Just like when creating my monster last week, I really wanted to personalize what I believe what Horror is. I do differ a little from what Carroll believes is a true horror film. In Carroll's idea of horror he looks at the definition of "art horror"- meaning to stand on end, it has qualities of shuddering, shivering, shaking, screaming, and many other physical characteristics given to us by the horror we are watching. He then looks at the monster and tells us that in order to be a horror film, it must have a lagit monster that is threating, non scientific and disgusting. Also in most horror films there is a complex discovery that has an onset, discovery, confirmation and a confrontation. During the confirmation stage the monster is discovered in its full and then it moves onto its next stage of confronting it.
In my definition of horror I believe that there is 5 things that must take place at a minimum 1) something violent in this day and age 2) it violates the norm of what society believes is right 3) it gives us a feeling of "art horror" 4) it leaves with us fear of the unknown when we are back at home, in our car, or walking outside by ourselves 5) finally it leaves us with a feeling of unclosure. These five ideas of what horror is to me, are my ideas. I believe that the horror in the film must be relevant for today, meaning a monster that lived 8 thousand years ago will not scare me like a monster that is living today. Also, I believe the film must go with something that we believe is unmoral or disgusting. For example anything I talked about in my last post. I do agree with Carroll in the sense of feeling "art horror" from a monster, however, I disagree in part that the monster must be non-scientific. Movies like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Saw are perfect examples to me of horror films. The fourth definition I give is crucial in the affect the horror films have on people. Well then one question might be, what about a movie that leaves these feelings for some people and not for others? I believe the film must make an ordinary, reasonable, prudent person left with fear when they leave the movie. That means when a horror movie has no affect on Rambo packing 6 side guns and a bazooka on him compared to little red riding hood who would be shaking in her boots when she got done with the same movie. Then finally I believe horror films will almost always have a since of unclosure. Meaning that the thing could still be out there. Well what about Dracula and Frankenstein? thats why I say almost all horror films. There are ecceptions with this part of the definition.
Todorov's views on the fantastic are stated in his book The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre (1975). that "the fantastic is that hesitation experienced by a person who knows only the laws of nature, confronting the apparently supernatural. (p. 25)" "The fantastic requires the fulfillment of three conditions. First, the text must oblige the reader to consider the world of the characters as a world of living persons and to hesitate between a natural or supernatural explanation of the events described. Second, this hesitation may also be experienced by a character; thus the reader's role is so to speak entrusted to a character, and at the same time the hesitation is represented, it becomes one of the themes of the work--in the case of naive reading, the actual reader identifies himself with the character. Third, the reader must adopt a certain attitude with regard to the text: he will reject allegorical as well as "poetic" interpretations (p. 33)." As mentioned in class and also in his book Todorov distinguishes between two different types of the fantastic. One that ends with the natural laws explaining the phenomenon or the "uncanny" and the other that ends with the supernatural or the "marvelous"
My view on this matter of the fantastic is that I dont totally agree with Todorov on most of his definitions and idea's on things. I disagree with the line that Carroll distinguishes between the fantastic marvelous and horror if there is such a thing as the marvelous. I believe that most of the fantastic marvelous again goes under the horror part of a film, except that which doesnt fright the reasonably prudent person. Also when he talks about the fantastic uncanny, I am confused why that is just not some other genre. The fantastic clearly is not being able to distinguish between the supernatrual and the natural. How can you give that definition and then go and say that it is one or the other.
No comments:
Post a Comment