Why I Watch Horror

There are things we’re prone to asking people when we’re getting to know them. Questions that give us a pretty basic grasp for what kind of people they are. “What line of work are you in?”, “Where are you from?”, “What’s your major?”, “What are your hobbies?”

You know the stuff.

And common among these ice breaker questions is “So… what kind of movies do you like?”

You wouldn’t imagine that there’d be a wrong answer to that question.

But there is.

Oh man, is there ever.

You can give any answer to that question, so long as you don’t say “horror”.

You say that, and the conversation stops dead.

No pun intended

Look, I can get why people would be put-off by that- there, after all, a pretty deeply rooted stereotype of horror as being nothing more than scantily clothed teens being massacred in the wilderness by deformed, machete-wielding maniacs.

Have you EVER seen one of these used for its original purpose?

But that’s the thing- while those films are probably the most recognizable of the horror genre’s [hideously deformed] face, there’s so much to horror than just that. I mean, the action genre is made up of more than the unholy explosive-ridden spawn of Michael Bay.

This actually the deepest part of the film

And we certainly don’t imagine that romance movies are nothing but hours of vapid and vacuous dialogue.

The existence of this movie is probably the best argument against the existence of God

So why do people react so viciously to horror?

I think it’s because people have (1) an incomplete understanding of what horror is and (2) and incomplete understanding of why we watch it.

First- full disclosure. There are a ton of bad horror movies out there. They don’t require much plot, the can use nobody actors, and they’re cheap and easy to throw together. They appeal to the lowest common denominator, and they can flood the market however- this cannot be used to criticize the horror genre anymore than trashy romance novels can be used criticize contemporary fiction.

Now, let’s hash out exactly what “horror” is.

If we consult the fountain of all earthly knowledge that is Wikipedia, we find “Horror Film” defined as “…unsettling movies that strive to elicit the emotions of fear, disgust and horror from viewers. They often feature scenes that startle the viewer through the means of macabre and the supernatural, thus frequently overlapping with the fantasy and science fiction genres.”

Ok, that’s pretty comprehensive, and it brings us to the question- “Why?”

Well, there’s no simple answer. As with any genre, there are different kinds of horror that we watch for different reasons. Let me give some examples.

Slasher Films:

Slasher films (also commonly known as “splatter films” or “teen screams”) are the films everyone thinks of when the subject of horror comes up. The campy b-movies from the 50s and 60s, the various incarnations of Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street, the horror-action hybrids like Resident Evil– need I go on?

For the most part, there’s not a lot to these films. They’re made to make money, and we watch them for cheap thrills. When I was I kid, I used to go around in the garden below my apartment building looking for slugs, spiders, and other “gross” things. The slasher/splatter/teen scream films of today are just extensions of that same juvenile urge to be grossed out.

Take, for example, Sam Raimi’s 1981 film The Evil Dead.

If you look closely at the poster, you’ll see it’s titled “…The most ferociously original horror film of the year…”. Yeah- a  bunch of teens in a cabin in the woods being killed by a malicious force (the kids, not the cabin) is something that’s never been done before.

*Ahem*

All in all, there’s not much to it. The plot is predictable, the gore is excessive, the acting is (barring one scene)  lousy, and special effects are just plain awful.

Though you DO have to hand it to the makeup guys...

Again, there are a lot of these films out there because they’re easy to make. Most fans of these particular films are either (1) older people who feel a sentimental attachment to the films they saw as teens or (2) people who watch them for the comedic overacting.

“Boo!” Films:

To be perfectly honest- I’m not entirely sure of the title for this particular genre. These “boo!” films are a step about splatter movies in that they don’t require gore to frighten the audience, but are still fairly conventional- merely startling or alarming audiences with sudden “boo!” moments. Look at the 2010 remake of the classic horror film The Wolfman.

He's very annoyed by something just over his shoulder...

While there certainly wasn’t a lack of gore in this film, the frightening part of the film was in the “boo!” moments, when something would leap at the scream with a loud noise- jolting the audience. What I really loved about this particular film was that it would use “boo!”s twice. You’d get startled, and just after you’re calming down- bam!– another jolt. Again, while it’s not too different from slasher films, “boo!” films tend to be a step-up in quality, as the jolts are only effective when the audience is immersed in the story- either through a good story, atmospheric cinematography, or nice acting.

The exhilarating rush that we get from being startled is the central reason we watch these kinds of film. Same logic behind roller-coasters.

Psychological/Tension Films:

Here the line between the horror and thriller genres tend to overlap. When the violence, the gore, the monsters are all merely implied. What really scares you isn’t so much in what is shown (as in slasher films or “boo!” films) but in what’s concealed. Now this demands so much more of the film. Gore is easy, jolts are easy, but getting the audience creeped out by something they can’t see- that’s tough. As a result, these psychological horror films are really top-notch stuff, forcing the actors to be believable, the atmosphere to be consistent, the tension to be constantly mounting, and everyday objects to be sinister and threatening.

You don't normally think of chairs as being creepy...

While there are a lot of good films I could list here (the photo above is from The Ring– US version), I’m going to go with Paranomal Activity. I’m guessing most of you know the basic premise; weird stuff happens in house, camera gets set up to catch whatever it is, things get worse from there. It sounds pretty simplistic, yet it’s easily one of the scariest films recently made. Why? Because it’s all in the minds of the audience. The evil force is never shown, letting audience members imagine whatever frightens them most.

It’s catharsis. We watch these films, as weird as it sounds, to relax. It’s like doing stretches- the further you pull, the more sore your muscles become- but when you release that tension you feel get, and wander around the rest of the day relaxed and limber. These movies simply serve as a psychological version of that.

Primal Fear Movies:

Now these movies are masterpieces. They’re the icons of horror not because of gore and not because of jolts and not because of tension (though they all play  a part). No, these movies are the high-point of horror because they speak to our most primal fears. Being watched, strangers, the unknown- these are all things we, as a species, are naturally terrified of. These subconscious fears are the remains of old, primal instincts from a brutal and distant era. These horror films stick with us, even after we’ve left the theater or turned off the TV.

For example, 1975’s Jaws.

You're thinking of the theme music right now- admit it.

Did this movie have gore? Yes. Jolts? Yep. Tension? Plenty- but none of that is what defined this movie. What made Jaws the cultural staple it is today is that it spoke to our fear of the ocean and the monsters therein. The film actually caused a drop in the number of people going to the beach in 1975!

Or, look at another example. Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho.

Again, you're imaging the theme music...

Does anyone who sees this film ever look at a shower or a staircase the same way again?

Now I guess I really haven’t answered the question as to why I watch horror.

To be honest, I think it’s because horror, as the genre that no one expects anything of, can get away with more. I mean, when was the last time you saw a non-horror film grapple with issues of faith and spirituality?

Or politics?

Or economics?

Or family dynamics?

Let’s just face the facts- horror movies tend to be a lot braver than non-horror movies. They’ll deal with issues other films shy away from, and not only do they deal with those issues, but through a medium that this atmospheric and engaging on multiple levels.

Well- most of the time anyways…

World Philosophies Simplified By Pizza

A while ago, I and some friends went to a college event, drawn there by the promise of pizza. We showed up, and to our crushing disappointment, the pizza had not been delivered. While we waited, we played a game, in which we tried to boil down world philosophies to one sentence illustrations with pizza.

Here’s some of what we came up with.

Modernism: Everyone eats the pizza as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

Hinduism: Become one with the pizza.

Enlightenment: Eat the pizza if it’s logical to do so.

Romanticism: Screw reason- go with your gut.

Buddhism: There is no pizza.

Existentialism: The pizza’s there, but what’s the point?

Postmodernism: Everyone just stands around looking at the pizza.

Fatalism: You will eat the pizza.

Freudian: Ah, pizza just like mother used to make…

Marxism: Everyone gets a slice.

Objectivism: This pizza belongs to me and me alone.

Agnosticism: There might be pizza, there might not be- who knows?

Empiricism: I will only believe that there’s pizza when I’m eating it.

Confucianism: You can have some pizza if your parents allow it.

Hedonism: There’s champagne and caviar on the pizza.

Epicurianism: Have some pizza, but don’t make yourself sick.

Stoicism: I don’t care what’s on the pizza, I’ll deal with it.

Platonism: This pizza’s just a copy of a better pizza somewhere else.

Absurdism: Ooh- a pink squirrel!

So What’s Postmodernism, And Why Should We Care?

Postmodernism.

That term always used to confuse me. I figured, whatever age we’re living in is, to us, “modern”. How can anything be “Postmodern”?

It was only a few years ago that I managed to accept that someone had, for some inexplicable reason, decided to name the 20th century “Modern”, forcing following generations to jump through hoops to find terms that say “Not-modern-but-still-contemporary-for-us”.

Jerks...

But I guess that doesn’t answer the question of “What’s Postmodernism?”.

Well, think of it this way. The word that best encapsulates the philosophy, art, and culture of the modern era was function. The end purpose of everything is to convey some point, have some specific meaning, or perform some set task. Postmodernism is just the opposite- rejecting the idea that function ought to be the end goal of everything, Postmodernism is encapsulated by aesthetics. The end goal of everything isn’t to convey a point or carry out some set purpose, it’s to look good.

Confusing? Bear with me.

Take, for example, two musical icons- Johnny Cash and Lady Gaga.

Both artists are known for their fashion choices- Cash as the “Man in Black”, Lady Gaga as… uh… I guess the singer covered in forty pounds of raw meat (among other things).

Now Cash’s monochromatic dress style had a very specific purpose, as he himself explains in his song “Man in Black”. “I wear it for the poor and the beaten down/Living in the hopeless, hungry side of town/And I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime/But is there because he’s a victim of the times…”, Cash sings, going on to cite other members of society he feels have been marginalized or dispossessed, ending with “But just so we’re reminded of the one’s who are held back/Up front there ought to be a man in black…”.

All in all, his Cash’s fashion choices reflect the general principal behind his choice of clothing. What he wore had a specific purpose (a reminder of the less fortunate).

The same certainly can’t be said for Lady Gaga- I say this as a fact, not out of contempt (though I’ll disclose, I’m no Gaga fan).

Lady Gaga’s fashion choices, from her infamous meat dress to her nightmarish lace crown-mask-hybrid, are perhaps her defining mark as a celebrity- perhaps even more so than her music. But what exactly is any of it supposed to mean? What’s the point behind what’s she’s wearing?

If the purpose is to terrify us, mission accomplished.

After a wading through a slew of comments and diatribes by Lady Gaga fans and opponents (seriously, the are fewer people involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), the only concrete answer I was able to find was that “She dresses the way she does to stand out”- i.e., her choice in dress is to get people to look at her choice in dress. It’s complete postmodernism. The purpose is asthetics- the purpose is appearance.

If you want another example, contrast a Modernist movement and a Postmodernist movement- the hippies and the hipsters.

The Times They Are A Changing

Now at first glance, both groups seem to have a lot in common. Both were the counter-cultural movement of their generation, both have a reputation for their hairstyles and questionable hygiene, and both have a reputation for moderate drug use. But let’s strip both movements down to their core beliefs.

Now it’s pretty easy to dissect the hippies- they were virulently anti-war, anti-establishment, anti-consumerist, and generally in favor of the establishment of a peaceful, harmonious society celebrating life, nature, and the longest freaking beards since the neolithic period. A clear, definable purpose.

Something along these lines...

So what’s the end goal of the hipster counter-cultural movement?

And there are literally hundreds more of these things out there...

Well, the end purpose of hipster counter-cultural seems to be the hipster counter-cultural. The purpose of growing out one’s beard, or donning a trucker cap, or sporting a ragged hoodie is to to have a beard, wear a trucker cap, and sport a ragged hoodie. Again, it’s about the asthetic.

So why’s does any of this matter? Allow me to offer another illustration.

I just finished up an English course “Literature of the Holocaust”. Now this class was taught by a consummate Modernist. She believed that everything- everything– we read had a purpose or meaning. There was one point in the course where she- and I make no exaggeration- broke up the students intro groups and ordered us to spend the next five minutes discussing the significance of the punctuation in one poem. Now I’ll grant you that there are times when punctuation may be significant, but I somehow doubt that the author’s choosing to leave out a comma at the end of this stanza is changing the message of the poem. I’m not reading along, developing this sense of horror at the atrocities being described, and than having my perspective changed by the absence of a semicolon.

This pretty much sums it up...

And this kind of thing was a recurring problem throughout the class. It’s been a recurring problem between I and my fellow students and the professors at my school. Since we’re at the transition from Modernism to Postmodernism, there’s a huge difference in our perspectives of the world. The generations who have a Modernist perspective are very much taken with symbolism (Freud doubtlessly played a major part in shaping Modernism). Everything has a purpose- a function. The flowers in that painting, they mean something. This just isn’t the case for the generations growing up in the Postmodernist world- from the Postmodernist perspective, the flowers in that painting are just flowers in the painting.

Now sure, there’s always been conflict between cultures, but what we’re seeing now is something entirely new. The hippies and warhawks of the 60s might have been on opposites of various issues, but their paradigm for understanding the world was at least on the same wavelength. What we have now is an entirely new way of understanding the world, and communication between generations has never been more difficult. Unless we have a basic grasp of the world we’ve come from, and the world we’re moving into, we’re just going to be confused, frustrated, and missing out on all the good things Modernism and Postmodernism have to offer.