| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Long Cut
Archdeacon of Jabootu
19 Posts |
 Posted - 10/29/2005 : 1:17:45 PM
|
Bad, low-grade horror movies are as numerous as the blades of grass on a golf course. There are a few, however, that stand out in the minds of horror fans…a most jaded lot, to be sure. Films like ALIEN, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Dawn Of The Dead, Cannibal Holocaust, Saw, Freaks, and Night Of The Living Dead, however, occupy a place among the most classic of the genre. These and others like them are watched for decades, over and over. They are written about in blogsites, chatrooms, and in college dissertations. They inspire others to both continue their legacy AND to shamelessly rip them off. They engender controversy and discussion of their impact and effect.
What makes these types of films so enduring? What combination of factors makes them classics in the minds of aficionados long after such mainstream fare as Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer fade into oblivion and derision? I’ve noted a series of factors that they all have in common. Obviously, they all are scary to a great extent, that’s a given. However, they are MORE scary and dread-inducing than the vast majority, so we’ll examine just why this is so. In no particular order, the “Fear Factors” seem to be…
1.Controversy. The films all engender talk, lots of it, about their subject matter, presentation, and delivery. They cause discussion and analysis due to their approach, be it shocking OR deep thinking. No deep thought or challenge is to be had from the Scream types. They do not engender years of discussion or argument, because there’s just not that much there.
2.Atmosphere. From start to finish, these films are EERIE, with most every shot, lighting trick, and location enhancing the sense of dread and foreboding. You KNOW that something b-a-d is going to happen, and you’re off-center from the first. Even absent a lurking monster, few people could walk alone down the corridors of the Nostromo without getting a chill at times. By contrast, the colorful, wealthy-looking suburban neighborhoods of Scream simply didn’t put one ill-at-ease. They were too “comforting”, seeming to say, “It’s all going to be alright”.
3.Unpredictability. Truly frightening classics do not follow “formula”, they invent new ones. They do not allow the audience to predict the survivors in advance or the outcome of twists. They do not use contrived situations or “easy outs” for either the writers OR the viewers. They keep the viewers guessing until the very end. Cannibal Holocaust would have been far less effective had it been a simple filming of a group walking through the jungle rather than its “found footage” layout.
4.Comic Relief. Most of the scariest of horror movies eschew annoying, silly comedy. Laughs detract from screams, blunting the overall effect. In a true classic of the genre, the only chuckles the audience gets should be uneasy ones, in the knowledge that the “fun” is transitory and ill-advised for the characters. In a classic, the characters usually have little to laugh at or joke about anyway. By all means, the antagonist should NOT be humorous in any way. Witness the downfall of the Nightmare On Elm Street franchise once Freddy Krueger became a comedian.
5.Characterization. The characters in the movie should be people that can be related to on a visceral level…contrast the working-class stiffs that crewed the Nostromo and all their foibles and frailties, with the buffed-out, beautiful young people that populated such fare as IKWYDLS. The more human the characters and their actions seem, the more frightened for them the audience will become. “Stock” characters should likewise be avoided (The Jock, The One Girl, The Joker, The Black Guy, etc…) in favor of people outside the typical boxes and archetypes. Importantly, however, the characters’ actions should not be either out-of-character for them, nor should they be outright stupid for the sake of the script’s convenience. Their development over the course of the film should be logical and consistent.
6.Scare Tactics. In the greats, all possible methods are used. Shock, suspense, dread, horror, and terror are all used to their best effect. If your movie’s only frights come from contrivances like the “spring-loaded cat”, it is destined to be a failure. All the classics use every means at their disposal to effect the fear instinct in the audience. Likewise, too many “false scares” jade the audience, making the real ones far less shocking when they come and foreshadowing them to a sad degree.
7.Gore. While it is fashionable to claim that graphic violence and gore are unnecessary, when used correctly and in a realistic manner (as opposed to over-the-top), they are devastating. The fear and revulsion effect should not be underestimated, and is yet one more factor that will keep the audience both on its edge during the movie and talking about it (and dreaming about it!) long after. The gore effects of ALIEN, Dawn Of The Dead, and Cannibal Holocaust still have impact to this day, because they are so very visceral. Simple stabbings or “reveals” of already-dead characters don’t do it. Good, realistic gore effects also bring home just what is at stake for the characters remaining. The image and thought of a screaming, terrified human ripped apart and eviscerated will remain with the audience long after, especially if they were beginning to relate to the character. If the audience, on seeing a character get his arm chopped off, for example, involuntarily grabs their own, the movie is on its way.
8.The Ending. True classics avoid, to the greatest extent possible, a so-called “happy ending”. The surviving characters, if any, should make it crystal clear that they have been irrevocably changed, and not for the better, by the experience. Their ultimate survival or outcome should be unclear. As well, it is even better if the threat is shown not to be defeated, but simply avoided, for the time being. This is NOT, however, an excuse for using such tired tactics as having the killer twitch a bit at the end, or some cheap “shock” return of the antagonist. Modern audiences are well aware of these lazy means, and the use of them as a cheap thrill (or worse, as a sequel setup) should be avoided at all costs. A horror script writer incapable of writing a scary ending without the cheap stuff is unqualified for his job. As an example, at the end of TCM, Leatherface was still alive, and his barely-escaped victim was quite insane. Bottom line is, the audience should not walk out of the theater feeling like all is right with the world, and the Good Guys won, etc.
9.The Antagonist. Be it zombie, alien, jungle tribe, or maniac, the source of the horror in the movie simply MUST be scary on an emotional and visceral level. The very idea of a flesh-eating walking corpse is in itself terrifying, as is an acid-blooded extraterrestrial that uses humans as an egg incubator. A cherry on top is if the antagonist is actually plausible. The Alien might be fantastic, but it is certainly plausible as a real creature, given that several of its tendencies were taken from real creatures on Earth (it had the added bonus of an outstanding design that frightened people on many different levels). Sorry, a teenager with a grudge is unlikely to serially murder dozens of people without being caught, Columbine notwithstanding. Even if they were, the thought in itself is not inherently as scary, as invasive, as straight to the reptile brain as are those of the classics.
That’s the breakdown. Some of the classics do not follow EVERY one of these to the letter (ALIEN made use of a spring-loaded cat, for example), but they DO respect them to a large extent. To this day, these movies can still terrify and horrify audiences despite their age, and even their “dated” feel and look. With the notable exception of such bright spots as Saw or The Devil’s Rejects, there has been a conspicuous dearth of movies in the horror genre that can be considered true classics and enduring standouts. The producers of today should look at the past giants, not with imitation or copying in mind, but with an eye towards what they did that WORKED. They should then begin to write, with a mind toward AVOIDING the “easy way out” and contrivances that audiences have seen a million times before. Long-term, the classics make good money by honestly “delivering the goods”.
Horror is not meant to be funny, sexy, or stylish. It’s meant to be scary, and as much as possible. It is truly a tragedy that so many filmmakers, even accomplished ones, forget this so often.
|
Edited by - Long Cut on 10/29/2005 2:47:56 PM
|
|
|
Long Cut
Archdeacon of Jabootu
19 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2005 : 1:19:57 PM
|
Often-lurker and extremely-rare poster here, but I'm currently stuck in a place where low-grade horror flicks pop up on the tube quite frequently (Ah, the pleasures of membership in the U.S. Navy...) and had this screed pop into my mind recently. Figured it'd be good here.
Comments welcome, ENJOY!! |
 |
|
|
thepanteduffin
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
Canada
74 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2005 : 2:55:13 PM
|
I like your analysis, they're good observations. Welcoem to the board (although that sounds weird coming from a relative newcomer such as myself).
Regarding characterization, I think that when used well, stock characters can be helpful in a good horror movie. Take Aliens for example. A lot of the space marines were archetypes, and it worked because no time is wasted giving them pouintless backstories. The preparation scenes before their arrival on the planet tells us all we need to know about them: Who's the tough-as-nails scrapper, who is the cold, analytical robot, who's the guy who freaks out under pressure, etc.
I'm not sure if controversies around horror films happen often enough to be a factor. There's the Exorcist, and Night of the Living Dead did generate talk as well, but I'm not sure what other ones there would be. On the other hand, as the Passion of the Christ has shown, controversies tend to make movies more successful through word-of-mouth and the need to see something that everyone is talking about. If only to check out what the big fuss is about, as with PoC.
Definitely under the Atmosphere category I'd include The Ring. In fact, I think atmoshpere is what makes the American version superior to the Japanese original Ringu. To me it had more of a homogenous look, a consistent color palette and creepy imagery that was spread around.
I'm definitely in agreement over comic relief. I can't think of one instance of an OCR in a truly good horror film. Yeah, I want to see a remake of The Exorcist with Chris Tucker as Merrin's wacky, motormouthed sidekick.
I'm personally allergic to spring-loaded cats and other jump scares. They're the cheapest way to get a scare and therefore the least rewarding. With a few notable exceptions (see my thoughts on the Exorcist III in the Exorcist thread), they sould be either used sparingly and intelligently or eschewed. Even Sam Raimi is guilty of abusing the technique in Spider-Man.
"You weren't being thick after all - you were showing moral fiber! "
- Ronald Weasley |
|
|
|
Long Cut
Archdeacon of Jabootu
19 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2005 : 3:51:16 PM
|
Thanks for the remarks!
"Stock" characters do indeed have a place, but only if they can be directed and acted properly to enhance the story. If you throw them in "just because", or because you think kyou have to, they tend to fall into stereotypes. Those in ALIENS didn't because they were well-acted by competent players, and weren't directed like cardboard cutouts.
By controversy, I'm referring to movies that, by their nature, challenge, intrigue, and yes, offend. If you get pundits complaining and get groups seeking to ban it, you probably did because you hit a nerve or two, and no matter what side of the political bed you're on, that's always a good thing. |
|
|
|
thepanteduffin
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
Canada
74 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2005 : 4:18:11 PM
|
But I wonder if enough horror films have done that to consider it a factor in their success?
|
|
|
|
Greenhornet
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
1791 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2005 : 5:14:43 PM
|
Maybe I'm soured by "splatter films", but I can't stand the unkillable monster. Even Frankenstein's Monster and Godzilla got dull after a while.
DON'T feature an unkillable monster (Especialy if it's supposed to be a HUMAN madman [Mike Myers]) because we've seen them before and the audience will just sit waiting to see how gory the charicters' deaths will be. If the "monster" CAN be killed, or at least "stopped", it gives the charicters a GOAL. Maybe there is a magic charm that will put "Hellmask" back in the grave, BUT it gets destroyed and they have to find something else to do the job!
I hated the "Nightmare On Elm Street" sequals because I was waiting for someone to realise that they were dreaming when Freddy came after them and got all BUGGS BUNNY on his ass! Dreams are just as real as CARTOONS, after all.
I think it was in #3 that a charicter did just that and threw "magic lightning" at FK. But the makers copped out and had FK stand up and say "I don't believe in magic!". So what would have happened if someone told him "I don't believ a DEAD MAN can walk around killing people!"?
To quote Ken, "Then the movie would be over."
In short, don't write yourself into a corner and expect the audience to be too stupid to overlook it. "Suspention of disbelief" is a fine thing, but it goes just so far.
"The Queen is testing poisons." CLEOPATRA, 1935 |
|
|
|
zombiewhacker
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1475 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2005 : 5:24:22 PM
|
Great post, Long Cut. You've managed to hit on just about every ingredient a great horror film needs.
IMHO the best of these types of films usually leave a lot to the audience's imagination. What made Alien so frightening in its day (and even now) is that 95% of time the audience doesn't know where the monster is. It's out there... somewhere... and you know you could run into it at any moment... and you know it's looking for you. Alien plays that fear to the hilt.
By the contrast, the Alien sequels increasingly hit us over the head with wall-to-wall aliens action... to the point where follow-ups looked less like a "haunted house movie in outer space" (as some have described the original film) and more like a dry-run for Starship Troopers.
One last, more obvious point: nothing wakes up an audience more than originality. Once a particular genre has been milked too many times, no new entry, no matter how well-crafted, can possibly have the same impact on the audience.
Take zombie films, for instance. 28 Days Later and Shaun of the Dead are probably two of the best examples of this type of horror film I've ever seen. Yet they've managed only a niche following even among horror enthusiasts. Why? Because we've seen it all before. Romero's NOTLD was a crude home movie by comparison, but it the advantage of getting there first second (*cough cough* The Last Man on Earth). |
|
|
|
Long Cut
Archdeacon of Jabootu
19 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2005 : 5:52:11 PM
|
On that, Zombie, you're dead right (pun intended). Sometimes, a particular subgenre can indeed be squeezed to the point where there's no milk left. Most certainly, the slasher film has seen its day. That's not to say, however, that it couldn't be re-vitalized and re-invigorated after a suitable hiatus...say, 20 or 30 years' worth. I'd figure that Zombie films, as you say, fall into this category as well.
I'd figure this falls into "Originality" in the initial essay. A good filmmaker will know just when a horse has been beaten enough. |
|
|
|
Long Cut
Archdeacon of Jabootu
19 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2005 : 5:55:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by thepanteduffin
But I wonder if enough horror films have done that to consider it a factor in their success?
In discussing "classics", I'm not speaking of financial sucess alone. I'm speaking of movies that ENDURE, for generations, as milestones in their genre, regardless of their initial financial take. We'd all probably agree that NOTLD is a classic horror movie, however it wasn't exactly a blockbuster.
The true quality of a movie is rarely indicated by money, either that put into it or that it earns. |
|
|
|
thepanteduffin
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
Canada
74 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2005 : 9:55:40 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Long Cut
quote:
Originally posted by thepanteduffin
But I wonder if enough horror films have done that to consider it a factor in their success?
In discussing "classics", I'm not speaking of financial sucess alone. I'm speaking of movies that ENDURE, for generations, as milestones in their genre, regardless of their initial financial take. We'd all probably agree that NOTLD is a classic horror movie, however it wasn't exactly a blockbuster.
The true quality of a movie is rarely indicated by money, either that put into it or that it earns.
I agree. But how many horror movies have created enough controversy about them that it can be considered a factor in the quality of future horror movies?
|
|
|
|
Greenhornet
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
1791 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2005 : 09:47:14 AM
|
One thing I noticed about certain horror movies in the last twenty-twentyfive years is that the writers make most of the victems UNLIKEABLE or suggest that they are guilty of some CRIME, whether real or imagined. Sometimes the imagined "crime" is that they are just plain stupid!
Think about it: who gets it in these movies? The STONER, the SLUT, the BULLY, the ODIOUS COMEDY RELIEF, the PETTY THEIF, even in "Psyco" the first victem was an embezler.
When a movie does this, the crazed killer comes off as an "avenging angel" rather than a threat to the general population. The corpses-to-be "deserve it" and we feel no remorse over their deaths, nor do we feel that WE would be in jepordy if we were in their place. Hollywood apparently KNOWS this, because recently they have had charicters in "horror" movies recite "the rules" as if they were members of the audience, mocking the film. This leads us to the next observation:
DON'T TRY TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
If the horror part of the movie fails, DON'T try to claim that it was "a parody" or if the comic scenes are derided as out of place, DON'T say that you were "setting a new standard of horror". Too many new "horror" movies have had comic scenes in them as a way for the makers to say that the audience and critics "didn't get it" when the movie is critisized. You're not fooling anybody.
"The Queen is testing poisons." CLEOPATRA, 1935 |
|
|
|
BradH812
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1294 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2005 : 10:56:09 AM
|
I gotta say, in the original Psycho, Marion was portrayed as NOT being an embezzler. She had stolen the money on the spur of the moment, then started to panic. And she had already committed to taking it back and facing whatever consequences there might be before getting in that shower. I always thought that the whole point behind the murder was, Marion was a victim; she didn't deserve what happened to her.
The remake, on the other hand, was just as you said, Greenhornet. Marion was made out to be a kook with little or no conscience, aided along by Anne Heche, who just didn't get the character (as evidenced by some of the things she said in interviews and the DVD commentary; this woman is an idiot). |
|
|
|
John Nowak
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
1017 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2005 : 8:35:27 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Greenhornet
One thing I noticed about certain horror movies in the last twenty-twentyfive years is that the writers make most of the victems UNLIKEABLE or suggest that they are guilty of some CRIME, whether real or imagined.
I think I first noticed that in "Alien 4." The protagonists are pirates who kidnap people and sell them to the government for experiments. Why should I care if they survive?
THe film had other problems, of course, but that was a biggie.
----------
We've always been united in stupidity. That's why there is no hope. But, then again, when has that ever stopped us?
-- hbrennan |
|
|
|
CobraCmdr
Diocesan Ecclesiarch of the Sacred Order of Jabootu
70 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2005 : 2:44:43 PM
|
I for one am not a big fan of the 70's Drive-thru style horror movies and their remakes that seem to be so fashionable these days. Their cruelty and hopelessness leaves me feeling more tired and depressed than scared. As for the gore, it doesn't really frighten me so much as gross me out, and I don't think that's the same thing. My reaction is "Ugh! I didn't want to see that", which is the same reaction I would get if I saw a fat guy in a speedo.
I think the unknown is much scarier than a head-severing monster. My imagination creates much scarier images than anything I can see on screen.
The one gory movie that I do find really creepy is the 1981 version of the Thing. Not because the images are gross, but because they are so disturbingly "wrong". |
|
|
|
Flangepart
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
USA
2329 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2005 : 3:04:27 PM
|
Greenhornet makes a good point.
While i like Godzilla,and his toughtness is part of his image, we don't realy expect him to die.
I think the 90's Gamera series took Kaioju in a better direction. The human reaction to liveing in a world infested with giant monsters is the way to go. Kinda like ASTRO CITY, and that comic books focus on the avarage humans liveing among meta people.
TREMORS is not only good because you realy get to care about the folks, but they are given a FAIR CHANCE to beat the grabboids!
Its fun to see the clever things Burt Gummer and Co. can get up to when they have to.
Burt : "AW, if i only had my gun.."
Amy : "Burt! You don't have a gun. Deal with it!"
I don't like gross for gross sake. And enought with the unstoppable evil. Just once, i'd love to see Hannible Lector get trashed by a potantial victem, who leaves him a battered wreck, left waitinbg for the hord of rats to...pay a viset.
And just before she closes the door, the potential dinner throws some Fava beans on him.
But...thats just me.
"Reality is arguable...lunch time is not." H. Flangepart.
"One Weekend a month my ass!" Crow- The Beginning of the End.
|
|
|
|
twitterpate
Holy Cardinal and Five Star General of the Righteous Knighthood of Jabootu
Canada
1026 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2005 : 4:36:02 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by CobraCmdr
As for the gore, it doesn't really frighten me so much as gross me out, and I don't think that's the same thing. My reaction is "Ugh! I didn't want to see that", which is the same reaction I would get if I saw a fat guy in a speedo.
CobraCmdr, thank you for this line, which sums up completely my opinion of most modern horror films. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked