| Author | Message | ||
     Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
A four-part article at Slate on what's wrong with horror and how to "fix" it: http://www.slate.com/id/2297938/entry/2298161/ (Only two parts available at this writing.) Interesting points here, although I'm left wondering about a few things: 1. I think it's true that horror movies shouldn't aim for respectability, but it's also true that many independent filmmakers who understand this maxim aim well beneath respectability and still make crap. (I'm thinking here of, say, the August Underground series, or David DeFalco's CHAOS, that sort of thing.) Perhaps there's a "sweet spot" between aiming too high and too low? 2. The idea of eliminating backstory is good, I think, but it doesn't go far enough. Better would be to stop explaining anything. In my view, very little in a horror movie needs to be explained. To elaborate, let me take Lovecraft's "oldest and strongest emotion" concept a step further: In an interview, filmmaker Kiyoshi Kurosawa once said that the "only type of fear was fear of the unknown." At first I thought Kurosawa was wrong about this, but the more I thought about it, the more sense it made. The more you know about something, the less it can scare you. From this, you can extrapolate that filmmakers would be better off telling viewers almost nothing, and providing as few cues to the nature of the narrative as possible. Additional unnecessary cues: * Spooky music. Music only serves to tell me when to be scared. If a movie's working, the soundtrack won't need to tell me when tensions are rising. * A movie star or famous actor in a lead role. This almost always indicates the star's character will survive until the end of the film. Why give this away? * Hiding the killer's identity. Detective-story plots -- that is, those in which the killer's identity is concealed and then revealed at the end -- always seem to work at odds with with horror story plots. Perhaps this is because too much is being concealed? (Or perhaps the wrong information is being concealed.) There is no solution to the question "who is killing these people?" that is truly frightening. Filmmakers who want to make such a story would do well to simply make a detective movie and leave it at that. Are there others? 3. Let's switch to books. Novels, by their nature, are full of narrative backstory. Does this mean that the idea of eliminating backstory is worthless in a novel? Does horror fiction by its nature operate differently than horror films? Can novels avoid backstory and remove "respectability" and still succeed? Any other thoughts? Does horror need "fixing" at all? | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.181.143.178 |
"* Hiding the killer's identity. Detective-story plots -- that is, those in which the killer's identity is concealed and then revealed at the end -- always seem to work at odds with with horror story plots. Perhaps this is because too much is being concealed? (Or perhaps the wrong information is being concealed.) There is no solution to the question "who is killing these people?" that is truly frightening. Filmmakers who want to make such a story would do well to simply make a detective movie and leave it at that." I'd disagree entirely on this -hiding the killer's identity works in many great horrors - most of the good Argentos for example, Friday 13th part 1 (original with Mrs Vorhees behing the assorted weaponry), the first scream (which was good honest), the first Saw (which really was good) and many many slashers where the killer is revealed in the last reel, normally as the person the heroine turns to for help as the lead suspect is looking for her... But I don't think horror really needs fixing. Public perception of horror is what needs a tweak. Too many people think horror movies are just zobies or serial killers. The subtle stuff doesn't register on the public psyche as being horror any more. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.181.143.178 |
Also in Psycho the killer's identity is hidden up until the moment we meet mother in the basement. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.126.164.88 |
Glut. That's the big problem with horror. It was the problem with Westerns in the 40's/50's - actually, I mean to say, it was the problem with Westerns by the 60's, because no one wanted them anymore, they'd been choked with them in film and TV to the point of vomiting. Go to Blockbuster, say, and wander the new shelves - horror, horror, horror, made by amateurs in this emerging democratic everyone-can film world. Now, anyone can (and unfortunately, does) grab a camera and make a decent-looking film. So what do the plebs usually go for?... Shakespeare? subtle dramatic studies of character? deft political analyses rendered through analogy and metaphor? No. They do fucking zombies. Over and over. Or horror in general. Horror is everywhere, it's mainstream now. It's "respectable." It's tamed. It's immature-ized (witness ZOMBIELAND). It's plain bad. Glut, is the problem. The too-many 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY-esque apes who've stumbled across a digital camera and decided to make a film of their own.... | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
>> Also in Psycho the killer's identity is hidden up until the moment we meet mother in the basement. A trick that only works once, I think. These days, a filmmaker who conceals his killer in silhouette (a la Hitchcock) only reveals his intentions to mislead the audience. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
I'm with Craig (which is a new experience) - too many stupid, talentless hacks see horror as an easy way into the film industry. Is there any other cinematic genre that's responsible for so much utter shite? Also, just because someone's a big fan of horror doesn't mean they're capable of writing or directing a decent horror novel/film/screenplay. Actually, thinking about it, these are usually the worst people to try their hand at the genre - a lot of them haven't studied outside the genre. Just saying, like. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.183.78.66 |
I think books should have dozens of blank pages at the end. When you watch a film at the cinema you don't know exactly when you're coming towards the end; when you read a book you know exactly where the end is, as you turn that last page, but if the was 250 pages long, and there were an unknown number blank at the end, you'd not know when the ending was occuring, and that might help keep the tension up. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.181.143.178 |
Or a mandatory set of short stories at the end of the book... | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
"The more you know about something, the less it can scare you." By definition, then, any movie declaring itself to be a horror movie has the odds against it: To be included in horror (or any genre, really) is to have certain decisions taken out of your hands. It means including familiar elements, tropes, patterns. Viewers (or readers) will have a degree of certainty about the contents of the film (or book) going in, and that excludes the possibility of fear. (I don't know here. I'm just speculating.) Perhaps what Zed and Craig are complaining about is not the "glut" of horror films, but the overwhelming number of shoddy, cliched films bearing the horror banner. (If there were a "glut" of good horror films, you wouldn't complain.) I don't necessarily want to turn this thread into an argument against genrefication, but maybe it's true that the best way to make a good horror movie (or book) these days is to make one that doesn't look like a horror movie (or book) at all. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.181.143.178 |
The writer of the article might be more convincing in his arguments if he didn't make the factual errors about the films he's criticising. He calls Jason the killer in Friday 13th, he gives Quint's lines from Jaws to Hooper...there's more in there if you look | ||
| Greg James (Greg_james) Username: Greg_james Registered: 04-2011 Posted From: 193.109.254.21 |
I think it's also worth bearing in mind that it's not always the people who make the films that are the problem. I've been attending Frightfest in London for a few years now and I have heard people tell of compromises that were forced on them, such as adding more blood and guts and the like, or having control taken away from them completely. I'm not saying that all of them are put-upon and misunderstood artistes, just that some have had their work mangled in the process of getting it out there. I'm not sure that there is much that can be done about gluts though as these surges and trends in particular genres and sub-genres are outside of our control. We can write the best books we can and make the best films but whether that has an impact is then often down to luck; being in the right place at the right time is the most difficult trick to master, if indeed this is possible at all. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.153.144.18 |
Luther has been the best horror for me this year. And it's on telly, and technically not horror. Yes, Craig - you're right. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.126.164.88 |
To be included in horror (or any genre, really) is to have certain decisions taken out of your hands. It means including familiar elements, tropes, patterns.... But I would argue that a horror film that takes you to familiar places, one that even doesn't really scare you, can work wonderfully. Because, come on - let's face it - be honest. Really. You all here read so much more horror than I do/have, tons of it, lots of it quite good, right? How much of it really really really scares you now? Very little. A sense of dread, a feeling of that which is unsettling, a tinge of fear... even those things are more often than not, rare. But one can appreciate horror fiction all the same, broadly as a genre, if whatever it is you're reading is well-crafted. I recently saw THE LAST EXORCISM. Was I scared? No. Did it fall apart at the end, becoming derivative BLAIR WITCH PROJECT silliness (imho)? Yes. But I would put it in the "Quality Product" category, because it was imaginatively envisioned; it did a fine job of working through all the elements of its horror genre setting, as well as all the necessary elements of what any old good story needs to be. I was a remote disinterested observer of the horrors within, but an intimate, emotionally-responding fan of the story presented to me. |