| Author | Message | ||
     Paul_finch (Paul_finch) Username: Paul_finch Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 92.2.67.184 |
Interesting to hear Mark Gatiss's view that the last great epoch in horror movies ended around 1978. Spoiler alert, I suppose, for those yet to watch it ... He was quite dismissive of the derivative slasher era and almost everything that followed in modern times, with one or two occasional exceptions like THE RING, THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE, etc I wasn't particularly stung by this, as I followed his reasoning. His observation that horror has dumbed itself down in recent years by having a loyal following that will lap up anything it is served, no matter how artless and grotesque, was quite incisive, I felt. So ... do we need to reach out beyond horror fandom to reinstate the genre in the mainstream? If so, how do we do it? What will be the next big thing? Or is just an impossible dream? | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.230 |
But . . . surely there was just as much drivel made back then as there is now. Including, I feel heretical to add, quite a few which are now regarded as classics. On a related note, I watched BLOOD ON SATAN'S CLAW last night: certainly a powerful piece. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
So ... do we need to reach out beyond horror fandom to reinstate the genre in the mainstream? I'd say yes. The genre has become a niche, and that's never a good thing. Personally, when I write a novel I'm also looking to appeal to an audience who doesn't read horror (or doesn't realise they read horror). My missus is usually a good barometer: she's not a big genre fan, so if I get her hooked with something I know I've at least partially achieved my aim. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
Gary - it seems to me that a lot of the drivel made way back when was usually bad because of budgetary concerns, and a lot of it still possessed a certain charm. These days you have what amounts to a lot of highly polished turds: films that look beautiful, but are deeply rubbish - drivel at their core. Bereft of really original ideas and imagination. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
I wouldn't say it ended in 1978 at all, but I think Zed is right to say it's become a niche market. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.230 |
Hmm. Mebbe. But I can't help feeling that nostalgia colours our vision here. | ||
| Mark West (Mark_west) Username: Mark_west Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.39.177.173 |
Nostalgia certainly does colour our vision, but a lot of dreck produced back then looks poor because it was - cheaply made, to fill the market, with no aspirations. These days, you have people like Platinum Dunes who pay top dollar to remake 80s films with sexy actors and whipcrack editing and gore and there is a market for that. Strangely. Reaching out is the way to go, to move beyond that niche and it's certainly being tried nowadays (the apalling "The Birthing House" being one), but there needs to be more. Just my tuppence worth! | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.230 |
I watched Fisher's The Mummy the other night. It seemed bereft of any imaginative touches. The monster was seen full on from the outset. Little suspense. Plodding plot development. Silly coincidence with Cushing's wife. Nice sets, though. [Fry ducks for cover] | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
(Shakes head is despair) | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
in | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.230 |
No, tell me why it's good, man.  | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.230 |
Theatre of Blood, Blood on Satan's Claw, Wicker Man, etc - class acts, all. The Mummy is pants. It's not as if I'm wholly blind to the era. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
For me, The Mummy had a real sense of otherworldly dread - plus it had classy performances from Cushing and Lee, and some very fine direction. And the opening mummification scene, in Egypt, is brilliantly (and horrifically, when uncut) staged. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.230 |
Yeah, right. Lee wrapped in bandages and lumbering around without as much directorial subtlety as a cornflake commercial. Maybe it's just me. But the Mummy's introduction should have been much more suggestive. When he showed up, bagged up and stumping, he just elicited a chuckle from me. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.230 |
[I have my tongue firmly in my cheek here, of course] | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.68 |
I'm more with Gary on this one. I like the performances, but the mummy was always too protractedly visible for my taste, even when I first saw the film in my mid-teens (fifteen, actually). I think the Freund version is by far the finest. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.230 |
Now, Quatermass and the Pit from the same era - brilliant. Imaginative, suggestive, psychologically intriguing. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
I think the Freund version is by far the finest. Oh, I agree completely, Ramsey. I do think Fisher's version has a lot to recommend it, though. Gary, the thing about these films is that if you see them for the first time now they're easy to tear apart. If you saw them when you were 10 or 11 they had a different impact. They've also been diluted by imitation, so they don't seem as original as they were back then. I haven't seen the film for about 10 years, but still enjoyed it immensely when I re-watched it then. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
I also think that a lot of the Hammer films lacked subtlety - that's why I preferred the much more deliberately unsubtle Amicus anthology films (as we discusssed in that other thread). But they still have a lot going for them. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
I agree with Mark that sentimentality and nostalgia plays a part. I think we need to honestly separate the good from the bad whatever the period it was made in. I don't think that nowadays we are bereft of good films, even classics. I think we pass through periods in which we sit through some quite awful examples, but I think that horror is as healthy as it has always been. BUT, again, I think Zed is right to say it has become a niche market. That doesn't mean there aren't good films, or books being produced though. I'm personally not a fan of Hammer Horror films. I love some of them, but I also think quite a lot are stilted, wooden and dramatically overplayed. Yes, styles in both direction and acting do differ from period to period, granted, but that's not to say that nostalgia should blind us to their faults. Gary's/Prof's point is pertinent. He wants a solid explanation why 'The Mummy' is a good film. He can't see it. And to be frank, neither can I. But I also respect Zed's view about why he thinks the opposite, it's just that I don't agree with it. Is it a matter of taste again? I think it's unkind to say the era ended in 1978. I love Gatiss, I do respect him, but I have to completely disagree. His choices of films were generally agreed upon, but some of us raised issue with those that were missed off the list. Again, taste. Or so I believe. Compare the average genre movie in the same year as The Haunting or Dead of Night, and you'd be hard pushed to find a dozen straight genre movies in the same mold. I would even argue as far as movies are concerned that because of the horror genre heritage, there are as equally, if not more, people involved who are informed and educated enough to produce films and books based on this pedigree. It's like Susan Hill bemoaning the ghost story form. Not digging deeply enough into the genre can leave you open to the accusation of not recognizing all those little gems that are there right in front of you. Not that Gatiss isn't informed. He most definitely is, but he can't honestly believe that good, even great, horror movies aren't being made nowadays. Perhaps Gatiss heart belongs to another period entirely. Take music. It's like a friend of mine who is a decade older than me. He claims to have an aversion to anything, or almost anything after punk. This rules out so much that there's no room for debate. The same could be applied here. A sense of nostalgia is one thing, and we should acknowledge the brilliance of those who came before, but we should also take note of those around us, now, weaving their own kind of magic. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.230 |
I knoooooow. That's what I said above. Nostalgia. I'm the same with naff 80s sit-coms. My memories of That's My Boy starring Mollie Sugden induce in me a great wave of warmth . . . even though I know full well it's utter shit. (Not that the Mummy is that bad. I'm alluding to the process.) | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.209.217 |
I love Quatermass and the Pit- probably my favourite Hammer film. Superb performance from Andrew Keir. A horror film that took itself seriously and didn't patronise its audience or insult their intelligence. Touched by the mighty hand of Nigel Kneale... While I think Gatiss goes too far in dismissing post-1978 horror, I'm with Zed regarding 'polished turds'- films that are technically slick and souped-up, but have as little- or less- at their core to offer as the most exploitative video nasty fare. While I'm not as bothered about it as I used to be, I still have a soft spot for Dr Who (as poor Joel can testify- on the phone the other night I nearly rendered him unconscious wittering on about the Sontarans. Stay off the phone when you've had chocolate, Simon...) and on the whole I'd rather watch some low-budget job with Tom Baker or Jon Pertwee where the production values may have been low but there was heart and verve to it, than some overproduced, CGI-heavy effects fest like too many of the more recent ones. (And don't even get me started on that godawful 'Titanic' episode.) By the same token, I'd still rather watch, say, 'Ghost Town' (an off the wall, low budget weird western from the early 80s) than 'Final Destination' or the loathsome 'Wolf Creek', even if they're more technically spot-on. Maybe the 70s was the climax of a particular era because of certain tensions that the writers of that generations were part of. On the one hand, they were born during or just before WW2, so there were memories of an older, different Britain, with its certainties and stiff upper lip, where people had their place and knew it; on the other hand, there were changes and new movements like feminism, the counter-culture, the civil rights movement and so on. Chinua Achebe once said the writer's place was at the crossroads; maybe many of the writers of the 60s and 70s- whether they were writing screenplays, stage dramas or popular genre TV- were there by default. I certainly think that lends a particular quality to much of the drama of the period. And of course that's gone now. Not just due to Thatcherism and its legacy- although that played a part- but simply due to the passage of time. The concerns and tensions in writer's lives now are very different. It's a moment that can't be recreated, but we can recognise its power and influence. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
I wrote that while you guys posted after Zed's reason why he think The Mummy is a good film. I wasn't ignoring anyone. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.230 |
(In response to Zed, natch.) | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
But Zed makes a good point, inadvertently bolstering mine. The Mummy was great when viewed by a kid, what horror movies weren't at that age? But the difference is while I now find very little to commend the film, the same can't be said for 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' Siegel's original. And that for me is the difference. The same with 'Night of the Demon.' | ||
| Paul_finch (Paul_finch) Username: Paul_finch Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 92.2.67.184 |
I think what Gatiss was possibly getting at - as others have said - was that these days we have big budget horror movies aimed fairly and squarely at a relatively small crowd of fans who will watch them at the cinema whatever their concept or quality (and will then buy them on DVD as well, so these movies actually make money). For me, torture-porn cinema was once the province of low-cost, gorilla film-makers. The cannibal films, SNUF, etc. These days Hollywood, who once were making classics like THE EXORCIST, THE OMEN, THE SHINING etc, are doing the torture-porn thing with HOSTEL and so forth. In addition to that, we have the repetitious sequels - the endless reruns of unmaginative crap like SCREAM, FRIDAY 13TH and so on. As always, it's subjective. Some people like all this stuff. I personally don't, but I don't think mainstream cinema-goers do either, and if we want to reignite horror as a world brand - much as Universal did in the early 30s, and Hammer in the early 60s, we need to find ways to bring them back. The trick is how to do that and at the same time maintain the genre's proud status as something dark and cutting-edge. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.230 |
Well, by the same logic, there'll be a lot of youngster growing up now and watching modern day horror films (yes, the bad ones) who will, in twenty years time, look back with dewy-eyed fondess. To wit: "Ah, remember when life was so much easier and we watched Saw 7? Remember that scene where he had to cut his own dick off in order to get out of that box? Ah, nostalgia . . . Not what it used to be, is it?" | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
I'm not arguing that nostalgia doesn't play a part - of course it does. But there's a difference between liking a film purely for those reasons, and those reasons being part of why you like a film. The Mummy is a case in point: yep, nostalgia is a factor, but I also think it's a well made film. For the record, my favourite Hammer is either The Reptile or Quatermass & the Pit. The first one for reasons of nostalgia; the second because it's just a superb little film bursting with ideas. | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.209.217 |
Gorilla film makers? So that explains the low quality of the camera work.  | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.55 |
In addition to that, we have the repetitious sequels - the endless reruns of unmaginative crap like SCREAM, FRIDAY 13TH and so on. Horror of Dracula, brides of dracula, taste the blood of dracula, dracula has risen from the grave etc... Sequels ain't new | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.230 |
The Mummy is well-made, just not all that great. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Paul - we do live in an era where sequels are at the fore, but sequels were doing the rounds back then also. A large proportion of Hammer Horror films were sequels to Frankenstein and Dracula. And oh boy, some of them are bad. BUT, yes, I agree that great technique and technology has put a gloss on things to hide those films which have absolutely nothing going on underneath. But try to remember, chaps, about how often all of us have put up a film recommendation on here, one that we've raved about. It's quite often. Things aren't bad at all. And in this age, more and more people are able to make their own little movies. Just remember that as many of you are writing in the modern horror genre, there are other directors out there also committed to producing quality horror (films). I think we are lucky because we get movies which are clearly informed by their predecessors, which sometimes means we are able to relive past glories, the stuff of childhood through a modern reinterpretation. (I like this thread. It's one of the best threads for a while) | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Weber - crossed posts, mate. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
As someone once said to me (about music, actually): everything's shit. It's just different grades of shit. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Or different grades of greatness | ||
| Paul_finch (Paul_finch) Username: Paul_finch Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 92.2.67.184 |
'Horror of Dracula, brides of dracula, taste the blood of dracula, dracula has risen from the grave etc... Sequels ain't new' Exactly. And both the 'franchises' I refer to - Universal and Hammer, which started so well in the eras I mentioned, went rapidly downhill as a result. The lessons of history are there to be seen. Gatiss's point was that, this time, audiences aren't voting with their feet because there is a committed 'horror crowd' who are possibly more tolerant of crap than the mainstream viewers of yesterday were. It's a moot point, but I think it's a valid one. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Paul - it is valid. But I think it's nowhere near as bad as what he perhaps thinks. Age shades our perceptions, and renders some things better than they were. I believe, sincerely, that every decade has given us something special to admire and want to emulate. Really. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 88.111.132.33 |
'For me, torture-porn cinema was once the province of low-cost, gorilla film-makers. The cannibal films, SNUF, etc. These days Hollywood, who once were making classics like THE EXORCIST, THE OMEN, THE SHINING etc, are doing the torture-porn thing with HOSTEL and so forth.' They certainly are. And I caught up with BLOOD ON SATAN'S CLAW the other night. It certainly has some eerie scenes in it. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
But for all the rubbish we have our Session 9's, etc. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.230 |
Yeah, I'm pretty sure we could put together a list of modern good stuff to match the good stuff back then. | ||
| Steve Bacon (Stevebacon) Username: Stevebacon Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 93.186.20.147 |
Isn't it sometimes about how things are marketed, too? One of the best pieces of tv I've seen this year has to be This Is England. More frightening and funny than any horror or comedy programme. And it was the best crime drama of the year. But if it had been touted as a comedy or a crime drama it might not have reached the same audience. These shit horror films we're all talking about have poor characters, corny dialogue, no interaction with each other, other than to serve the CGI or the next set-piece. | ||
| Paul_finch (Paul_finch) Username: Paul_finch Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 92.2.67.184 |
For what it's worth, I totally agree that we are still see good stuff made today, but that seems to me - on the whole - to be the province of the independents (SESSION 9, for example). The big studios have dabbled in mild shockers - THE SIXTH SENSE, THE OTHERS etc, and a few half-decent remakes of some foreign ground-breakers, but I don't think they've turned out anything as good or as original as THE EXORCIST. Two large budget horrors of the last few years - THE UNBORN and MIRRORS were poor efforts, while some of the more expensive remakes have been dire - THE WICKER MAN, THE WOLFMAN, THE HAUNTING, THE CRAZIES ... I know it sounds like I'm being negative for the sake of it, and - having analysed my own argument here - I've realised that I don't totally agree with Mark Gatiss (I think, most likely the Beeb just didn't allow him to make a fourth and final episode). But I still wonder when the next true horror blockbuster will hit the cinemas. He seemed to imply that the next wave of horror should include Jamesian type spookiness and haunting, rather than in-yer-face violence. I tend to agree, but I suspect that's just because I'm getting old and wizened. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
I thought the remake of THE CRAZIES was pretty good myself, but I do agree with your general point, Paul. Ths big studious are clueless when it comes to horror. That's why they keep trying to inherit kudos by remaking previously succesful and/or cult genre films. Also, everyone keeps citing SESSION 9, but that was made back in 2001...what's been as good since then? | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
the next wave of horror should include Jamesian type spookiness and haunting If only...  | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.230 |
>>>Also, everyone keeps citing SESSION 9, but that was made back in 2001...what's been as good since then? Rec. (Or are we just on about Hollywood?) | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.230 |
The Mist was damned good. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
Hollywood major studios, Gary. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.230 |
>>>the next wave of horror should include Jamesian type spookiness and haunting Which would rule out Rec, The Mist, The Exorcist, Texas Chainsaw, Halloween, and many other horror masterworks. Let the next wave include artful terror in whatever form. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.230 |
OK, Gary. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 82.210.188.215 |
Session 9 is just one example. And the studios are usually clueless full-stop. It's not just horror they fail to grasp. Yes, The Mist was excellent. And Rec. I also thought The Crazies was good. As for another Exorcist, why not hope for another Taxi Driver, or another Jaws, or another Citizen Kane, etc. I think we are overlooking a serious amount of great movies being made. To have a history of horror, to have this library from which to choose as our inspirations to make further films, is a good thing. We can't have everything just piled up in front of us. We cite the Exorcist, but how many geuninely brilliant, artistic, intelligent, frightening and meaningful movies, genre movies, can we realistically add to the list? Of that calibre, regardless of individual taste, not many, if that's what we're looking for. Horror has always been marginalised and often been used as a conduit for shit. But, that doesn't mean there's nothing being made which isn't worthy of the mantle. I think age is factor here. Plus nostalgia. Ask Ramsey what he thought of the films being produced when he was a kid, and how he'd rate them now. I'd be interested in that. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Let's see, horror films of the last 10 years that I've seen and would rank as modern classics: Antichrist, Inland Empire, Zodiac, Dark Water, A Tale Of Two Sisters, Pulse, Ju-On : The Grudge, Ju-On : The Grudge II, The Eye, The Host, Wolf Creek, Dog Soldiers, The Descent, Creep, Slither, Haute Tension, The Skeleton Key, The Devil's Backbone, Pan's Labyrinth, 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later, Shaun Of The Dead, Let The Right One In, Lemming, Jeepers Creepers - that's about it. With nods to borderline horror films (No Country For Old Men, The Proposition, Insomnia, Shutter Island, etc...), and counting those I haven't seen that appear to be acknowledged as classics (Session 9, Rec, The Orphanage, etc...) that's still only an average of about 3 or 4 movies a year that really cut it as original, quality horror productions. Not good, compared to the 60s & 70s, or even the 80s for that matter. There are more horror films than ever before being made these days, right around the world, but the vast majority of them are low budget cash-ins of no merit whatsoever or cynical and artistically redundant big budget remakes and sequels, with a guaranteed audience. And things have been getting progressively worse this last 4 years or so. 2010 has been atrocious so far imho. Horror cinema isn't dead, but it sure doesn't smell too healthy (to paraphrase Mr Zappa). | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.76.230 |
I long to see a historical period arrive when folk stop talking about "the death of . . . " things. What's its appeal? Surely it's driven by nostalgia, a resentment because we can never view the world in the same way we once did. Jaded and cynical, we decry everything new, tutting at our younger peers and pretending we pity them, while secretly envying the lucky little bastards. There. I've now said my piece. The nurse will arrive soon to give me a bed-bath. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
The thing is, if you're prepared to look outside the parameters of Hollywood and the big studious, there's some absolutely brilliant work being done in the horror genre. A wider audience is slowly starting to realise this (the commercial success of del Toro's Spanish language films, REC, The Orphanage, Let The Right One In, etc) but it's a long, hard slog. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
My hunger for good quality horror films is as strong today as when I were a lad, and is, if anything, a lot more informed and discerning these days. I still get a real buzz when I see a new horror movie that really impresses me. But that buzz has been getting ever more rare in recent years, and has yet to happen at all this year. I don't buy the nostalgia argument. Quality will stand the test of time, yes, but there was undeniably far more of it being produced in decades past. I mean what happened to the Italian horror market, for example? | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
I've haven't taken big studio horror seriously for about a decade. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Same here, Zed. I mean how many of those I listed came from big studios, or were even American for that matter? | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
Exactly, Stevie. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 82.210.188.215 |
I have to disagree, Steve, unfortunately. I don't think there was 'undeniably' more quality before. I'm an avid fan of TZ, Outer Limits, The Prisoner, Quatermass, etc, but I still don't think that today there's less of it. The Italian horror market? How much of that was top quality horror? Seriously? | ||
| Paul_finch (Paul_finch) Username: Paul_finch Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 92.2.67.184 |
One of the problems, in my personal experience, is that the big studios in Hollywood won't commit large money to a project unless they know it has a captive audience, so that usually means remakes or sequels. This doesn't apply across the board, but if some guy comes forwward with a very original and different idea, the execs at Paramount or wherever may like the look of it, but if someone else says they can make Halloween 33 for the same budget, or even less, most of the execs will lean that way instead. That's my perception. But then Hollywood and Bollywood are both complete laws unto themselves. They're the only two places in the world where folk buy properties purely with the intention of stopping their rivals getting hold of them, and then let those properties rot. We mustn't be naive of course - back in the day, major occult-flavoured products like THE EXORCIST and THE OMEN were only made possible because of the success a maverick director had with his own demonic movie, ROSEMARY'S BABY, so the same rules applied back then as well. But these days, the cost of film-making is potentially so vast that the studios are even more reluctant to fund projects unless they are sure-fire winners (and they still manage to turn out clunkers). | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 81.131.174.190 |
I keep reading about Shaun Jeffrey's success with his fiction 'The Kult' being filmed in USA. I am not an expert, but is this a major coup or something more run-of-the-mill? NB: Shaun Jeffrey has been part of out Small Press scene in UK for some while. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 81.131.174.190 |
*our* Small Press scene. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.110.195.65 |
"Let's see, horror films of the last 10 years that I've seen and would rank as modern classics: Antichrist, Inland Empire, Zodiac, Dark Water, A Tale Of Two Sisters, Pulse, Ju-On : The Grudge, Ju-On : The Grudge II, The Eye, The Host, Wolf Creek, Dog Soldiers, The Descent, Creep, Slither, Haute Tension, The Skeleton Key, The Devil's Backbone, Pan's Labyrinth, 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later, Shaun Of The Dead, Let The Right One In, Lemming, Jeepers Creepers - that's about it. "That's still only an average of about 3 or 4 movies a year that really cut it as original, quality horror productions. Not good, compared to the 60s & 70s, or even the 80s for that matter." Stevie, I've seen twelve of those and thought four were very good, four were OK and four were shit. Any one year with as many as three good, original horror films would be remarkable. You get about half a dozen per decade at best. | ||
| John Forth (John) Username: John Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 82.24.1.217 |
There are still a few decent horror films around, as others have noted. But no, the genre doesn't seem especially healthy at the moment. The American Model in particular (maniac + weapon + teenagers) has well and truly run its course, and needs swept away. Sometimes I think genre fans can be a bit quick to acclaim merely good work as great - classics, even - and I've never quite been able to work out why, even though I suspect I'm guilty of it myself. Perhaps its an effort to convince everyone involved in the scene that it's in better health than it actually is. Actually, you can probably apply that to fans of just about anything... | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
Joel, they're the ones that really impressed me over the last ten years, whether for pure entertainment value, originality or genuine artistic merit. I'd be curious to know which ones you liked and which ones you hated? | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
I missed 'A History Of Horror' last night. Will have to catch it on Thursday. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
Des - Shaun's been very lucky that a small production company have picked up the option on his book and gone right ahead and started shooting it. I hope they do him proud - he's a nice guy. | ||
| Seanmcd (Seanmcd) Username: Seanmcd Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 86.151.247.23 |
Well, I just watched it last night and I thought Trick 'r Treat(2007) was a damn fine little Halloween chiller. Scary and funny all at once. It just oozes Halloween atmosphere in spades. It reminded me a lot of 'Creepshow' not only in the look, feel and overall tone of the film but also in the way an obvious love of the subject matter had been lavished on it by the writer/director, Michael Dougherty, as had King and Romero before him. The fact this went straight to DVD is bloody unbelievable! I will be picking up a copy right away. Apparently Dougherty has a sequel in the works? Definitely required Halloween horror viewing. Brian Cox is brill in it. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 81.131.174.190 |
Yes, Zed, Shaun's a great bloke. He's been over to USA to meet the Director, and the actors etc., and to watch shooting, according to his blog. Good on him. | ||
| Paul_finch (Paul_finch) Username: Paul_finch Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 92.2.67.184 |
I didn't know about Shaun's success. That's absolutely great news. Good on him indeed. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.181.195.227 |
Also, a lot of Twilight Zone was bollocks. I mean, let's be objective here. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
There were quite a few poor episodes of the original 'Twilight Zone', especially in the later series - but more often than not the quality remained exceptionally high till the end, while those early series were just phenomenal! 'The Outer Limits' was much more consistent in quality, but it only ran for 2 seasons. Hey, are we on the wrong thread...! | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
I haven't seen any Twilight Zone episodes since I was about 18 (used to sit up and watch them pissed when I got back from the pub/club in the early hours of Sunday morning), but I can't remember any I'd consider bollocks. I do recall a few lesser ones, but even they had a distinctive charm. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
let's be objective here You know what? I'm thinking this entire thread proves that it's probably impossible to be truly objective about this stuff. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.181.195.227 |
Oh, you and your charm. I just want blood n guts. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
I can't help being charming. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
Seriously, though: objectivity doesn't count. It's the new rule. I can list as many reasons why something like TZ is shite as I can to prove that it isn't. Subjectivity is the new objectivity. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.181.195.227 |
Well . . . I rewatched a few 'classic' episodes of TZ recently and I thought they were gimmicky, obvious and thin. Great when I was 18, sure. But pretty limited, in all fairness. Not all episodes. Just some. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.181.195.227 |
>>>Subjectivity is the new objectivity. OK. But if you bring relativity into it, I shall have to destroy you. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
Incidentally, I've just watched the final ep. of the Gattiss thing, and it's worth noting that he actually said in his opinion the 1970s horror boom marked the last sustained golden period of horror cinema in US filmmaking. He agreed that there have been individual stand-out films, and noted that several mini booms have occured in Japanese and Spanish horror (etc), but the UK and US horror scenes have been dominated by derivative slashers, remakes, and dodgy sequels. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
Great when I was 18, sure. But pretty limited, in all fairness. That could quite easily sum up the entire horror genre in terms of cinema. Relatively speaking. Hahahahahahahaha... | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.181.195.227 |
So . . . all this thread could have been avoided. No blood. No guts. No mindless mayhem. No slaughter. Fiiinchyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy . . . | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.181.195.227 |
>>>That could quite easily sum up the entire horror genre in terms of cinema. Relatively speaking. Checklist: Collect baseball bat and shovel Type Pudsey address into sat-nav Drive to said address Do 'business' Dig hole Insert 'goods' Fill in hole Whistle a cheerful melody Get a kebab Smoke philosophically and await formal enquiries | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
| ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.253.174.81 |
I really can't agree with Gatiss's comment that 1978 was 'the end' of the third sustained golden age of horror. Phantasm (1979)? The Howling (1980)? American Werewolf in London(1981)? The Thing(1982)? Videodrome(1983)? Nightmare on Elm Street(1984)? Reanimator(1985)? The Fly (1986)? Hellraiser(1987)? By 1988 things were looking a bit sequelish and by the early 1990s we had little but Candyman to keep us going but that's a far greater sustained output of properly good stuff than was alluded to. Comparisons with this particular cycle can easily be drawn with other periods in horror film history (especially the 1940s which were actually dominated with sequels and utter rubbish like 'The Mummy's Tomb', 'The Strange Case of Dr Rx' and 'Zombies on Broadway'. Even Val Lewton's B pictures couldn't raise the overall quality bar that much). I actually got the feeling he didn't much care for the 'New American Horror' anyway, which is a shame as I seem to have been far more affected (and scared and impressed) by these movies than he was, despite us being of similar ages | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
To be fair, my main period of influence was the one you're talking about, John - probably from 1978 to about 1992 (hitting a high with Dust Devil). I particularly love the US horror of that time: it was angry, spiky, relevant and scary as hell. I do think US horror has lost its way, though, and currently the best stuff is coming from the foreign markets. | ||
| Paul_finch (Paul_finch) Username: Paul_finch Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 92.2.67.184 |
One absence I did notice from Gatiss's account was any reference to werewolf movies. He might have shown the odd still, but he gave no assessment THE WEREWOLF OF LONDON or THE WOLFMAN in the first episode, he likewise ignored CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF in the second one, and, as JLP said, glossing over the post-1978 era meant that he was discarding the latter-day hairy heroes who stalked our screens in AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON, THE HOWLING etc. For what it's worth, I don't particularly rate those last two films, but they drew big audiences and have pretty well become integral to horror popular culture. Gatiss was on a well publicised personal journey, so it's difficult to criticise him for not liking the same stuff as everyone else, but he clearly has an irrational prejudice against loup-garoux. | ||
| Kate (Kathleen) Username: Kathleen Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 81.152.74.159 |
he clearly has an irrational prejudice against loup-garoux. Perhaps he IS one. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
Paul, you didn't rate The Howling and American Werewolf? Why not? I'm quite suprised you're not a fan of both. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
I agree entirely with what John said above. For me the golden era of "video nasty" horror - much of it Italian, as well as American - extended right through the 80s and into the early 90s. Things started to get stinky about 93-94 imo. It's no coincidence that the last great Italian horror film is generally reckoned to be 'Dellamorte Dellamore' (1994). | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
Dellamorte Dellamore...a splendid film. | ||
| Paul_finch (Paul_finch) Username: Paul_finch Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 92.2.67.184 |
Gary ... I found THE HOWLING a bit cartoonish, literally in one scene, and full of ridiculous plot-holes. The werewolves were also the least frightening I'd ever seen, even way back then. As for AMERICAN WEREWOLF - I liked that a lot more, but at the time was distracted by its inability to decide whether it was a horror or a comedy. These days, when we all look back on it fondly as a horror-comedy that works on both levels, I like it a lot more. And for what it's worth, I have both on my DVD shelf ;> | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
That's weird - I love both films for exactly the reasons you state you don't. Apart from the fact that the werewolves in The Howling are actually the most frightening I've ever seen. Both films genuinely scared me at the time, and they still possess the ability to do so now (specifically the opening of The Howling and the overal uneasy tone of American Werewolf). | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
I believe 'The Howling' works as horror comedy as well, but of a much darker, more subversive nature than 'American Werewolf'. Both films are well up in my Top 100 of all time, and both reside in the old DVD collection. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.77.197 |
Loved American Werewolf. Hated Howling. Then again, I saw AWiL as a kid, and Howling as an adult. So go figure, dudes. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Yes, the werewolves in 'The Howling' are terrifying!! That transformation sequence in the office really unsettles me every time. Brilliant movie! | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
Why did you hate it, GF? That's a strong reaction... | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.77.197 |
OK, maybe hate is the wrong word. Was lukewarm to, is better. I didn't get that it was supposed to be a comedy and it ended up coming across as stupid to me. It probably is just me, tho. | ||
| Kate (Kathleen) Username: Kathleen Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 81.152.74.159 |
Another vote for The Howling - my favourite werewolf flick and my pick for scariest werewolves. Eddie's transformation - spectacular! And American Werewolf has one of my all-time favourite horror film moments - the shot looking down the escalator as the wolf advances on his victim in the Underground. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.68 |
"...the UK and US horror scenes have been dominated by derivative slashers, remakes, and dodgy sequels..." I'd say several films by David Lynch are enough to disprove that all by themselves! | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Yep, 'Inland Empire' has no competition for finest US horror film of the new millennium so far. It vies with 'Antichrist' for best of the last decade imo. One other recent artistic masterwork I should have mentioned above; 'Lunacy' (2005) by Jan Svankmajer. Why do him and David Lynch always go together in my mind?! | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 86.153.239.19 |
I'd agree with Ramsey. But Lynch films are often seen as art house films rather than Horror??? | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
American Werewolf is for me, and always will be, a pivotal film in horror. One of the few examples of a film which used the groundbreaking effects for integral reasons, rather than drowning out the plot, the actors, or the direction. It was also one of the few examples of when black comedy and horror meet in a perfect balance of fright and terror. I found it (as a kid) more terrifying than funny, though that is to be expected from a mere boy. The Howling I found of similar worth, though I couldn't help feeling that Dante was riding, albeit it rather brilliantly, on Landis' coat-tails. I have to admit I even enjoyed one or two of the notoriously dire sequels, of which there are 7????? | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
GF: Ah, I see. Yes, it's meant to be a (black) comedy. Ramsey, but Lynch's films have hardly dominated the commercial UK and US horror scene over the last 10 years. Slashers, teen-friendly shockers and remakes have done that. And, as Des says, Lynch's films (although some of the best modern horror films ever made) are never marketed as horror anyway. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Do they have to dominate in terms of making huge amounts of cash like The Exorcist? They make enough money, and everybody knows Lynch. I'd easily classify a handful of Lynch's movies over The Exorcist any day. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
That's not the point of the debate, though, Frank. We're talking about mainstream horror - horror as a genre in the public perception (and how to generate that crossover Paul mentions in his first post). Ask anyone in the street what a horror film is and they'll say slasher. Nobody outside of a niche knows who Lynch is. Your average cinema-going punter has never heard of Inland Empire, but they've all seen SAW 3. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
So ... do we need to reach out beyond horror fandom to reinstate the genre in the mainstream? If so, how do we do it? What will be the next big thing? Or is just an impossible dream? This was Paul's question - the thing that prompted this debate. Personally, I want horror back in the mainstream. I'm sick of trying to tell everyone I speak to that the horror genre isn't all about Freddy Kruger or teenagers being slaughtered. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
I disagree that horror was ever truly in the mainstream. Honestly. I want horror authors to sell lots of books, get the good stuff out there, and also horror films to be seen by as many people as possible, but I unfortunately can't see horror setting up permanent camp in the mainstream. My point about Lynch is that I'd rather have his work out there, than worry about whether or not it makes enough money to count as mainstream. I though the whole point of what 'we' were doing was to try and elevate and push, and create work that is something to be proud of. Give me a great body of work any day, than a stream of mainstream moneymaking hits. All great work sits in behind the mainstream. Very rarely does quality in any genre make it to the fore. Look at any number of books on your shelves, any genre, and how many people know of this or that author. Really. How many people have a copy of Joyce's 'Portrait of a Young Man?'compared to Dan Brown's latest novel? I agreed that Zed was right about it becoming a niche market, but I thought it always had been. That doesn't mean I don't want to see mainstream success, but as long as my heroes get to create and publish/direct, I'm a happy bunny. Then again, I'm a fan. I have the luxury of saying that as opposed to the writer or director who has to make a living out of it. And for the record, I think Anti-Christ is far more relevant and powerful and frightening than The Exorcist. I love Friedkin, and that movie, but I think it's cited too often. Is it a milestone? Yes. But not the only one. And how many people in the horror genre have ever mentioned his other recent great horror movie, BUG? It's not just mainstream audiences. We also haven't seen everything to which we can honestly say we are currently going through some piss-poor period | ||
| Paul_finch (Paul_finch) Username: Paul_finch Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 92.2.67.184 |
That's definitely the thing that was on my mind, Gary. Obviously we get sidetracked into interesting debates, which what this social networking thing is all about, but this thread in particular has underlined the original point to some extent. There is a bunch of people - i.e. us and others like us - who you'd have to describe as 'horror fans'. We're well informed on our pet subject. We know that the horror envelope includes directors like Lynch - but sadly, the majority of 'non horror-fans' may not. Likewise, we have sufficient interest in the genre to find worthiness in highly controversial films like ANTICHRIST. Again though, the mainstream majority may not. And it's not just about movies, either. You only have to go into DW Smiths - or even Waterstones in some towns - and the horror section will still be packed with the two Ks, Buffy, Twilight, and nothing else. That doesn't mean that quality supernatural literature isn't in the shop - but you'll most likely find it in with the 'Other Fiction'. Horror doesn't get the credit for it. Back in the 70s, I could go into my local bookshop and the horror section would include the likes of Strieber, Blatty, McCammon, F. Paul Wilson, etc. Sure, there'd be lashing of Guy N. Smith as well, but that was a price worth paying so long as all the top practitioners were also to be found in their rightful place. I don't think it's OTT nostaliga to yearn for a restoration of that mainstream respectability. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
I hear you, Paul. Frank: we're not on about money-spinning. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.68 |
I think my point was really that Mark Gatiss left Lynch out of the running, perhaps because he doesn't like his work, though I don't know that. Mark does say in Cinema Macabre that the Amicus omnibuses are his favourite mode of horror film. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
My wife had a conversation at work the other day. I'm paraphrasing, but it went something like this: Some girl asked her what I wrote. Emily said horror. The girl said "I never read horror. It's rubbish." Emily said, "What about that Stephen King book on your desk? That's horror." The girl looked at her oddly..."Stephen King isn't horror. Horror's all slashery stuff, with tits and dead teenagers." Sadly, this kind of attitude is the norm. I'm often embarassed to say I write horror, and justify it by calling it "psychological horror". So, yeah, I want the mainstream to at least understand what the genre is about, what it's capable of. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
Sorry, Ramsey: I misunderstood what you were saying. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
But Zed, again, I have to disagree. It is partly about money. Of course we want the work, the good work, the excellent work, up on the shelves and attracting lines around the block. I would love to see Ramsey and Etchinson have the same amount of shelf space and prominence as the majority of the crap we see up there. But being in the mainstream most of the time is about how many books you sell, how many tickets you flog. I think in the 70's, Paul, horror was in one of its fashionable cycles. It'll come again. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
That's a completely different debate, though. We're talking about changing people's perception of horror. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Okay, fair enough. I'll leave it for another thread. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.237.21 |
Of course we want the work, the good work, the excellent work, up on the shelves and attracting lines around the block. Ah, is that what excellent work does? I mean, what makes you think Joe Ordinary wants quality? | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Hubert - I didn't say Joe Ordinary does. That was my point, or some of it. I was saying it'd be great, but I didn't say it was realistic. I also didn't say excellent work attracts huge numbers, I was attempting to say unfortunately it seldom does. Hence my Joyce example, as poor as it was. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.77.197 |
>>>Horror's all slashery stuff, with tits and dead teenagers But, Zed, that was the attitute of most people in the '80s, wasn't it? I remember when I first got into King in about 1986 - I certainly felt as if there was this kind of stigma attached to the genre. Has it ever been any different? Ramsey, back in the 60s, was it different? The 70s? | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
When I got into horror, in the 1970s, everyone's perception of horror was either the Hammer or Universal films - even my old Nana called them monster films and thought Boris Karloff or Chris Lee was in everything (including the books). | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
Back in the 1970s, horror saturated the mainstream: every newsagent stocked copies Hammer House of Horror, we had Aurora model kits in every toy shop on the high street, even Tudor crisps had Harem Scarems as a free gift, you could buy horror posters on every market stall, WH Smiths sold a huge variety of horror titles, Fear on Friday double bills on TV every weekend. Everyone was into horror; I wasn't the weird kid, odd one out; it wasn't a niche interest. Horror was a popular part of pop culture. Then the 1980s killed it. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.77.197 |
So monsters are . . . what? More respectable than slashers, tits and dead teenagers? I suppose what I'm asking is what it is you're objecting to in the general public opinion? Don't get me wrong. I hate it, too. But I'm just as easily dismissed by many non-horror fans I know as "the man who writes about killer rats and grue." Mostly in jest, but that's nonetheless their overall perception of the field. In other words, in their view, the monster stuff is as laughable as slashers, etc, are nasty. And I feel unhappy about being associated with both. Therefore, I wonder whether horror has ever had mainstream respectability? I've no idea. I only go back to the 80s. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
The youth of today...don't know you're born. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.77.197 |
>>>Then the 1980s killed it. Presumably by bringing in tawdry artless slasher stuff? Horror became puerile and exploitative? Fair enough. But here's the thing, in this context, I find puzzling about you, Zed: some of the films you've defended from back then are just like this. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.77.197 |
>>>Everyone was into horror; I wasn't the weird kid, odd one out; it wasn't a niche interest. Horror was a popular part of pop culture. Sitting up with Gran watching A Serbian Film . . . Them were the days, lad. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
I never said I wasn't complex. Or contradictory. Indeed, I've always admitted it.  You still don't understand, though. I don't dislike that stuff - I love it, actually. It simply saddens me that the general public associate horror only with the exploitative stuff. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
I actually watched Taxi Driver with my Nana...she didn't know what hit her.  | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
Presumably by bringing in tawdry artless slasher stuff? Horror became puerile and exploitative? No, but the public perception of it became so. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.77.197 |
OK, but it would be good if someone could tell me whether in previous generations, horror had any more respectability. Where's Grandpa Campbell when you need him? Come on, lad, get ya teeth in and tell us what the 50s and 60s were like. Were horror bods embarrassed by admitting their fondness for the field? | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.68 |
"Ramsey, back in the 60s, was it different? The 70s?" I've often pondered the cyclical nature of horror and of the general perception of it. I think as a term it goes in and out of respectability. For instance, a couple of years after all the horror comics were banned here, and around or just before the time that horror films began to attract opprobrium again, the highly respectable Faber & Faber brought out Best Horror Stories (possibly the book that did more than any other to shape my view of the field). | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.11.77.197 |
In my lifetime I can't remember a single period during which the term 'horror' has been respectable. I missed out on the 70s thing, tho. Mind you, as a side issue, is a desire to be respectable, respectable in itself? Should we care? Who wants to subsumed within what passes for the mainstream these days anyway? So, V-signs all round, then. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
I see quality horror cinema as encompassing everything from entertaining and original popular thrill rides like 'Jeepers Creepers', 'Dog Soldiers' or 'Slither' to seriously disturbing artistic works like 'Inland Empire', 'Antichrist or 'Lunacy'. That's why I consider Joel's comment above - "Any one year with as many as three good, original horror films would be remarkable. You get about half a dozen per decade at best." - so shocking. I mean there's being discerning and there's being just plain hard to please imo. I can think of 9 masterpieces from the greatest year for cinematic horror ever, 1973, alone: 'The Exorcist', 'Don't Look Now', 'The Wicker Man', 'The Crazies', 'Horror Express', 'Sisters', 'Theatre Of Blood', 'Torso' & 'High Plains Drifter'. And that's without even mentioning: 'And Now The Screaming Starts', 'The Asphyx', 'Blood For Dracula', 'Blue Eyes Of The Broken Doll', 'The Boy Who Cried Werewolf', 'Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things', 'Flesh For Frankenstein', 'Horror Hospital', 'The Legend Of Hell House', 'Lisa And The Devil', 'Night Of The Sorcerers', 'Return Of The Evil Dead', 'Schlock', 'Sssssss', 'The Satanic Rites Of Dracula', 'Vault Of Horror' or 'The Werewolf Of Washington'. Need I say more... | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
Blue Eyes Of The Broken Doll, a masterpiece? | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Not one of the ones I listed, no, but can you think of a more memorable load of nonsense that somewhow achieves greatness being made nowadays? Like the throwaway pop in the charts, in them days, even the rubbish was quality rubbish... compared to what we're being fed now! | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
See? Like I said earlier: it's all shite, just different grades of shite.  | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Hardly shite, man... think of the rich manure in the subtext. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
 | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.126.164.88 |
Eli Roth's five horror favorites, and his views on each: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101027/ap_en_mo/us_film_five_most I find that list depressing. Btw: I'm with Gary, I hated THE HOWLING too. And I too, saw it first as an adult, as compared to AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON, which I also saw as a kid, and also love.... | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Haven't seen 'Sleepaway Camp' or 'Pieces', and sounds to me like he may be taking the piss - at least I hope so. However, 'Troll II' really is great fun, 'Zombie Flesheaters' is a masterpiece (yes, I'm serious) and 'Creepshow' is one of the best portmanteau horror films ever made, and the only US one that can hold a candle to those made in Britain. Eli Roth is a complete dick, though, and can't direct for toffee imho. He was good in 'Inglourious Basterds', but Tarantino could make anyone look good. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.126.164.88 |
SLEEPAWAY CAMP is garbage, not even unintentionally funny garbage, like PIECES. Not seen TROLL II... and sure, ZOMBIE2 is classic, and CREEPSHOW deliciously wicked... but his favorite horror movies?! Of all time?! Sad, sad, sad. A golden opportunity to enhance the minds of so many "fans," to maybe check out THE INNOCENTS, or I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE, or DON'T LOOK NOW, or or or.... You're right, Stevie, he is a complete dick. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
All genres of fiction are marginalized by the people who don't read them. If you think horror has it bad, try admitting you're a romance writer. (My wife is one.) Mysteries are for violent types, horror is for psychopaths, romance is girl-porno, sf/fantasy is for nerds without social skills, comics are for outcasts, etc, etc. The world doesn't get it and never will: This is the mantra of all genre writers, and probably rightly so. The real problem, as I see it, is that the fans of so-called "literary fiction" call the shots. For some reason, they get to decide what's relevant fiction and what isn't. Mainstream critics tend to review fiction through the prism of literary fiction, which means that some of the elements championed by genres -- story, say, or suspense -- pull no favors with these critics. But literary fiction is also a genre, whether these critics would admit it or not, with its own rules and templates. The popularity of genres tends to rise and fall with the success of writers within that genre. If another Stephen King shows up in the next few years, horror will boom again. Personally, though, I'd like to see a new genre take off -- a blend, perhaps, of some of the others. Horror-sf, perhaps? Mystery-horror-romance? I don't know. | ||
| Stu (Stu) Username: Stu Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 82.27.28.58 |
>>Mystery-horror-romance? Doesn't that describe the Sookie Stackhouse books? | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.126.164.88 |
How about torture-porn-slapstick? With a laugh-track? | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Chris - well said, mate. Excellently put. But I do think that literary writers are often as overlooked as genre literary writers. I have dozens of great novels by the most wonderfully talented writers in straight literature, and I don't know anybody who had ever heard of them. I sometimes think that they sell less books than genre literary writers. At least genre literary writers (that's the new MO from now on) have a loyal fan base to fall back on or build up an aspiring career. It's tough, yes, but tougher than straight literature? I don't know. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/features/owfs-greatest-horror-movies-by-decades- 1910-cabinet-of-dr-caligari.php The rest follows weekly, I think. Food for thought. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
http://thisguyoverhere.com/articles/top-10-lists/top-10-horror-films-of-the-2000 s/ | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Here's a question for everybody. What would say are the most obvious differences between British made horror movies and American? Consider everything from themes, content, visual imagery, allegory, stylistics, etc. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
Do you mean recent horror films? To be honest I haven't seen that many British ones recently, but the ones I have seen have been gritty, low key (for the most part) and slower paced than the American ones. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
By way of comparison, here are two recent UK and US horror films I've seen, and a brief reaction to both: The Collector (US): empty, nasty, lacking in character development, badly (under)written, fast-paced, an obvious set-up for a franchise. Cherry Tree Lane (UK): slow-paced, nasty, had slightly more substance that the above, well acted, written with a sense of structure. I'm not saying one was better than the other, but they were the differences I can think of. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
British horror cinema & TV does tend to be grittier, less populist and more serious, in its treatment of the material, than across the Atlantic. There are notable exceptions, but on the whole US productions tend to be lighter and more profit oriented affairs imo. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
Perhaps the same goes for literature as well. I recall a friend of mine, a mystery fan, describing why he didn't like UK mysteries: "Everything's so serious," he said. "And there's ... too many words." A ridiculous complaint, of course. It reminded me of that scene in AMADEUS where the patron complains to Mozart about "Too many notes!" -- equally ridiculous. Americans have a suspicion about art, I think -- although not as serious a one, I reckon, as the Australians have -- that the artist is a prankster trying to pull something on the viewer/reader, that it's up to the viewer/reader to catch him out before he succeeds. Certainly most Americans view elliptical stories -- or any story, rather, in which something must be inferred on the part of the viewer/reader, to be a failure of the storyteller's art. Unless the story strikes the viewer/reader on the head with meaning, then, the story is a failure. On the whole I think the UK/Europe approach to art -- which seems, from these shores, to be more supportive, more mature, and less guarded, less skeptical -- is far healthier. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.31.194.128 |
That reminds me of an essay I read a while back, Chris, in which US cultural mores were compared to Japanese. Americans (by no means all, of course) were regarded as uncomfortable with ambiguity and preferred things spelling out for them. Whereas for the Japanese, it was quite the opposite: they mistrusted openness. The author ascribed this in part to the geographical size of the relative countries and the number of people living there. In Japan, too-clear meanings are apt to cause tensions in a densely packed country. In America, the contrary: considerable space between communities could render ambiguity and a lack of clarity problematic. There was more to it than this. But your comment here just put me in mind of that. | ||
| Lincoln Brown (Lincoln_brown) Username: Lincoln_brown Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 121.214.42.32 |
The art scene is very healthy down here, in Australia. We're spoilt for choice when it comes to galleries, independent cinemas, theatres, bookshops (even 2nd hand ones!) etc. Loads of review type shows on the TV and radio - film, literature, art. Surely this wouldn't be the case if, in general, we were 'suspicious' about art? We're not all beer drinking cricket yobbo's!! (Although, I don't mind a beer. And I enjoy the cricket ) | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.152.74.159 |
Well we've just watched Saw VI again as revision for the imminent release of Saw VII tomorrow and the more I see of this film series the more I marvel at how good it really is. Thinking back on how depressingly bereft of ideas and creative energy most part VIs have been (House of Frankenstein, Dracula AD 1972, Freddy's Dead, Halloween 6 etc etc) I found this utterly thrilling on second viewing and can't wait to see the 'final installment' tomorrow. I don't think movie horror is dead at all, although it may be misunderstood | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 98.220.97.79 |
Sorry, Lincoln. I meant no offense, and I didn't mean to imply that Australia had little interest in art. I only meant that Australians have the same sort of suspicions that Americans have about ambiguous or abstract art -- that someone's pulling their leg -- only more so. I refer, of course, to the case of the hoax poems of Ern Malley and their publication in Angry Penguins, whose aftermath, from what I've read, discouraged Australians from pursuing abstract or avant-garde art. (Anyone who hasn't heard of this story would do well to look it up.) I wasn't trying to suggest that Australians aren't good at art -- I admire a number of writers and musicians from Australia -- it's just that none of them are particularly abstract. As rich a culture as Australia is, it is sort of suspicious how few artists with modernist or postmodernist sensibilities hail from there. On the other hand, perhaps I'm just revealing my own ignorance: surely it's possible that such artists have just never crossed my path? | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 98.220.97.79 |
Gary -- your essay sounds fascinating. The idea that geography has an affect on a population's tastes in art is such a wild concept -- and yet feels true. | ||
| Lincoln Brown (Lincoln_brown) Username: Lincoln_brown Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 121.214.42.32 |
Chris - no offence taken. Contemporay and abstract art are alive and well down here,but, maybe not recognised on an international level? | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
John/Kate - Kim Newman gave the new Saw movie 2 stars out of five/six...can't remember. Not that I take any satisfaction from that (my views on the films have been less than kind), BUT, I actually may go and watch it this weekend as it's Halloween. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
Great Halloween Sale on in HMV, folks. Picked up all these for £3 each: 'House Of Wax' (1953) by André De Toth 'Them!' (1954) by Gordon Douglas 'Carry On Screaming' (1966) by Gerald Thomas 'Dracula Has Risen From The Grave' (1968) by Freddie Francis 'Taste The Blood Of Dracula' (1970) by Peter Sasdy 'Dracula AD 1972' (1972) by Alan Gibson 'The Shining' (1980) by Stanley Kubrick (I know, I know...) 'Candyman' (1992) by Bernard Rose 'The Others' (2001) by Alejandro Amenábar 'Cold Prey' (2006) by Roar Uthaug + 'Cold Prey : Resurrection' (2008) by Mats Stenberg - 2 in 1 'The Orphanage' (2007) by Juan Antonio Bayona ...while last and probably least, and thanks to Weber, I finally got a copy of 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' - thanks mate! | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Finally got to see the last episode on iPlayer last night. Thoroughly entertaining again but the one I found myself disagreeing most with, particularly - as noted above - Gatiss's claim that 1978 marked the end of the "last golden era of horror cinema"! Yes, the long 1970s was the greatest era for horror movies we have seen, but that extended from 1968 to at least 1983-84 imo. In America alone, 'Halloween' was followed by the - at least - equally iconic and influential; 'Alien' (1979), 'Salem's Lot' (1979), 'Friday The 13th' (1980), 'The Shining' (1980), 'The Howling' (1981), 'An American Werewolf In London' (1981), 'Basket Case' (1982), 'Poltergeist' (1982), 'The Thing' (1982), 'The Evil Dead' (1983), 'A Nightmare On Elm Street' (1984), etc, etc... Yeah, the US horror market became an ever more efficient machine producing cheap rubbish after that, but the quality movies elsewhere, particularly in Italy, continued well into the 90s imo. I have to agree with his gloomy sentiments about the state of the genre today though... |