The Change of the Monster

A recent trend in the horror film requires greater reflection. On one hand, we have not seen a decrease in the number of films that surely would fall into the horror genre; nevertheless, the explanation of horror has changed in recent years. Within this new approach, movie-goers have witnessed a shift in tactics. The classical ‘mystic’ explanations for the vampires, were-wolves, and zombies have given away to a different breed of killer with a readily understandable scientific explanation. The philosophy of ‘Art-Horror’ by Noel Carroll offers great insight into the nature of the monster, but inevitably opens the door for a wide variety of interpretations leading to the inclusion of some monsters into the realm of horror that might be denounced by other critiques.

In light of Carroll’s development in the thought of ‘art-horror’, some movies might call into question the validity of films that are posed as ‘horror films’ with monsters whose presence in the world, at one time, could only be explained through supernatural means. We might then ask if adding a scientific explanation to the abnormal occurrence of some monsters in field of modern movies has effectively removed these characters from the horror genre into the fantastic. An obvious example of this move can been seen in newer vampire movies. In previous times the vampire was a creature neither dead nor alive and had definite strengths and powers which derived from his connection with evil, as in the movie “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”.

In the recent movie “Blade” this trend was officially stopped, and was substituted by a vampire whose existence could be explained by a virus. Other movies, such as “Underworld”, have followed suit, and though they retain some supernatural elements vampirism is portrayed as something scientifically plausible.

Other monsters have met similar fates. The dreaded brain-eating zombie in now routinely viewed as a freak of nature, rather than a supernatural villain. “Resident Evil” and “28 Days Later” both portray the ‘zombie’ as a global threat that began with the misuse of science, which though exaggerated, still remains possible from the viewer’s positions. The question remains as to whether or not this trend has had a greater impact on the monsters of older generations. If the newer creatures can now be understood from the view of a microscope, does that call into question the validity of older monsters in the horror genre?

The impact of the supernatural is most likely something that will not disappear from entertainment. In many ways, the supernatural carries more weight in producing the authentic experience of ‘art-horror’ rather than the use of ‘the fanatic’ as defined my Carroll. Then how are we to understand this new trend in movie production? A new twist on an old favorite usually does not go over well with most fans. Speaking for those fans, it is doubtful that many would prefer to understand Dracula as anything less than the ‘Prince of Darkness’, which carries supernatural (thus, unexplainable) connotations. At one level we might be tempted to discredit the monsters of this new trend, and yet there does appear to be room for the new creatures of the night. While many would probably like to see a return to the old days, perhaps in the end it is our definition of ‘art-horror’ that requires modification. And while natural explanations might be stretched at times in modern films, they do push the boundaries of what darkest parts of the imagination can conceive. In the end, for those of us who do believe in the supernatural, perhaps there is room a wide range of the impure, because there is always something more foul that creeps in the darkness.

Pleasant nightmares kids!