costs became too high to justify such immaculate sets. Never again would the world see the likes of Singing in the Rain, Showboat, and The Sound of Music.
But after reading that we saw the following musical get made:
1. Moulin Rouge
2. Chicago
3. Evita
4. High School Musical 1 & 2
5. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory/Sweeny Todd (tie)
So it begs the question, is the musical really dead? Because these are arguably better musicals than any of the so called "classics".
Horror is a respected genre that AFI recognized to extent in its annual "100" list a few years ago. Though it's true, classic horror is recognized more readily than the modern stuff, it is there all the same. Then again, I don't think that there is anyone out there making horror films today that can do it as consistently as someone like Hitchcock...
Still there are strong Horror movies being made right now, in what is sure to be looked back on as a horror renaissance. Slither! Vacancy! 1408! Strangers! House of 1000 Corpses! Etc...
AFI should think about giving horror its own category instead of mixing it in with action and thrillers. I'd like to see what's aging well, the way that The Shining and The Birds are...and the Exorcist...and The Omen...and Creepshow!
Sweet.
Uh...High School Musical?
Wokka Wokka Wokka!
I agree with Jen that labels and pigeon holes should be avoided as they are traps for creativity and true understanding.
On the other hand, few films are as formulaic as classic horror so it's one instant when labels would work better than usual.
Chick flicks is another example of a label that works. Films like Bridget Jones and Sex in the City which seem to have endless appeal for women are not only incomprehensible to men but real torture to watch.
In some instances the labels of "horror" and "chick flick" may be misapplied but on the whole they save me a lot of viewing discomfort.
Anyone ever consider Trey Parker and Matt Stone as solid musical geniuses? Team America, South Park Bigger Longer and Uncut and Cannibal: The Musical were arguably better than anything Tim Rice and Allen Menkin put out for Disney...
Someone should put those guys in charge of re-making Rocky Horror, y'know?
I like Sam Raimi. Not the Evil Dead stuff...too weird. But the one with Bill Pullman and Billy Bob Thornton was good. A Simple Plan? I think.
Also, Fracture was good too...
I like horror that is more cerebral...
I'm not sure how the violence in Zodiac is more gratuitous than Taxi Driver or GoodFellas or even Cape Fear. In fact, it's not. The total screen time for the violence in Zodiac - guns firing and knives plunging - is under 45 seconds. You see (digital) blood but no wounds. Zodiac is no more a maniac than Joe Pesci in GoodFellas, and I'm not sure how saying Scorsese projects violence in a way that's more real holds up to your original argument, that horror movies try to emulate the sickening feel of real violence. And for the record, Gangs of New York? You didn't find that gratuitous?
You lost me on how battlefield gunfire and grenades are somehow not deliberate. If the objective is not to injure or kill, then why not outfit soldiers with pillows and write that into the "rules of conduct?" And the fact that war criminals might get prosecuted doesn't in any way make their actions any less reprehensible. Is war violence less violent because it's violence from a greater distance and for a more noble purpose? Well, what if you're one of the bad guys and you've got an IED?
If you're arguing that horror movies promote violence for the sake of promoting violence, I can't disagree with that. But to insinuate that people who enjoy horror movies are somehow worthy of suspicion or that they're otherwise not normal while you seem to gloss over the horrific consequences of war is hard to accept.
This is a discussion of Horror, I think. Not Musicals. Then again, under appreciated genres seem to go hand in hand. Musicals. Horror. Westerns.
The stabbing of the couple under the Oak tree in Zodiac is as hard to watch as the scene in Casino where Joe Pesci gets beat to death with a baseball bat.
And almost as scary as any scene in Aliens.
Henry, re: your response to my post: I dug your first statement that labels are traps for creativity and true understanding but when-- for the sake of your own biased view, you contradicted with a sexist statement-- thought I'd better correct you on one factual error:
Um, I'm sorry to report but as a female critic who evaluates these things carefully, the last time I checked, Sex and the City (the movie anyway) earned far better film reviews from men than it did from women. Of course, this could have something to do with the fact that most reviewers are male but this isn't the right time for that discussion. So you're totally entitled to your opinion and I agree that SATC (the movie) was bad, bad, bad but before you label what you feel are "our" movies, you may want to check the men you're speaking for when you call these things torture since many men disagreed...but anyway, I'm moving on to let the blood & guts debate continue.
:)
Lol, Harry N. House-- yes, you're right but I think Colin got us all thinking when he cited various genres and titles in that post and of course, we all have our favorite genres... oh no, now that may get a response of its own.
Speaking of genre discussion, if anyone has TCM-- check out this week's Under the Influence wherein Elvis Mitchell interviews Tarantino who has a rich appreciation for ALL movies from soap opera melodramas to MGM musicals to westerns to horror to Scorsese's work. There's some nice overlap of the way these movies go hand in hand and the importance of watching 'em all...
Totally True Statistics:
Men who saw Sex and the City (total): 8
Women who saw Sex and the City (total): 34,001,092
Men who saw Sex and the City (Homosexual/Alternative Lifestyle): 7
Men Who Saw Sex and the City (Straight/Dragged by Wives/Women they were trying to score with): 1
Women who saw Sex and the City with Positive Reviews (total): 27,998,111
Women who saw Sex and the City with Negative/Mixed Reviews (total): 6,002,981
More totally true statistics:
Men who gave Sex and the City positive reviews (Homosexual/Alternative Lifestyle): 7
Men who gave Sex and the City positive reviews (Straight/Dragged by Wives/Women they were trying to score with): 0
Even More Totally True Statistics:
Times Mr. Truth has seen Sex in the City: 0
Jen: I just programmed my TiVo. I love Tarrantino, and all of his oppinions. I just wish he would spend more time making movies an less time working his yap!
Colin, my difference between Scorcese's bat and Fincher's knifing is that the bat is used for other purposes than the thrill of a kill.
Criminals need to uphold a certain order where violence and death is the price you pay for breaking the rules. If you enlist in a criminal organisation, that is what you sign up for.
The knifing was just a pure evil deed of insanity with no practical or moral dimension to it.
When it comes to war most soldiers just try to survive. If given a choice they would not blow people's bits off. If put in a situation where they don't have to kill or injure, they don't.
Therefore I find most war movies easier to digest than horror.