Why can't pure fantastics be horrorifying?

Carroll mentions the fact that horror films have fantastic instances, mainly within the confirmation stage. The confirmation stage of horror films or plots seems to embrace fantastic hesitations. This meaning that there is a hesitation between the supernatural and the naturalistic explanation. Carroll then continues to say that “horror requires that at some point attempts at ordinary scientific explanations be abandoned in favor of a supernatural explanation.” This completely takes a pure fantastic plot to be outside of the horror genre. It is simply not defined as a horror according to Carroll. This is what I wish to focus on in more detail. I feel as though Carroll is possibly missing something with this statement.

To me I find two problems with this quote. One being that if the naturalistic explanation is revealed at the end, why is it that the horror is then removed from the movie? The movie may be classified a bit different, in that if a human is committing all the murders instead of a ghost, zombie, etc. The second problem I have with this quote is the idea that horror cannot come from a pure fantastic plot. The pure fantastic plot involves indetermination between the naturalistic and supernatural explanation throughout the entire film and by the end of the film you are still left wondering which it is. Why couldn’t a movie or book still be horrifying even if you do not find out the answer to all of the occurrences of the film or book? If a film leaves you suspended, why can’t you still be horrified? If a movie horrified you throughout, but in the end the natural is the real cause not the supernatural, does that then take away all the horror brought on by the film? A movie is still delivering fear. A movie could have all the same fear and such as if the movie had ended as Carroll thinks it should, with the supernatural being revealed as the culprit. A movie seems to be able to have all the same fear and such, even if you do not find out what the answer is.

While I do not enjoy movies or books that have what you may call a “cliff-hanger” ending, I feel as though there is still something to be said for these kind of movies. The ones that end almost without an ending, leaving it up to our imagination, is frustrating. But just because there is this unknown in the film does not mean that the film did not cause horror. While I did not find “The Haunting” to horrify me, I know others in the class may have been. I think the idea that you don’t know whether it’s all in Eleanor’s mind or if the house is in fact haunted, brings about even more fear if you will. If they would have ended it by affirming that it was in fact the supernatural, would that have brought about more fear than it does already? I simply don’t see how by ending it with the supernatural makes it more of a horror film than one that does not reveal the answer between the supernatural and naturalistic.

Another question that comes to mind is related to that of the movie “Suspiria.” In class we basically came to the conclusion that this movie did evoke fear and was in fact a horror film. Now if “Suspiria” had ended without revealing who the monster was, would that have made it evoke less fear or horror? I guess what I am basically arguing in full is the idea that you need to know and see the monster at all. Just as I think that the unknown can evoke fear, I feel as though a movie or book left unanswered can still evoke fear as well. You are simply left wonder, left to ponder. Do we really need an explanation in order to be horrified? I don’t think so.