Chasing the Dragon and Different Ways to Appreciate Horror

I wasn’t a horror kid. I liked a bit of spooky and I enjoyed monsters, but it took me a while to really grow into the genre.  I remember specific TV commercials for horror movies really freaking me out.  One of the Hellraiser films, a Phantasm, Poltergeist III, a Nightmare on Elm Street, and very specifically, Child’s Play.  The trailer for Child’s Play really got to me to such an extent that I took my beloved talking Alf doll (Hey, no problem!), tied him up, put him in a sack, tied the sack with ropes, put it in another sack, taped it up, and then put it in a box with books on top of it. I mean, I didn’t really think it would come to life and kill me, but why take chances, right?

These days, it takes so much more to get me to falsely imprison a childhood toy. I’ve grown to love horror and I’ve seen a lot, and as a result, it’s harder and harder to actually get scared. There are probably only a handful of films since I became a fan that have really rattled me, giving me that delicious tremble, leaving me in a new state. But I keep looking.

Elric Kane, the co-host of the Colors of the Dark podcast, of which I’m a regular listener, often terms this ‘chasing the dragon,’ drug lingo referencing the “elusive pursuit of a high equal to the user’s first in the use of a drug, which after acclimation is no longer achievable.”

And maybe it isn’t achievable. Maybe I’ve built up a tolerance. Maybe I’ll never again feel the way I did after the first time I watched Black Christmas (1974) when I felt compelled to lock the doors to my apartment, turn on all the lights, and check that there were no surprises hiding in any closets or under any beds (mind you, I was in my 20s when I saw it – what some might generously term an ‘adult’).

So does that mean that I’m doomed to be disappointed by everything I see from here on out? I don’t think so. I think there are different ways to appreciate a horror film, different ways to love one. Herein, I plan to present a few with some examples.

The Elusive Deep Scare

This is the above mentioned classic scary movie experience.  A film takes you in completely and keeps you in a heightened state for the duration, such that when complete, it stays with you, and for some time at least, you inhabit the ‘real world’ differently.  And really, this is what I always want from Art. I want the art experience to change me, even if temporarily, to leave me in a different place, looking with different eyes, at least for some time.

Most examples that come to mind are classics from early in my Horror fandom. After watching Candyman for the first time, I really needed to pee, but that sure wasn’t going to happen any time soon. I wasn’t willing to go near the bathroom until at least an hour later (after watching an episode of 24).

There was one episode of Twin Peaks. No idea which episode it was, but I remember I had been watching it on dvd on my laptop while lying in bed getting drowsy, and there was this sequence when Bob climbed over a sofa and started approaching the camera and, especially in my half-awake state, it really felt like he was coming directly at me. This was helped by the persistent quality of unreality, of the uncanny that pervaded Lynch’s series.  

I think a feature of a good ‘deep scare’ is that it is somehow enriched.  It is not only about getting startled, but that first you are unsettled for an extended period and that there is something else to the horror – not only some scary moments.  There is some horrific idea beneath it all (that even if you realize it’s only a dream, you still aren’t safe, that some toy you love, something innocent and soft, could have it in for you, that the home space could be so permeable, so vulnerable, and that therefore, there is no safety anywhere). There is some substance to the film in addition to the scariness that lets it get its claws into you. And, of course, it is scary.  Of course, this is the hardest experience to come by the longer I watch these movies.

The Enveloping Horror

Whereas Deep Scares are few and far between, this next experience is far more available. These days, if I see a horror movie and love it, this is what it’s probably delivering.  Some films can just take you in, holding you completely in their space, such that when they’re over, you take some of that space with you.  This is mainly distinguished from the category above by the fact that you don’t exactly get scared, but the horror on offer still satisfies in a deep way. 

Ironically, the emotion I often take away from this is delight.  I remember watching the 2018 Suspiria remake and just loving the feeling of the world, of the mystery, of the threat and ultimate rise to power, and that whole bloody, musical, ritualistic, stylized end sequence, the smile on my face spread from ear to ear. I danced home that night, just feeling magic in the night. And the feeling persists.

Watching Cabin in the Woods the first time was also joyful. I can’t claim it was scary, but the reflexive approach it took regarding horror fandom and specifically, what a fan wants to see, the play with genre tropes, and especially, the decision taken by the protagonist at the end all satisfied so deeply (it’s really not the direction most films would have taken) and left me elated.

Both of Robert Eggers’s films, The VVitch and The Lighthouse delivered the same high. And both left me smiling rather than fearful (really, who wouldn’t want to live deliciously?). And yet, I feel both of these, and all of the above listed films, are certainly horror.  A key element of this rapture consists in the pinch of the horrific, in this case quite similar to the dramatically satisfying pinch of tragedy. The awfulness of the thing, in juxtaposition with its own beauty (a parallel perhaps to Hegel’s definition of tragedy as the occurrence of mutually exclusive goods), is an essential ingredient of this envelopment.

While Deep Scares represent the dragon, ever chased, rarely caught, these Enveloping Horrors actually make up most of my favorite horror films. For one thing, they exist—you can find them. Also, appreciation for them tends to deepen on re-watch.  This isn’t always the case with the first category, which having been seen once, will never be quite so scary again. The best case scenario is that, sapped of its ability to frighten due to familiarity, the Deep Scare can carry on as an Enveloping Horror.  Candyman won’t keep me out of the bathroom any more, but it is still a pleasure dwelling in its space.

Good Movies with Horror

So this final group makes up most of the horror movies worth watching. Maybe the scare isn’t so deep. Perhaps the experience doesn’t exactly envelope. But it’s a good movie.  The characters are enjoyable, or the plot is engaging, or the writing compels.  Maybe there are really impressive practical effects and you can see the passionate creativity that went into its production. Often, they are just fun. A good movie, but with at least some soupçon of horror.

Scream is a good example. It’s a horror movie – masked killer gutting teenagers one by one and all, but the horror is not the primary element.  Character and writing, rather, are dominant.  It’s funny. It’s entertaining. There is enjoyable mystery to unravel in trying to determine who the killer is. The music is good. The filmmaking is solid.  It is, all around, a good movie, with a horror idea at its core.

Or for a more recent example, just the other day I finally checked out Jakob’s Wife on Shudder, and I really liked it.  Basically, it is a domestic drama with comic elements about a preacher’s wife, long bored in her marriage and life, who wakes up and commits to start living more fully. Can her husband go along, and will the marriage survive, or will she have to go it alone and leave him behind to become the person she wants to be?  Of course the event that wakes her up is being bitten by a vampire and living her best life means drinking human blood.

The thing is, I think that had this just been the domestic drama described, it could have been a decent flick.  Barbara Crampton is great in it as the titular character – I think it’s the best thing I’ve seen her do – and Larry Fessenden’s Jakob manages to be such a bore, while not veering into caricature. I believe them as people and as a couple. Plus, it’s often very funny, without exactly being a comedy. The comic elements all grow quite naturally out of the dramatic, and sometimes horrific, context (there is a surprising amount of gore that can elicit a startled laugh in just how far it goes).

But if it had just been that relationship drama, I probably wouldn’t have watched it.  Adding the vampiric element lifts it up.  Everything is quite literally life and death.  You know, it adds stakes…(sorry).  But seriously, the supernatural horror element really allows for an extremity in the story that might not have been possible otherwise and just makes it all more fun.  It’s a good movie with horror. And that horror makes it better.

Of course, there are many other ways to enjoy a horror movie.  I make no claims at exhaustive taxonomy, but I think these three cover much of the field.  

The Imp of the Perverse

It’s a busy time for me right now. I’ve started this blog and besides writing, I need to stay on top of self-promotion. I’m working on a new show and there are texts to write and learn, rehearsals to organize and run, and tentacles and monsters to stitch together (more on that in another post). And of course, I also have to work (preparing and giving classes and doing proofreading) and earn money to keep myself in bandwidth, liquid latex, and fake fur. And yet, the other night I watched four episodes of a TV show that I don’t even really like that much. Argh.  Why? Why would I do something so pointless?

I think good old Poe put his finger on it in his 1885 story, The Imp of the Perverse, which puts into words so clearly, a human tendency at the heart of so much of his writing, a tendency which may often go unconsidered. The overwhelming urge to perform an act precisely because it is the wrong thing to do:

“I am not more certain that I breathe, than that the assurance of the wrong or error of any action is often the one unconquerable force which impels us, and alone impels us to its prosecution. Nor will this overwhelming tendency to do wrong for the wrong’s sake, admit of analysis, or resolution into ulterior elements. It is a radical, a primitive impulse — elementary.”

Perverseness

The story is an odd one, but I love it.  For the first half, it comes across as a treatise on this psychological element, its narrator (who I had first assumed to be Poe-as-essayist) expounding upon history’s failures to account for irrationality before describing and naming this drive and giving three familiar examples: the urge of a usually succinct and generally kind speaker to irritate his or her listener by blathering on in a circuitous manner (an urge which my wife could attest I sometimes indulge in—though, to be fair, I could never claim to be laconic to begin with), the temptation, when standing on a precipice, to take the plunge, and the penchant to put off till tomorrow that which we most want to do today.  His characterization of this procrastination is, perhaps, most striking in how true it rings.

“We have a task before us which must be speedily performed. We know that it will be ruinous to make delay. The most important crisis of our life calls, trumpet-tongued, for immediate energy and action. We glow, we are consumed with eagerness to commence the work, with the anticipation of whose glorious result our whole souls are on fire. It must, it shall be undertaken to-day, and yet we put it off until to-morrow, and why? There is no answer…”

I can only assume based on my own experience of living, that this is a situation everyone has been in.  But maybe it’s just me and old Edgar…

Shortly after, the story takes a turn and becomes, well, a story.  The narrator is telling us all this to explain how he ended up in this cell, condemned to die.  Having committed a very well calculated and painstakingly carried out murder, which had gone off without a hitch, and after which, he had acquired a large inheritance and lived comfortably for years, the narrator had realized that the only way that he could ever be caught would be if he “were fool enough to confess.”  Following that epiphany, he could not stop thinking about it until he finally snapped and publicly declared his wrong doing.  Thus, it was this imp of the perverse that has led him to his doom.

First of all, it is a tasty bit of irony that our example here of the imp is not the drive that led him to kill, which had been fully rational, but rather, that which has led him to confess.  You might take for granted that a devil on the shoulder is more likely to needle someone into crime, into “sin,” but in Poe’s conception it is simpler and more broad.  Simply the wrong act.  The one for which there is no good reason, no motive.  The motive for the killing had been obvious—money. The motive for admission is not so clear—but it surely wasn’t guilt.

Broader application

In this, I think Poe captures a human truth which, to this day, can still go overlooked.  How often are characters in books, in films, on TV, written to be internally consistent, psychologically understood characters, driven by clear motivations.  We criticize the writing when that lapses. And yet, I don’t think that’s who we always are.  And it’s not merely a case of some kind of Freudian death drive, but that sometimes we act with no clear motivation at all. Sometimes we do something stupid, something cruel, something self-defeating, or just something odd or nonsensical simply because that is the thing that we do.

And this is not only a literary concern.  I remember circa 2010, reading an essay reflecting on the economic crisis at the time, which criticized modern economists’ continued reliance on an outdated and inaccurate figure from classical economic theory, Homo Economicus. First conceptualized by figures like John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith, this theoretical economic agent “acts to obtain the highest possible well-being for him or herself given available information about opportunities and other constraints, both natural and institutional on his ability to achieve his predetermined goals.”  A great deal of economic models have been based on this notion that en masse, people act out of rational, informed self-interest.

While people may be essentially self-serving, I think it unrealistic to state that we are, as a rule, rational or informed. Thus, forecasts, economic or otherwise, based on such expectations seem doomed to inaccuracy.  To be fair, there are many competing theories and Homo Economicus was already being criticized in Mill’s day, but the idea persists. We still expect ourselves and each other to have reasons for doing what we do.

Horror

So what about horror? This is a horror blog, after all.

Beyond the fact that this qualifies as a horror story (murder, madness, and what not), I think that any time that horror (film, writing, etc.) falls into being too rational, it can ring false. Or at the very least, it can feel flat. But when a taste of mystery is sustained, when we can’t see the whole thing, when it feels that there are depths we cannot plumb, it is that much richer; it has a chance of delivering that delectable shudder of the uncanny.

I mean, of course, there should be motivations. I’m not saying that we should abandon all sense of psychological causality and lazily just offer up any old thing without thinking it through, but if at the end of the story, a killer can honestly and exactly state their motivation, whether it be revenge, money, fame, or love, it often underwhelms, not doing justice to the staggering inferences of a word like ‘horror.’ In counterpoint, think of the final moment of The Strangers when the killers, asked why they have done these horrible things, simply answer, “because you were home.”  Chilling.

Horror is best when there is an element of not just the unknown, but the unknowable. And that need not mean abstract, tentacled, ancient, evil gods from another dimension. Rather, if a work brings us into contact with that which is unknowable within the human heart and mind, it can be most effective.

Apologia

What am I doing here?  Does the world actually need another horror blog?  Probably not, and yet here we are…

But why?

Do I have a unique perspective? Maybe, but certainly not based on my identity markers.  The world really is not calling out for another white, straight, cis, male horror blogger. But we all, as individuals, have individual perspectives to offer, right?

I’ve long appreciated academic readings of horror texts, such as the work done by Carol J. Clover, Noel Carroll, or Robin R. Means Coleman, but I’m also really not an academic with the scholarly chops to offer some groundbreaking new theory.

I’m just myself: a person who loves the genre and who loves thinking critically about the things I love, who enjoys dwelling both in the atmosphere of something delightfully chilling, and dwelling in a reflective mode, seeking to understand how I feel and what I think about what I’ve just seen/read/experienced/felt/thought.

I hope that’s enough, but I suppose we’ll see…

So let’s start with the eternal question, “Why horror?”

No—that’s silly. Whoever you are, you wouldn’t have come to a horror blog if you are actually puzzled by how anyone could enjoy this kind of content, could take pleasure in being scared, grossed out, disturbed, shaken, haunted, or appalled.

So, to rephrase, “What do I love about Horror?”

-I’ve always craved intensity and extremity in artistic experience.  I want work to get to me.  If I go to the theatre, I want to witness something that tears me open and leaves me raw, after which I have to struggle to put myself back together again, hopefully changed, hopefully better.  I want the same from a good horror film.

-I love the creative drive and horror is full of it.  From the most pretentious art-house fare to the cheapest, sleaziest  grindhouse flick, this is a genre where people take risks, try new things, are willing to push the envelope, and possibly fail. I’d rather watch a lousy horror movie where someone got excited about a bad idea and executed it terribly, where the plot and characters are paper thin, but someone has put so much thought, artistry, and love into figuring out how to best display a bucket of viscera than a mediocre but safe police procedural.  

-I love how open horror is to layers of meaning, to symbol, to more than base naturalism.  Someone (I wish I remembered who) once wrote that ‘where there’s a monster, there’s a metaphor.’ On one level, I take pleasure in stories, characters, situations that are more than real. On another level, I love (and this is where it often gets academic) how easily horror texts can serve as a lens through which to view the society, the time and place, and the people that the text came from.  When you’re dealing with images of what scares people, what upsets them, what upends a depended on status-quo, even a failure of a film can be a really valuable artifact in terms of social analysis.   

-Finally (for now), I love the inherent tension of finding cinematic pleasure in terrible things (in terms of content, but also quality).  I love a good time. I love the perverse impish glee of getting down into something awful and thrashing about, of chasing the dragon of a really good scare, of having my own boundaries pushed (from the comfort of my sofa), of the joy of figuring out how to do something, show something that has never been done or shown before, of the nasty, childish impulse to really get a rise out of the viewer/reader.

I love Horror.

And I’m going to write about it.

I hope that’s ok.