Horror Story - Fun or Psychopathology?


Recommended Posts

Horror Story - Fun or Psychopathology?
 
In the essay "What is Romanticism?" (found in The Romantic Manifesto), Ayn Rand had some harsh things to say about horror stories. She flat out stated they did not belong within the field of aesthetics, but instead, within the field of mental illness.
 
See for yourself:
 

Beyond this point, the field of literature, both "serious" and popular, is taken over by a genre compared to which Romanticism and Naturalism are clean, civilized and innocently rational: the Horror Story. The modern ancestor of this phenomenon is Edgar Allan Poe; its archetype or purest esthetic expression is Boris Karloff movies.
 
Popular literature, more honest in this respect, presents its horrors in the form of physical monstrosities. In "serious" literature, the horrors become psychological and bear less resemblance to anything human; this is the literary cult of depravity.

 

The Horror Story, in either variant, represents the metaphysical projection of a single human emotion: blind, stark, primitive terror. Those who live in such terror seem to find a momentary sense of relief or control in the process of reproducing that which they fear—as savages find a sense of mastery over their enemies by reproducing them in the form of dolls. Strictly speaking, this is not a metaphysical, but a purely psychological projection; such writers are not presenting their view of life; they are not looking at life; what they are saying is that they feel as if life consisted of werewolves, Draculas and Frankenstein monsters. In its basic motivation, this school belongs to psychopathology more than to esthetics.

 
Now contrast this with an interview by Joanna Penn with an actual author of horror fiction, Michael Brent Collings:

 

 

Does this guy look like a psychopath to anyone? (Not in the thumbnail, but in the actual video. :) ) How about his recurring theme of grace under all odds? Or good against evil in simple forms? Or the twelve-year-olds he mentioned who love to laugh at slasher horror films where a young couple go out to smooch it up and encounter a nasty character with lawn equipment?

 

Does any of this sound like these people even remotely resemble the mentally ill?

 

Rand read Aristotle, fer goddsake. In Poetics, Aristotle made a big deal out of Oedipus, who killed his father and a bunch of other folks, and married his mother, who proceeded to hang herself while he stuck needles in his eyes. A barrel of laughs, I tell ya'.

 

Aristotle's whole emotional throughline in tragedy is that a hero has to start out provoking pity in the audience (by being in an unfortunate situation), then provoke mounting fear (generally through danger). When this gets unbearable, a climax resolves the reason for the fear (and any other tension) and these negative emotions experienced by the audience are purged in a process called catharsis.

 

How's that for "the metaphysical projection of a single human emotion: blind, stark, primitive terror" to use her words? Well, not single. For Aristotle, there's pity, too. But after Roark wanted to barf from pity of Keating trying to be a painter, we know what she thought about that emotion.

 

Now for the obvious question. Are terror and pity the only emotions in a horror story? Hell, didn't Rand learn about catharsis? Isn't the pleasure of relief an emotion for her? That's definitely part of the horror aesthetic. It's not like this idea was absent in Hollywood in her fiction-formative years. And I won't even go into the emotion of hope.

 

Of course she knew this stuff. She just didn't apply it to the Horror Story for whatever reason.

 

And how did she miss child play? The sight of kids horsing around about gory stuff is ubiquitous, even in her time. Wherever there are kids, you see this.

 

I'll give her a pass on missing the theme of grace under terrible circumstances, but not much of one. She was certainly intelligent enough to see it if she wanted to. I won't give her a pass on missing the theme of good and evil, though. That would be ridiculous for someone like Rand and condescending to boot.

 

One has to identify something correctly before one can evaluate it correctly. I contend Rand missed by a mile on identifying in this case. I can't take her evaluation of Horror Story seriously. She's evaluating something to fit a theory, not what actually exists--neither the motives of the audience nor how the emotions play out.

 

Personally, I find "Monster in the House" stories (to use Hollywood jargon from Blake Snyder) a lot of fun. Especially when mixed with science fiction, like the film Alien.

 

If that makes me a psychopath, so be it. You better be careful if you ever meet me on a dark lonely road during a full moon.

 

:)

 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I read some of these angrier opinions of Rand's, I wonder how much of them were influenced by Branden's trying to pull her out of her post-AS "funk." They come across as very puffed up pseudo self-esteem. And that makes me wonder if a degree of pseudo self-esteem is actually exactly what is needed by some people to overcome their "funk" or their weakness or whatever, and whether or not Branden was aware of that degree at the time, and if he could recognize the signs of when the line of acceptable levels of pseudo self-esteem had been crossed, and therefore that it might be time to reign in puffery.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand was a fiction writer so it's not surprising to me to see transference of fiction to her own personal life and if there be any pseudo self-esteem therefore then its understandable for one living too much in a world of fiction she could not adequately transcend so stuck she was in the reality of Atlas Shrugged which demands the artificiality of creation and she was all about artificiality.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hyperbolic, but I believe with some merit - especially when we remember Rand's premises. Such a genre either can leave a young mind with deep fears of some vague 'Bogeyman' carried into adulthood, affecting his view of life, or as bad, de-sensitize and dull a mind to giggle at all horror, as if it doesn't exist. Not taking evil seriously seems to be a sign of the times. Monstrosities exist in real life, you don't have to look further than an Iran with nuclear weapons.

Fiction has bled into fact to the extent I'm not sure many know the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such a genre either can leave a young mind with deep fears of some vague 'Bogeyman' carried into adulthood, affecting his view of life, or as bad, de-sensitize and dull a mind to giggle at all horror, as if it doesn't exist. Not taking evil seriously seems to be a sign of the times.

Tony,

In other words, you believe stories for children in previous times, when apparently they grew up to take evil seriously, were not horror stories? Like back in the good old days when there were no wars or violence?

:)

btw - Have you read any older versions of fairy tales? Bible stories? Etc.? Don't forget, the Walt Disney aesthetic is very, very recent in human history.

Sorry, but from what I see (looking objectively, not in gotcha mode), Rand was beyond hyperbolic in this case. She misidentified way too much, then went hyperbolic on her errors as if they were facts.

I, for one, will not follow her aesthetic lead in evaluating horror stories (including many parts of her aesthetic judgments). Why repeat the errors of someone I otherwise deeply respect and care for?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such a genre either can leave a young mind with deep fears of some vague 'Bogeyman' carried into adulthood, affecting his view of life, or as bad, de-sensitize and dull a mind to giggle at all horror, as if it doesn't exist. Not taking evil seriously seems to be a sign of the times.

Tony,

In other words, you believe stories for children in previous times, when apparently they grew up to take evil seriously, were not horror stories? Like back in the good old days when there were no wars or violence?

:smile:

btw - Have you read any older versions of fairy tales? Bible stories? Etc.? Don't forget, the Walt Disney aesthetic is very, very recent in human history.

Sorry, but from what I see (looking objectively, not in gotcha mode), Rand was beyond hyperbolic in this case. She misidentified way too much, then went hyperbolic on her errors as if they were facts.

I, for one, will not follow her aesthetic lead in evaluating horror stories (including many parts of her aesthetic judgments). Why repeat the errors of someone I otherwise deeply respect and care for?

Michael

I don't think that much has changed, Michael. Only more of the same and faster now. But then, think about it, was it only coincidence that there were horror stories (and the Bible) then, and violence and all that stuff, then - too? (I hated fairy tales, btw)

Horror, like art in general sets a tone for how we look at life, I think, although our parents reassured us that it's not 'real', and the story or movie will end - except - the feelings and sense of dread we had were real, and didn't go away so fast, did they?

You notice, I'm speaking from the pov of the youngster. From our present vantage point it looks harmless enough or entertaining, and as grown-up I've enjoyed -some- horror fiction and films, if only for the tension and a good plot, if there is one. I've mentioned here, that for a while I liked the series 'Supernatural' before it became too formula-ic.

I can't speak for all, but from my perspective when young I can stipulate that plenty of fiction and some art can have long-lasting effects which distort one's view of existence. Essentially, if it can be imagined, it can be real--to a young mind. I don't know that Rand primarily had the youthful in mind, in her writing on art, but they wouldn't have been out of her mind I'm sure .

For a long while, the post-modernist trend has been to ridicule what you want to take seriously (and to be serious about what you think is laughable) but because identification is sorely lacking by people who increasingly can't discern reality from unreality, actions are mimicking art, and real horror is treated about as lightly as the fictional. Identity, as you point out, is at the bottom of all this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony,

You really don't know about fairy tales of old. Man are you in for a treat. :)

Here are a couple of details (among many) they left out by the time you were young.

Before that, though, I have to mention that there are many versions of each fairy tale. But even the traditional compilations (Perrault, Grimm, Anderson, etc.) had some really gross stuff in them.

Cinderella, poor thing, did not have a glass slipper except in one place only (Perrault). It was generally leather or fur or sometimes not even a slipper, but instead a ring. But the good part is about her evil stepsisters. In order for each to fit her respective foot into the slipper to please the prince, each cut off her own big toe.

:)

Or how about Little Red Riding Hood dining on her grandmother before the final "what big eyes you have" scene with the Big Bad Wolf? You read that right. Cannibalism. Poor Little Reddy Baby didn't realize it, of course, because the wolf had cooked her grandmother before Red got there, but down the hatch granny went. I can just see the toddlers of yesteryear clapping and laughing and cooing in appreciation.

:)

You would be appalled at the stuff in those stories. However, the kiddies of old generally liked to supplement their fictional entertainment by showing up at local hangings, events where people were burned to the stake, bear-baiting and so on.

:)

Modern-day horror stories, CGI and all, are actually tame fare for kids compared to the normal culture of antiquity.

Here's a book you may enjoy that deals with ancient glorification of horror, fiction and fact, but in a different manner than normal: The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker. I'm only a hundred pages or so in so far, but it is fascinating if you have a strong stomach.

Be glad we live in such nonviolent times. We are truly blessed by comparison with our ancestors.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Stephen. The Peikoff blurb was interesting in what he did not say. He cited Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948). I agree that it must have provided escape for him, as he says, but I cannot believe that at 15 years of age, he would have been afraid. It was obviously a comedy. Yet, in his time, horror films were known.

On another matter, according to German phonology, Peikoff should be pronounced with a long i. And when referring to the monster, he said, "Frankensteen" (long e)… like Gene Wilder in Young Frankenstein. Or for that matter: It's Eye-gore. "Down in the village they said it was Ee-gor." Well, they were wrong now, weren't they?

I agree with your friend, James, that the lines between horror and science fiction are fuzzy. As for the essential difference (see below), I look to sense of life. In science fiction, we solve the problem. In horror, we cannot. Though, yes, for many science fiction movies The End was a question The End?

Dan Ust's analysis was interesting. I have not read but one or two Lovecraft stories long ago. I am not a fan of horror, though I do like the giant monsters: Godzilla, King Kong,… always enjoyed the Saturday reruns of Giant Behemoth, Gorgo (saw it in the theater when it came out).

I think that Ust's point (and Rand's) is cogent. In horror, it is not just that the nature of the enemy per se but of the universe in general. In the old stories, the monster is killed. The story line can be bent to bring the monster back later, but that is more about the box office. I do not remember which Bride of Dracula movie it was, but at the end, the good guys are trapped again, she is coming for them, escape is impossible, and her servant at the head of the staircase shoots her with an arrow - wooden stake to the heart. Ouch. A few months ago, we watched Season One of Buffy. Same thing: monsters come and go, but the good guys solve the problem. That is different than Lovecraft and the unstoppable Freddie and Jason. I will grant, though, that the genre is so formulaic that it is more akin to comedy. It is a trope. Like if I left something in the car and I say "I'm going outside" my wife might say "OK, I'll check the basement." (We have no basement: the house is on a slab.)

Tony,

You really don't know about fairy tales of old. Man are you in for a treat. :smile:

Yes, we had a Grimm's Fairy Tale book that was printed in English, but published in Hungary. I think it was Snow White's witch whose feet were placed in iron shoes heated red hot and she was made to dance. In another, the witch was put in a barrel with nails and rolled around town. In another the girl's oracle was the head of her favorite horse who had been killed to make her suffer and the head was nailed to the castle door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Peikoff could have been "afraid" watching that movie at 15 (14?). That's the power of the imagination of a youngster. When I was younger than that the YMCA set up a 16mm projector and showed about 40 or 50 of us boys one of those 1950s' flying saucer movies. I had to walk out two or three times. The last time I tripped on the power cord stopping the show and wow!--were those kids pissed at me. There were a bunch of that type of b/w movie back then and they were very engaging that way. Has to do with stay-away-from-the-graveyard imagination.

When I was 16 I couldn't stay in a theater--went out to the lobby twice--showing The Creature from the Black Lagoon. Not a comedy, of course. I rather recently purchased it on VHS, but haven't yet tried to look at it again.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a book you may enjoy that deals with ancient glorification of horror, fiction and fact, but in a different manner than normal: The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker. I'm only a hundred pages or so in so far, but it is fascinating if you have a strong stomach.

Be glad we live in such nonviolent times. We are truly blessed by comparison with our ancestors.

Michael

It has to be a worthy read Michael, certainly to see what threads he pulled together with undoubted erudition.

But it was published in around 2011. I wonder if events are not already outstripping his theory. It is hard to agree that violence has declined, now, when there are more refugees than ever before measured in the world (just as one signifier).

I think there was a decline, but only for a while, explained broadly by the stakes being too high for conflict during the Cold War period.

There is also a human reason, I believe, but not Pinker's. As I gather, amongst Pinker's rationale is the increased empathy by peoples and nations which has effectively lessened violence, in his view. I have a serious doubt there. Empathy has its limits. I believe it to be an essential quality, but it can't survive without rational principles leading the way. Trouble is, people in Western countries are as much concerned with the ~appearance~ of empathy, as the real thing. In other words, it's not enough to feel compassion, one must ~display~ compassion to people around you to gain their approval, too. There is deep deceitfulness and second-handness in that.

In all, it looks like a departure from realism and honesty that doesn't bode well for the future of Europe, particularly.

In light of that, it is not surprising that several renegade countries and terror gangs are emerging right now. Russia, Iran and the rest (like ISIS) are loudly proclaiming "to hell with your Western, "better angels", nobler feelings and hypocrisy - we don't care what others feel about us as you do - and we can tell you are old and weakened and have lost the conviction to oppose us. And we don't play by your rules".

So, there is not less violence in the offing that I can tell, more that the lid on the boiling pot has been clamped down till now by placated societies afraid to face facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony,

You just stated what most people feel, assumptions and all.

Unfortunately the data does not support this feeling nor the assumptions.

Here's something to think about. The nature of evil does not change because less people practice it. So whether you see one beheading or 100, they all look gruesome. When one person is a scumbag, he looks just as loathsome as 100. And so on.

But in our Internet age, a lot more people know of the one when it happens. Added to that, the way the human mind evolved, news companies need to hammer the bad stuff if they want to stay in business and prosper. So not only do more people know, they keep hearing and seeing certain cases over and over and over until it is part of their nightmares.

This gives the impression that violence is growing in humanity. But that's merely an impression. The fact is, the human population is expanding and average life extension is getting longer every year. Hell, government social programs are going bankrupt because people are not dying fast enough. :)

If violence were increasing, that could not happen. Granted, violence is not the only input, but it is something that kills and maims humans. And I can't think of anything better to curtail an increase in population and life extension than killing and maiming folks. :)

I realize that this cuts to the very bone of the scare-tactic in Objectivism (the world is perishing in an orgy of this or that and Objectivism is the only antidote), but the fact is, the human world is flourishing more than at any time in human history. And it got that way without Objectivism.

That's not an opinion. It's fact. Look around. Rand is recent and, even then, her ideas are only now starting to spread for real.

Do we need reason to help the good stuff grow and get better? Sure. Is Objectivism a good system for using reason? Sure. But the real danger to the world is if savages get their hands on weapons of mass destruction or more sophisticated weapons and technology. Population-wise, there is no danger from the number of savages increasing.

We also need reason to keep our eyes on our fearless leaders. If they screw up badly enough, they will let savages get their hands on weapons of mass destruction. And they do boneheaded bigass stuff (like NSA data collection) that causes lots of damage when it goes wrong. So the real problem is small pockets of evil and dumbasses that need to be contained, not pervasive violence.

And further, Objectivism is a good system for combating toxic ideologies that bind groups of savages. Our story is better than theirs, so to speak.

But numbers? They are going down violence-wise. Even ISIS is only about 30,000 to 60,000 people or so (I got that figure from TV news, so don't hold me to it). But even if it is more, the world population is over 7 billion. Pretty soon, after a lot of hemming and hawing, the countries with sophisticated armies will get tired of looking at videos of raw evil like beheadings and burning people alive and go in and clean them out. That's my prediction.

In my opinion, if Objectivism is to spread, the spokespeople--and those who believe in the philosophy--have to give up the Apocalypse as inherent to the storyline, including Objectivism as the One True Path for salvation from it. People in general like that kind of story--after all, it's in most major religions--but people in general also realize it's bullshit. How do they know? They look at the news where blood oozes daily, then look around at their neighborhoods where people are mowing lawns. Unless one lives in a gang-warfare ghetto, the news vision does not remotely resemble the neighborhood.

Also, the massive massive massive majority of people die of old age, disease or accidents around peaceful surroundings. Only few die from violence.

Educate thyself, man. Look to facts, not just assumptions (which are generally good, but not in this case). Take a look at Pinker's book. Get it from the library. Also, you will see how your assumptions misrepresent what's in the book. And you will see some hard data that may get you to check a premise or two.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In my opinion, if Objectivism is to spread, the spokespeople--and those who believe in the philosophy--have to give up the Apocalypse as inherent to the storyline, including Objectivism as the One True Path for salvation from it. People in general like that kind of story--after all, it's in most major religions--but people in general also realize it's bullshit. How do they know? They look at the news where blood oozes daily, then look around at their neighborhoods where people are mowing lawns. Unless one lives in a gang-warfare ghetto, the news vision does not remotely resemble the neighborhood."

From AYN RAND ANSWERS, pgs. 43-44:

(Question):

"Certain economists predict an imminent and large-scale economic depression and possible world war. Could you comment on this prediction and their advice to move away from large cities to avoid riots and food shortages?"

(Rand):

"Anyone who makes such apocalyptic predictions is not being entirely honest. Nobody can predict such things....To plan your life on an unforeseeable disaster is foolish. If a nuclear war started, you might not survive no matter where you go....Certain things you cannot prepare for.

"It's a mistake always to project too much optimism-that is, to count on everything going well. You may be hurt that way. But it's just as bad (if not worse) always to prepare for the worst. That's when you'll bring disaster on yourself. Watch reality and act on the evidence, as far as you can predict. But don't talk about the apocalypse; it's useless." [OC 80]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ThatGuy,

Heh.

Now all we need to do is convince those who promote Objectivism to take that into account.

But it's not all their fault. From The Fountainhead:

The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing.

I don't have time right now to look for more similar quotes, but there is no lack of them.

Also, the fact that Rand's most influential work (Atlas Shrugged) brings about an Apocalypse makes me cut people some slack when they infer she meant it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, I use the ideas of Objectivism - and also use the words, where appropriate - like here, or with friends who know what I mean by "altruism" and "collectivism", however it's not Objectivism I push, as such. In my exchanges with other people it all concerns freedom. When they ask more, of course I try to expound on individualism, selfishness, etc..

It will not be politics that will gain 'us' freedom (from State - and people) and my country is worse off than you, albeit off a far lower baseline. it will be honest, good people thinking for themselves. Not sacrificing their minds and blindly following the herd or an authority figure. Everyone here understands that's the meaning of altruism-collectivism. Although I admit to feeling it is viewed as a theoretical concept, somewhat ignored as a "Randianism'.

It is not politics either, that will stave off further wars and conflicts which will happen (usually by way of some country's politicians and their blind or immoral followers).

Nope, I don't believe in "one true path", or that Objectivism (directly) will save the world. As a start, much less politics and less dependence on politicians will work wonders though. The root of most problems among people, to a greater or lesser degree, revolves around some loss of selfhood. I'm satisfied with that from whatever I've seen and known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ThatGuy,

Heh.

Now all we need to do is convince those who promote Objectivism to take that into account.

But it's not all their fault. From The Fountainhead:

The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing.

I don't have time right now to look for more similar quotes, but there is no lack of them.

Also, the fact that Rand's most influential work (Atlas Shrugged) brings about an Apocalypse makes me cut people some slack when they infer she meant it.

Michael

True. Ironic, and true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I can't think of a horror film that I really like (except for Aliens, but that at least has a relatively happy ending).

Calling them psychopathy goes too far, but what's the purpose of making a movie which scares people?

I suppose it prepares them for the world, which can be pretty scary sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't think of a horror film that I really like (except for Aliens, but that at least has a relatively happy ending).

Calling them psychopathy goes too far, but what's the purpose of making a movie which scares people?

I suppose it prepares them for the world, which can be pretty scary sometimes.

For fun.

Like riding a roller coaster is fun.

--Brant

or jumping out of perfectly good airplanes

(In this context there are great movies and crappy movies and pure garbage--and, as in all things, few great ones, and there are non-fun reasons too, like getting and holding one's attention, but a great horror movie isn't ever a great movie as such, for instance, for me, it was The Creature from the Black Lagoon which I saw in a theater when I was 16 and I couldn't stay in my seat. I kept going out to the lobby. Now the movie seems dated and even a little silly. The original The Thing had the same effect on me, only stronger. The trick was to let the youngster's imagination take over. A lost art. Now they leave no room for such art and it seems to extend into movie-making generally. Black and white vs color seems to play a role. The original The Blob was a lot scarier to me than the remake. [steve McQueen's first movie, I think.] In a non-horror movie, A Kiss Before Dying, Robert Wagner pushed Joanne Woodward off the top of the Valley National Bank building here in Tucson 60 years ago. Much better than the color remake in spite of the dated college nerd type protagonist. [The building is still there in all its ten-story glory, then one of only two that high in Tucson.] Etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robin and Brant, do you think of Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal as horror movies? Do you like these two? I incline to think of them as horror films, and I like them (and admire the quality), though it’s rare I would repeat them due to the degree of tension and queasiness in me in the thought of them, particularly the second.

I too think of the Alien(s) films as a type of horror film, and I like them. I don’t watch those many, many films wherein people are kidnapped and tortured or all the people at a party are killed off. I didn’t like the Halloween movies I was persuaded to see. I know other people who enjoy them regularly and find them amusing. The audience for these films does seem to be doing some sort of roller coaster ride. Like Robin, I’m not one for literal roller coasters either. I did that once and would never do it again. It seems to me there is some rather primordial personality (and brain-condition) difference among people who respond differently to the literal rollercoaster. Maybe it’s that deep also in these different responses among people to the horror films.

I was recently telling my older sister about the modern film The Lone Ranger and how fun it was. It turned out she had not seen the film because she had seen or heard of a scene in which a man was killed and had his heart cut out. I can tell that through the decades, I’ve become increasingly inured to that sort of grotesquery in film. One of the first films I recall seeing as a child was The Lone Ranger. I certainly would have been very badly struck by such a bloody, vicious scene back there in the ’50’s at that age. If children that age today are not bothered by such scenes, then that is quite a change in our culture.

I drifted from horror films, so I’ll drift even farther. I’d like to recommend to friends here a superb film we watched a few days ago: The Butler. I don’t know how people who have not lived through the last six decades or so would respond to it, but Walter and I (old folk) found it quite compelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen, I had forgotten about the Hannibal Lecter stories.

I was very into them when I was in my early teens. One thing that distinguishes them from other horror films/books is that they're realistic, there's no supernatural forces or things outside the realm of human knowledge. Hannibal is a strange combination of extreme vice and a few virtues. In a sense Clarice is a Randian hero (in Silence) but ends up dropping out of the FBI due to its corruption and horrible buearacracy.

Stylistically the books are good (haven't yet read the last one). Silence of the Lambs and Red Dragon were good movies. I learned a decent amount about psychology and I think the portrayal of the FBI is accurate (though I don't know). The books expose you to interesting information about things like transsexuality...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robin and Brant, do you think of Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal as horror movies? Do you like these two? I incline to think of them as horror films, and I like them (and admire the quality), though it’s rare I would repeat them due to the degree of tension and queasiness in me in the thought of them, particularly the second.

I too think of the Alien(s) films as a type of horror film, and I like them. I don’t watch those many, many films wherein people are kidnapped and tortured or all the people at a party are killed off. I didn’t like the Halloween movies I was persuaded to see. I know other people who enjoy them regularly and find them amusing. The audience for these films does seem to be doing some sort of roller coaster ride. Like Robin, I’m not one for literal roller coasters either. I did that once and would never do it again. It seems to me there is some rather primordial personality (and brain-condition) difference among people who respond differently to the literal rollercoaster. Maybe it’s that deep also in these different responses among people to the horror films.

I was recently telling my older sister about the modern film The Lone Ranger and how fun it was. It turned out she had not seen the film because she had seen or heard of a scene in which a man was killed and had his heart cut out. I can tell that through the decades, I’ve become increasingly inured to that sort of grotesquery in film. One of the first films I recall seeing as a child was The Lone Ranger. I certainly would have been very badly struck by such a bloody, vicious scene back there in the ’50’s at that age. If children that age today are not bothered by such scenes, then that is quite a change in our culture.

I drifted from horror films, so I’ll drift even farther. I’d like to recommend to friends here a superb film we watched a few days ago: The Butler. I don’t know how people who have not lived through the last six decades or so would respond to it, but Walter and I (old folk) found it quite compelling.

I liked S of the L in spite of several improbabilities that would have stopped the story cold, but you have to suspend disbelief at the movies. Not a horror movie to me. The general operative context was too real. I think The Black Cat was a horror movie. Also, The Most Dangerous Game. I've never done any strict thinking and categorizations into and out of the genre, but color as opposed to black and white likely makes a horror movie more of a horrible movie, Vincent Price ones excepted, mostly. I'm less and less of a movie guy. The last movie I saw in a theater I remember was 10 years ago. It was The War of the Worlds, which, I guess, is a horror movie. The theater complex itself shut down (for lack of my business?). (I prefer Mars Attacks to the W of the W because of The W of the W storyline: in the former humans beat the aliens while in the latter it's just germs while the beaten down people cower in a church, for God's sake!) I never read the book, but I read it as a Classic Comics in a drugstore after school learning how to read better. At the age of nine I had the same criticism--basically, ugh.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen:

I am also not drawn to the blood and gore "horror" film. I think it is a large genre.

There has always been this gray area in the "horror-science fiction" labeling.

What about Them...

220px-Them02.jpg

That was a "horror" film that positively impacted me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Them!

Them! was released in June 1954[2] and by the end of that year, had accrued US $2 million in distributors' domestic (U.S. and Canada) rentals, making it the year's 51st biggest earner.[5][Note 1]

The New York Times review noted "... from the moment James Whitmore, playing a New Mexico state trooper, discovers a six-year-old moppet wandering around the desert in a state of shock, to the time when the cause of that mental trauma is traced and destroyed, Them! is taut science fiction."[6] The reviewer in Variety opined it was a "top-notch science fiction shocker. It has a well-plotted story, expertly directed and acted in a matter-of-fact style to rate a chiller payoff and thoroughly satisfy the fans of hackle-raising melodrama."[7][8]

I saw this in the movies when I was between 8 and 9.

Since its original release, Them! has become generally regarded as one of the very best science fiction films of the 1950s. Bill Warren described the film as " ... tight, fast-paced and credible ... [T]he picture is suspenseful."[2] Phil Hardy’s The Aurum Film Encyclopedia: Science Fiction noted, "Directed by [Gordon] Douglas in semi-documentary fashion, Them! is one of the best American science fiction films of the fifties."[9] Danny Peary believed the film "Ranks with The Thing and Invasion of the Body Snatchers as the best of the countless 50s science fiction films."[10] In the Time Out Film Guide, David Pirie wrote, "By far the best of the 50s cycle of 'creature features' ... retains a good part of its power today."[11] The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported a 100% approval rating with an average rating of 7.6/10, based on 26 reviews. The website's consensus reads, "One of the best creature features of the early atomic age, Them! features effectively menacing special effects and avoids the self-parody that would taint later monster movies."[12]

This I did not know. However, I remember that my "kinesics" instinctively moved back when those flamethrowers flames came right at your eyes in the movie theatre screen!

When Them! began production in the fall of 1953, it was originally conceived to be in 3-D and Warner Color. During pre-production, tests were to be shot in color and 3-D. A few color tests were shot of the large-scale ant models, but when it was time to shoot the 3-D test, Warner Bros' "All Media" 3-D camera rig malfunctioned and no footage could be filmed. The next day, a memo was sent out that the color and 3-D aspects of the production were to be scrapped; black and white and widescreen would now be the film's format. Warner Bros. hoped to emulate the "effective shock treatment" effect of its previous science fiction thriller The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms; ultimately, however, the film was not shot in widescreen. Because of the preparation of certain shots, many of the camera set-ups for 3-D still remain in the film, like the opening titles and the flame throwers shots aimed directly at the camera.[4]

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now