Horror Comfort Food – part II

So I don’t know how the weather is where you are, but here in Poland, it is officially November: cold, wet, grey, dark, and foggy.  It’s a good time for comfort – for hot tea and a blanket and a movie you’ve seen a hundred times and could at least half recite.  Towards that cushy end, this week, I’ve been listing my ten favorite Comfort-Food horrors. You can find the first five here.

Halloween meatloaf – yum!

Again, these may not actually be my all-time favorite horror films, but are rather those that I might wrap around myself like a warm blanky on a chilly day, and they are here in no particular order (chronological, alphabetical, favoritical, or otherwise). Here are the final five.

Dracula (1992)

Now, this really was one of my absolute favorite movies circa high school and college.  I remember going to see it with one of my best friends, both of us wearing vampire fangs to the cinema because we were really cool guys, his mom having bought us the tickets as we were too young.  I don’t know how I ate any popcorn. But boy, oh boy, did it make an impression.  I’d never seen anything like it before. So big. So sumptuous. So over the top. Just glorious.

It was sold as “Bram Stoker’s Dracula,” indicating that, for the first time ever, we were going to see a version faithful to the novel, and while it does include images and scenes that hadn’t made it to screen before, it also tacked on a true-love-never-dies central motif (with Mina as the reincarnation of Vlad the Impaler’s long lost love) that just captivated my little 14 year old heart. Sometimes this kind of addition can grate (I could do without it in Fright Night, for example), but in this case I think it really contributes to how grand and epic the whole thing is. The costumes, the color, the sexuality, the melodrama – everything is of a piece; everything is lush and lurid and just the right amount of classy.

And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention Wojciech Kilar’s score.  I played that thing endlessly.  It is so imposing and grandiose, and it pulls everything together. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but I feel it very cleverly references a key theme in the original score that circulated in 1922 with Murnau’s Nosferatu. Have a listen and see what you think.

Finally, the horror/monster elements are just spectacular: the giant bat creature, the werewolf ravishing Lucy, the transformation into a mound of rats, the wives melting together into a three headed spider thing, old Dracula with his weird hair, licking the razor blade or chortling evilly. What is there not to love?

The Nightmare on Elm Street 3: The Dream Warriors (1987)

Just last week, I wrote about how much I love the 1984 original, and it is honestly hard to choose a favorite between that iteration and this.  While the first film features the birth of this essentially scary concept (and is probably the better film), in this one, it may reach its fruition.  I think here, we hit peak-Freddy, with all of the playfulness and creativity that the character promises, but without fully tipping over into the splatstick of later entries.

Everything here is just ‘more.’ The kids-vs-monsters story is so satisfying for welcoming in a whole group of troubled teens who can discover their true power within dream and choose to stand against the blade gloved fiend. Sadly, many of them don’t make it to the final reel. The dreams are more fully realized and also more specific to each dreamer, targeting concrete, character based fears – the recovering drug addict forced to shoot up against her will, Krueger’s knife fingers becoming needles, the boy in the wheelchair chased and ultimately destroyed by this object of his figurative and literal entrapment. The sense of adventure is strong, as is the grown-ups-just-don’t-understand element of the sleep center health workers trying to force these kids to sleep, thus dooming them to their dreams.

And again, such dreams.   I mean, if we only saw Philip’s death sequence, the film would probably still be a classic.  A maker of marionettes and a chronic sleepwalker, he dreams that one of his puppets comes to life, slices open his arms and legs, and rips his tendons out, using them as lines with which to manipulate poor Philip.  He is excruciatingly forced to walk to a window, out of which he is dangled.  Across the way, the other kids see him, but what they can’t see is a massive spectral Freddy against the starlit sky who cuts the lines and sends Phillip plummeting to his apparently suicidal death.  It is gross, and scary, and just awesome.

Its creativity, its sense of adventure, its likable young cast (including the return of Nancy from the first film, back as a psychology grad students to help these psych ward bound youngsters), and its emotional and horror pay offs just bring me back time and time again.

Daughters of Darkness (1971)

So this collection of comfort food movies tends to swing back and forth between character/comedy and atmosphere and this next film, a pillar of the ‘Lesbian-Vampire’ subgenre, is all atmosphere: slow and languid and hypnotic. The film seduces, as does the bloodsucker at its heart, one of the many filmic presentations of Elizabeth Báthory.

A just-married young couple, Stefan and Valerie, get stranded at an off season Belgian seaside resort and fall into the tempting orbit of an ageless, mysterious countess, styled after Marlene Dietrich and embodied by the captivating Delphine Seyrig.  We have an impression from early on that the couple may not be well matched (what with him beating her, a general sense of malaise that hangs over them, and also the fact that he’s actually the kept boy of an older gay man back in England whom he calls ‘mother’ – his violence perhaps an outgrowth of his own self-hatred), and the pull towards this chic older woman is strong. By the end, the draw towards both the sanguine and the Sapphic justifyingly wins out.

The thesaurus does not have adjectives enough to describe the lavish-rich-sumptuous-luscious-misty-mesmerizing-opiate charm of this film. It is a hazy dream of fascination and blood-letting and desire. This is helped by the nigh trance inducing score by François de Roubaix.  It is always gratifying to indulgently abide in this deeply textured and evocative flick. It’s also funny that a film that is so visual and sensory, rather than verbal, should inspire such rhetorical grandiloquence. And it still feels insufficient.

Scream (1996)

Another film that I clearly remember seeing in the cinema, I was surprised that it became such a hit given how much the packed audience I saw it with didn’t get it.  I felt like I was the only person there who liked it, and I’m pretty sure I was the only one laughing. Everyone seemed let down that it wasn’t more of a “scary movie.”

Still, it rightly went on to find its audience and to this day, it is a nostalgically comfortable place to return, a slice of mid-90s just finished high school/just started college life in which to hang out. Of course, Wes Craven deserves his plaudits here, but I really think so much credit falls to Kevin Williamson, the screenwriter; it’s very much the characters that stay with you.  Neve Campbell’s Sydney Prescott is the rare final girl who comes back for all of the sequels (usually it’s just the killer).  Sure, this means that her fictional life has been rather traumatic, but it is so rare that the direct draw of a slasher is the protagonist as opposed to the masked killer, and in Scream, she is allowed to really hold the center of the frame.

And all of the other characters make similarly strong impressions. It’s really easy to like Dewy and Tatum and Gale and the rest.  The relationships between them are fun and funny, and generally believable. Even the characters that can somewhat abrade are enjoyably drawn and are sometimes given great moments of comedy and pathos (“My mom and dad are gonna be so mad at me!”)

Also, while this is referred to as a slasher (masked killer, body count), narratively, if not in style, it is really closer to a giallo.  We have a mystery and a protagonist invested in solving it.  There are twists and turns and both the viewer and the protagonist are led to rule out certain suspects only to set up later revelations of murderous intent. And it all plays out in such a fun manner.

Finally, it is thanks to the inclusion of ‘Red Right Hand’ on the soundtrack that I was first introduced to the music of Nick Cave, for which I am eternally grateful.

The Old Dark House (1932)

Have a potato.

Featuring a young couple stranded on a dark rainy night, a mute, drunk beast of a man played by Karloff, a woman in a ridiculously elegant silver gown walking down dark corridors, buffeted by wind and terrorized by distorted reflections in warped mirrors, a very peculiar old chap who really wants you to shut up and eat a potato, an ancient patriarch played by a woman in drag, a young man of the lost generation, still scarred by the very real horrors of the first world war, and a pyromaniac, knife throwing madman locked in the attic, James Whale’s film (post- Frankenstein, pre- The Invisible Man and Bride of Frankenstein) is a victory of style and comedy and atmosphere and camp.  And somehow, none of these seemingly contradictory elements cancel each other out, but it’s all held in some kind of delicate balance.  Having only seen this and the three other movies of his listed above, I feel that’s a kind of hallmark of his oeuvre (though I’ve never taken in any of his non-horror films, so I can’t say for sure).

I feel this one doesn’t have as high of a profile as the others, probably due to the absence of a famous horror property, but it is no less a treasure. The film making is simply beautiful, notably in the aforementioned scene in which the wife of the young couple, changing out of her wet clothes into something more comfortable – an extraordinary evening gown, is lectured on the wickedness of her white, young flesh by an absurd old woman whose face surrounds her in old, distorted looking glasses. It is, at once, creepy as all get out, funny, weird, confusing, and enticing.  This is before the young woman opens the window for no good reason other than having everything dramatically blown about by the howling wind.

This is an odd duck, but a charming one, and always a treat to introduce to someone new.  This is a house to which I’m always happy to return, sit by the fire, and try not to get attacked by Morgan, who’s gotten into the gin again. It’s ok if there are no beds. Give it a try. It’s on Youtube.

Horror Comfort Food – part I

Generally, I try to put some degree of thought into what goes here – taking a text as an opportunity to really consider something and put the brain to work. But sometimes, you don’t want to work. Sometimes, you’re not even looking for a scare. Sometimes, you just want to put on that movie you’ve seen countless times before and dwell in familiarity, draping it around you like a warm blanket. Towards that end, here is the first half of a list of ten of my favorite Comfort-Food-Horrors. 

Cinnamon rolls I made one Halloween – delicious really.

These are not necessarily my favorite movies (though some are), but they are all great pleasures to return to, and I tend to do just that. I think that when it comes to repeat viewings, it’s rarely the scares that bring me back. On a certain level, once a scare has worked, it is hard for it to do so again. But comedy works, atmosphere works, character works, and I think it’s those that rise to the surface in this case.

I’m listing these in no particular order (and I’ll list more in even less particular order later this week). I don’t think it makes sense to rank such unrelated films.  Some are horror-comedies. Some are atmospheric. Each has its own merits and can offer succor in its own way.

The Lost Boys (1987)

Everything about this one pleases.  The beaver. The soundtrack. Death by stereo. Using window cleaner as cologne, maggots in Chinese food, and possibly the very best final line of any film in history.  Seriously, I love it.  The boardwalk vibe is great – dark and lively, sexy and wild – and unlike any real boardwalk I’ve seen. My parents live in Ocean City, MD, which has a boardwalk – and it’s perfectly fine, but I think I’d enjoy the town more if it came with vampires with big 80s hair.

All of the characters draw you in. It’s easy to go along with Michael as he descends into this sensual underworld of blood and lust and dirt bikes. The story of Sam and the Frog brothers rallying to kill all vampires based on the lore found in a ‘very serious comic’ is one of the most satisfying kids-vs-monsters fights out there, and Nanook is a very good dog. And finally, who couldn’t feel for Lucy, the single mother trying to make a go of it after relocating with her two teenage boys, and just trying to have a bit of a life, a job, to even date?

While I like all of the acting, music, and film making on offer, I think the star of the show for me might be the writing.  It walks such a fine line between a more adult, sensual, traditional vampire tale and a light, funny, boys-own-adventure.  The comedy really lands, but so does the allure of the night. The twists and turns of the boys trying to suss out Max are very cleverly handled and really pay off in the final reel. And it knows what to hold back. Keifer Sutherland really shines as David, the leader of the young punk vampires, but he is wisely given rather little to say.  Mostly he is a presence, a threat, a seduction, with only a few sardonic lines. For a film that features an oiled muscleman playing saxophone to a wild crowd on the beach at night, surrounded by pyrotechnics, it has a surprising degree of restraint.

Suspiria (2018)

This is one of my favorite discoveries of the last few years, and I’ve already mentioned it here.  Luca Guadagnino creates such a strong sense of a time and a place, making the whole film so tactile. It has a physical presence, as does the dance work at its center, inspired by the choreography of such pioneers as Mary Wigman and Pina Bausch.  It would probably be difficult for a remake to be more unlike its progenitor, and I think, in a way, that honors the original work more than any slavish imitation could, taking the original idea and going somewhere wholly new with it.

Throughout, there is a subtle but powerful air of attraction. Whether between the characters (Susie and Sara, Susie and Madame Blanc), the draw of a place (Berlin, and specifically the dance company, calling to Susie since childhood, the beauty of its artistic freedom and vibrancy in contrast to her conservative, religious upbringing), the inherent sensuality and physicality of dance and movement—bodies in space, touch, weight, breath, or ultimately the drive to power, with its dark potential to become fascistic, be it political, magical, or abusively interpersonal.  The whole film is a mood.

Somehow it manages to be totally over the top and subtle and understated; oppressively gray and rainy and utterly vibrant; sexual without being explicit and cerebral without being tedious. It envelops, guides you, and calls on you to jump higher, to sigh.

Suspiria (1977)

While I loved how unlike the original the 2018 version is, that does not in any way lessen my love for Dario Argento’s dark fairy tale.  This is a wholly different and no less satisfying sensory encounter.  Light and color and sound wash over you. Art designed within an inch of its life, every still from this movie could be framed.  Nature, architecture and interior design conspire to enrapture and overwhelm.

This was probably my introduction to Argento and Italian horror in general and it’s a hard one to top.  It has it all. Style up the wazoo? Check. Elaborate, bloody, intense, artful kills? Check. Fantastic, driving, sometimes discordant music (from Goblin, one iteration of which I got to see play live in a small local club a few years ago)? Check. Weird dubbing of its international cast who were all speaking their lines in different languages and sometimes couldn’t understand each other, resulting in some interesting acting choices? Check. Udo Kier playing Doctor Exposition? Oh yeah. A cheesy bat on a string? You better believe it! A captivating female lead (Jessica Harper as Suzy) drawn into a web of conspiracy, witchcraft, deep red back lighting, and really gorgeous wallpaper? But of course.

This film is such a perfect choice if I’m having a stressful day and I just want to hide in fantasy, in sound and light, in something magical, and threatening, and beautiful.  It will always have a warm place in my heart (which is happily, unlike in the film, not exposed, still beating, and about to be stabbed).

Cabin in the Woods (2011)

Another beloved horror-comedy that I have mentioned once before (same link as above), I clearly remember the experience of seeing this in the cinema.  As the story began to come into focus and the Lovecraftian vibe – in confluence with its pointedly-critical-of-its-target-audience stance – coalesced, I just got so excited.  At once, it delivered such fan service (in offering up its amalgamation of every horror concept they could think of) and undertook a trenchant critique of horror viewership (in casting us into the position of the great old ones, hungry for blood, desirous of suffering). 

Cleverly, Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard’s film manages to really bite the hand that feeds it, suggesting that we, horror fans, are the real monsters, while housing it all inside a celebration of zombie redneck torture families, deadly puzzle boxes, mermen, ballerinas that are all teeth, murderous unicorns, and plot adjacent frontal nudity. The guys in the control room are just the film makers trying to keep the customer satisfied. I think it’s a really bold choice and it’s rich in its irony.  It feels made with love, but not without some ambivalence, which makes the whole thing that much more effective.

At the end of the day, as a kind of comfort food, it’s the fan favorite jubilee of horrors and fun play with genre tropes that brings me back again, but that other undercurrent always adds a soupçon of critical thought that I savor.

The Wicker Man (1973)

It should come as no surprise that if I am to list favorite films to return to and be comforted by, I’m probably going to end up writing about films that I’ve already discussed in some form. This is no exception.  A favorite film in any genre, I probably watch The Wicker Man at least once a year and I listen to the soundtrack with far more frequency.

I mean, Summerisle just seems like such a great place to live (at least in theory—in reality, I’m not actually that folksy). I can always come back to its cozy charms, even if I have to eat tinned fruit. The life of the community, so vibrant in the public house – singing about the landlord’s daughter, in front of the schoolhouse – erecting the phallic Maypole, nakedly jumping over a bonfire on the way to the Lord’s manor, or leading a patronizing jerk from the mainland on a merry chase before burning him alive in a sacrificial pyre, just comes across as warm, fulfilling – basically good.

It is a fantasy, I’m sure (I am fairly allergic to religiosity and probably wouldn’t really fit in).  But such an enticing one.  And such a cheap vacation – pop it on and instantly sink into the comfort of being on a small prop-plane, surrounded by the drone of bagpipes. I suppose that, put that way, it doesn’t exactly sound comfortable, but there we go…

And that’s already a long post, so let’s save the next (and final?) five for later in the week.  More to come… stay comfy and cozy out there.

A Recurring Nightmare

So far in writing this blog, I’ve often tackled films that, if not obscure, are at least somewhat off the beaten path, at least enough that I feel there is still something to say about them. But this week in looking for something to write about, I just had such a hankering to re-watch one of the biggies, one about which I’m sure most has already been said.  So, standing on the shoulders of horror bloggers, critics, and fans of yore, let’s dig in to Wes Craven’s original Nightmare, kicking off one of the biggest horror franchises.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

As I’ve written previously, I’m not really a franchise kid. My entrance to horror fandom did not revolve around Freddy, Jason, or Michael. That said, in my youth, as in film, they were unescapable. Late night on HBO at my grandparents’ who had cable, it was easy to stumble into these guys. They were on magazine covers, in newspaper ads. Other kids who were more into this kind of stuff (which I was totally not ready for at the time) would recount on the playground, scene by scene, the terrifying events on display.  And I think of all of the 80s boogeymen, no one loomed larger for me than Freddy Krueger. 

Ubiquitous in the second half of the 80s, Robert Englund’s Freddy was in Mad Magazine, on t-shirts, on a 900 paid phone service, in the toy aisle, and being rapped about by the Fresh Prince. You couldn’t avoid him if you tried. And I tried. He creeped me out. And it wasn’t the burned face or the knives on his fingers (though both of those were disturbing to my young imagination). Rather, it was the essential, perfectly scary idea at the heart of the character: that your dreams could hurt you. That they could kill you. That this evil, laughing sadist could hunt you where you were most vulnerable and that there could be no respite, no egress.

I mean, I didn’t use the word ‘egress.’ I was like 8 or 9. But still, the concept rattled me.

It didn’t matter that I never watched any of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies until I was in my 20s, this monster already haunted my dreams, and I didn’t want him there.  I never actually believed that this was somehow real, that I could be attacked in my sleep, but I would still avoid images of him, scared that they would cause me to dream exactly what I most wanted not to. But I did – many times. Even into adulthood, drifting into sleep, I might have the passing thought that I wouldn’t like that dream again, and therefore, would be doomed to; aware that I was dreaming, that awareness not allaying the fear, but rather, making it worse. The very fact that it was a dream made it more real, more seemingly dangerous.

It didn’t help matters that in my middle school years, I lived on Elm St.

Eventually, having come to love Horror, I finally sampled some of Freddy’s filmic wares and honestly really like them, but I think it wasn’t until a few years ago when I fully ran the series, including the later entries of varying quality, that I finally overcame my trepidation by means of overexposure.  While there is still some value in those later films, such as the endless room for visual creativity afforded by the dream settings, I doubt I’ll ever revisit them.  However, the original, as well as Part 3 – Dream Warriors, and Wes Craven’s New Nightmare, which I think stand together as a kind of trilogy, have become strong favorites to which I return again and again.

Craven’s original film really holds up.  Though it had a relatively low budget, it really doesn’t look that way at all. The story intrigues, the kill scenes startle, the effects wow. And it is just fun. Just as Goonies would do one year later, this offers the thrill of young people up against terrible odds and unthinkable threats, with no help or support from their parents (though I think fewer kids get eviscerated in Goonies). Really, all of this is the parents’ fault anyway and at this juncture, they are absent at best. (I particularly love when Tina wakes up from her first nightmare, her nightshirt mysteriously clawed open, and her mother offers the helpful advice, “Tina honey, either cut your fingernails or you gotta stop that kind of dreamin.”)

But I think the film’s success is largely due to how it offered something different from many other Horror films of the time.  Until Nightmare, most slashers had primarily offered non-verbal, looming, stalking killers.  Blank, vacant stares, ‘the devil’s eyes,’ or wild madmen whose POV we looked through, but who we didn’t get to know.  Freddy, on the other hand, actually talked, joked, taunted, played.  This would get taken to further extremes as the series progressed (by the sixth film, he was almost an evil Bugs Bunny, with endless one-liners), but it was already there from the beginning. He only spoke a bit, but it was always playful and cruel. And he wouldn’t stop laughing. It was a wholly different kind of monster. At once threatening and fun. At least he was always having fun.

Additionally, the fantasy element of dreaming really opened the door to something other than a standard stalk and kill scenario.  In later films, the dreams got more extravagant, but even in this relatively low-budget first film, the dreams work. Images and sounds drift in and out of them without explanation, but always feeling very natural. Locations come and go around dreamers who smoothly move towards a point of focus, not questioning the impossible geography. Horrible images, glimpsed for a moment in waking life (such as a friend’s arm slipping out of her bloody body bag) resurface in dream, making the events emotionally scarring as well as scaring.

And the other key element, which I am not the first to praise – but that won’t stop me, is Heather Langenkamp’s Nancy. In her, the trope of the ‘final girl’ evolved in a deeply satisfying way into something of an action hero.  Now, I’m not enough of an expert in the subgenre to confidently claim no one had done so before her, but she did it so well.  The traditional ‘final girl’ was a survivor – the last survivor of the terrible events, the one who, hunted and terrorized, finally could turn on her attacker, take up a sharp implement, and take him down.

Nancy, on the other hand, while certainly hunted and terrorized, is just so proactive.  She has these nightmares, starts drinking coffee, learns her friends were having them as well, has some caffeine pills, seeks out their source, avoids warm milk, investigates the sins of the fathers (and mothers), and armed with knowledge of local history, a book on ‘booby traps and improvised anti-personnel devices, and something she heard about Balinese ‘dream skills,’ she goes into the dream to hunt the monster, bring him out again with her, and take him down. All on her own. Because somebody has to. She has to.

And I think the thing that’s really special here is that she is not cool. She is not a badass girl who’s trained in kicking things while wearing improbably sexy tight pants. No. She’s a kid. A nice kid. With nice friends who are being murdered. Langenkamp was 18 at the time of filming and I could have believed she was much younger. She feels like a teen, and not a 90210-30-year-old-teen, but a teen who is still basically a child. In her own words, “she looks like an average teenager. She has ugly hair. She’s wearing a pair of boy’s jeans. All of her clothes are kind of pink. Like, who wears pink?” This normal young person, who is not aggressive or hard, has to walk towards unimaginable danger, and rise to be a legitimate hero. When that happens, it’s particularly rewarding.

And still, while she does go after this monstrous killer of children with the tenacity of Schwarzenegger in Predator, she never stops being a believably endangered horror film heroine. Thanks to this, the final reel takes on something of the charge of an action movie, but without losing the nightmare quality of horror. It is exciting. And scary. And thematically sound (at least until it has to carry the weight of a producer mandated second ending so the series could continue – but oh well, that part’s kinda cool too).

I think every time I come back to this, I appreciate it more.  As its own film, I think it is an impressive, nearly perfect horror flick (easily overlooking some occasional shaky dialogue and acting). But it also somehow serves up a kind of nostalgia for my own childhood, bringing many warmly unsettling memories from a time long before I ever watched the film itself.

Life is weird, huh?

What is Horror? Can it be defined? Should it?

There are some questions that continually resurface as you discuss a genre, and when it comes to Horror, defining the basic term is one such question. It can be surprising, interesting, and even infuriating to what degree this fundamental notion can prompt such endless disagreement among its devotees, creators, and proponents. I doubt baseball fans ever argue online about what baseball is.

And, yet, here we are…

Blood spatter image created by jannoon028 – www.freepik.com

Some Definitions or Descriptions

According to literary historian J. A. Cuddon, the horror story is “a piece of fiction in prose of variable length… which shocks, or even frightens the reader, or perhaps induces a feeling of repulsion or loathing.”

Stephen King wrote “I’ll try to terrify you first, and if that doesn’t work, I’ll horrify you, and if I can’t make it there, I’ll try to gross you out.  I’m not proud.”

H.P. Lovecraft famously wrote, “the oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown.”

Ok, so what is it? What are we even talking about here? My basic definition is this: 

‘Beyond fear or disgust, horror is an encounter with something so wrong, so alien to one’s sense of what is right and good in the world that it poses an overwhelming and immediate threat to one’s sense of self/reality/morality.’ 

Within this sentence are many key concepts.  Though I claim horror to be beyond fear or disgust, I think it safe to say that within an experience of horror, one often encounters both.  A horror is usually not only threatening to one’s safety, but is also revolting or offensive on a physical or moral level.  Your ‘skin might crawl’, or you might ‘have the creeps.’  In fact the Latin root of horror, “horrere,” literally means “to shudder.”

I think both elements are of significance.  If something is merely scary, it may be a thriller, if it is merely disgusting, it may gross us out but not horrify.  Horror consists of an encounter with a wrongness that threatens.  This combination can be profound.  Terror resulting from the knowledge of threat is a very animal experience.  Revulsion is very much an experience of the body.  Horror combines these reactions of the mind and the gut in an overwhelming fashion.

Wrongness

This wrongness may take a variety of forms.  In “The Philosophy of Horror,” Noel Carroll makes the argument that a monster in horror fiction is always interstitial; combining, blurring, or confounding categories, and in so doing, disrupting understood cultural schema.  This means that the monster is always a play of categories thought impossible.  A werewolf combines human and animal. A zombie blurs life and death.  Frankenstein’s monster is built from many different bodies.  Lovecraft’s amalgamations of octopodi, crustaceans, and humanoid forms certainly fit the bill, and Clive Barker’s wet and sticky imaginings confound the basic boundary of the skin, blurring inside and outside, self and other. 

For Carroll, the impossibility of the creature is of great significance in defining the genre.  ‘Beast’ in Disney’s ‘Beauty and the Beast’ may be physically similar to a werewolf (though in the original story, he was more of an elephant-fish hybrid), but he exists in a fairy tale world of which he is a key element.  He may be feared, but his very existence does not horrify.   Carroll sets his definitions more tightly than I find entirely useful, binding the genre to this specific type of monster to the exclusion of a horrific event or a human monster such as Norman Bates.  Still these ideas, if overly restrictive, still provide useful insight into strong undercurrents of horrific works.

And those works are so varied. For all that horror is a known and accepted genre, it is tremendously difficult to pin down.  Clive Barker has noted astutely that horror ‘describes a response rather than a subject.’ Is the genre that which shows us the experience of horror, or that which horrifies us, and could either of these serve exclusively?  If something horrifies (such as footage from concentration camps) does that fit it within the ‘horror genre?’  If a work contains people reacting with horror to an interstitial creature (as in ‘the elephant man’) does that place it in the genre?  I think any definition is open to successful counterexample so this I will not attempt.

Crossing Boundaries

It is relatively safe to say that the elements of the definition listed above resurface as common themes within the genre.  Most significant for me thematically is the consistent act of pushing and breaking boundaries.   When a knife cuts flesh, the boundary of skin is broken.  A ghost represents a breaching of the line between life and death.  When Regan in “The Exorcist” masturbates with a crucifix (or more accurately, stabs herself in the crotch with a crucifix – there is no sense of pleasure, sexual or otherwise, in the scene), any number of boundaries pertaining to children, sex, the body and religion are broken.  When Jack Torrence falls under the influence of the Overlook in King’s ‘The Shining’ such that he attempts to kill his wife and son, boundaries of the self are breached—both in the influence that the hotel holds over his mind and in the violations of essential ideas of family (at least in the book version—the film has a different focus). 

This boundary play contains both the elements of fear and disgust.  Fear involves the boundary of perceived safety being threatened while disgust obviously involves the presence of something beyond the bounds of the acceptable.  Rot and gore are obvious examples, but I believe this tent also covers issues of morality, psychology, and taste.  This container of breached boundaries also holds many other prominent themes within the genre such as sex, violence, power, moral absolutism, and identity: a list which is by no means comprehensive.

The Film Genre of Horror

So what does this mean for the genre? When an argument arises about defining Horror, it is generally because a non-horror fan has said something like “Well, of course I like ‘Silence of the Lambs,’ but it’s not really a horror movie, is it?” or a horror fan has said something like, “I don’t get why everyone loves ‘The VVitch so much. It’s not scary – I don’t think it’s even a horror movie.”

Well, now we can just apply a simple formula to check if something is or isn’t.

Just kidding. That would be stupid.

While I believe there is value in pondering the delimitations of an experience, and yes, a genre like Horror, I don’t know that there is much point is getting so worked up over whether or not a given work qualifies.  Some things are just too subjective, especially when the definitions themselves depend on subjective experience, such as what personally makes us shudder.  And I think those definitions must remain subjective as otherwise counterexamples render definition itself impossible. For example, if Horror must have a supernatural monster, then sure, ‘Silence of the Lambs’ doesn’t qualify. Neither does ‘Psycho’ or ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.’ A lot of babies in that bathwater…

Ultimately, and circularly, Horror is that which is perceived as Horror to the viewer, or to the maker, in question. I personally love ‘Silence of the Lambs,’ but don’t perceive it as a horror movie.  I get how others could.  It has horrific elements and if you compare it’s production design or score to that of Michael Mann’s ‘Manhunter’ (the first film to feature a detective coming to Hannibal Lecter for help with a case), Mann’s film feels much more like a cool, stylish thriller, and the stone walls of Demme’s film suggest more of the gothic. But at the end of the day, for me, it just doesn’t feel like horror. I get that horror fans want to lay claim to this award winning film, but I can’t make the leap.  Others can. That’s fine.

So what is the point of all this? If we can’t claim an objective definition that works in all cases, why devote time and energy to making the attempt? I suppose, for me, there is value in the meditation.  There is value in the mental work of trying, even if it is all in vain.  The effort of the consideration justifies itself, though in doing so, we doom ourselves to the soul rending realization of the futility of our endeavors.

Oh, the Horror…