Even though that most horror films are in a since somewhat predictable, Cynthia Freeland’s views of art-dread are still present in films. Since humans have morals and feelings, we are generally drawn into the story or plot and are connected to the humans in the film we are viewing. Art-dread is the emotional response to something to which is happening or about to happen in the film. For example, we all have yelled at the television set or movie screen, during a threatening part in the film, to the character not to go in the room where we know the monster is waiting. As I previously stated we are attached to the idea of something that may be scary and the well being of others, or the need for action and the disregards of the characters “safety.” On the final day of class, we watched Village of the Damned and our compassion for the small intellectual children was soon disregarded by their evil power when harming the town’s people.
The difference between horror and comedy seem to be very different however, it is possible for one person’s horror to be another’s humor. For example, I was watching The Thing (1982) starring Kurt Russell and was more entertained by humor rather than horror and the person to whom I was watching the film with was generally frightened by the monster. I seemed to enjoy the different forms the monster took and could not wait till another person would meet their demise just so I could see the disgusting creature. I also feel that I am a biased subject when it comes to watching horror films because I do not get scared or startled very easily. Another example of one generation’s horror compared to the others is the movie The Exorcist in the 1970’s. My dad saw that movie in theatres when it first hit the big screens and he said he was scared s***less. When I saw it for the first time I was literally rolling on the floor laughing hysterically at the content of the film and did not take it serious at all. Another comment that I wish to make is that I feel the actor picked for a character who is playing a monster, should not picked by the director if they were in a comedy film previously. Reason being is that people who will have seen both films would not be as effective if a comedic actor such as Mike Myers in the Austin Powers films and then trying to play a serial killer or something to that nature.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Halloween an example Freeland's Art-dread
Cynthia Freeland defines art-dread as am emotion of dread in response to an artwork. The sense of dread that we expeience is from something that we have encountered that is terrible to us or evokes fear. Any of the Halloween movies would be an example of this for me. For the indepent film we were supposed to watch for class, this is what I chose to watch. The way Mike Meyers appears out of no where and is always watching people is very creepy to me, and it causes me to feel this sense of dread that Freeland talks about.
The story is about a boy named Mike Meyers who is seriously disturbed, kills his family and then is put in a mental hospital. Later, he escapes the mental home and starts killing different people in the town. The character he is mainly after is a girl named Laurie. One night, she is babysitting a boy named Tommy who sees Michael in the house across the street. When he goes to tell Laurie about him, she refers to Michael as the "boogie man" and tells Tommy he has nothing to worry about. Throughout the whole movie, Michael is trying to catch Laurie and kill her but she always finds a way to escape. The movie ends with Michael disappearing and no one knowing where he is.
The fact that the audience has no idea what made Michael so disturbed and mental creates a sense of suspense in itself. This is part of the erotetic narrative causing the audience to constantly ask questions and answers about what will happen next. This is also part of Freeland's description of dread. The fact that we don't ever know where he is going to show up next or who his next victim will be or whether or not the victim will come out of the confrontation alive is an example of Freeland's idea that what causes the dread is the fact that we simply are just unsure. Also, how he disappears at the end of the movie adds to the suspense because it leaves us with the question of where he went and will he return.
The plot of this movie would be an example of Carroll's complex discovery plot. Remember that this plot theory has four phases: onset, discovery, confirmation, and confrontation. The onset in this film would be the fact that the audience knows the Michael is following Laurie, also Laurie has the feeling that someone is following her as well but none of her friends know. Also, the fact that he escapes from the mental home gives us insight that something is going to happen. Michael is discovered by someone other than Laurie and the audience when Tommy sees him outside the house across the street from his the night Laurie is babysitting. Someone else has now seen Michael, but Laurie is in denial that anything is wrong. The phase of confirmation takes place when Laurie calls her friend Annie who is babysitting down the road. When Annie doesn't anwer, Laurie goes to check and make sure everything is ok. When arriving at the house, Laurie finds Annie and turns to run back to Tommy's house. This is where she actually encounters Michael. She finally believes that he is real and tries to call others for help. The last couple scenes of the movie would be where the confrontation takes place. Michael is chasing after Laurie but never suceeds in killing her. She stabs him a few times with a couple different objects, one being his own knife. Finally, Michael's doctor shows up and shoots him several different times causing Michael to fall off of the balcony. The audience thinks that this is the end of Michael, but we then see a shot of the ground below the balcony and Michael is not laying there. This is where the movie ends causing the suspense and questions of where did he go and what will happen next.
The way that Michael is never in a hurry and always walks every where creates fear as well. It gives us the sense that he is unconquerable and is confident that he will accomplish what he has set out to do. Also, the fact that he never speaks creates a mysteriousness and curiousity for the audience. This is definately an art-dread film because no one likes to see innocent people get murdered and how he goes about what he does is terrifying.
The story is about a boy named Mike Meyers who is seriously disturbed, kills his family and then is put in a mental hospital. Later, he escapes the mental home and starts killing different people in the town. The character he is mainly after is a girl named Laurie. One night, she is babysitting a boy named Tommy who sees Michael in the house across the street. When he goes to tell Laurie about him, she refers to Michael as the "boogie man" and tells Tommy he has nothing to worry about. Throughout the whole movie, Michael is trying to catch Laurie and kill her but she always finds a way to escape. The movie ends with Michael disappearing and no one knowing where he is.
The fact that the audience has no idea what made Michael so disturbed and mental creates a sense of suspense in itself. This is part of the erotetic narrative causing the audience to constantly ask questions and answers about what will happen next. This is also part of Freeland's description of dread. The fact that we don't ever know where he is going to show up next or who his next victim will be or whether or not the victim will come out of the confrontation alive is an example of Freeland's idea that what causes the dread is the fact that we simply are just unsure. Also, how he disappears at the end of the movie adds to the suspense because it leaves us with the question of where he went and will he return.
The plot of this movie would be an example of Carroll's complex discovery plot. Remember that this plot theory has four phases: onset, discovery, confirmation, and confrontation. The onset in this film would be the fact that the audience knows the Michael is following Laurie, also Laurie has the feeling that someone is following her as well but none of her friends know. Also, the fact that he escapes from the mental home gives us insight that something is going to happen. Michael is discovered by someone other than Laurie and the audience when Tommy sees him outside the house across the street from his the night Laurie is babysitting. Someone else has now seen Michael, but Laurie is in denial that anything is wrong. The phase of confirmation takes place when Laurie calls her friend Annie who is babysitting down the road. When Annie doesn't anwer, Laurie goes to check and make sure everything is ok. When arriving at the house, Laurie finds Annie and turns to run back to Tommy's house. This is where she actually encounters Michael. She finally believes that he is real and tries to call others for help. The last couple scenes of the movie would be where the confrontation takes place. Michael is chasing after Laurie but never suceeds in killing her. She stabs him a few times with a couple different objects, one being his own knife. Finally, Michael's doctor shows up and shoots him several different times causing Michael to fall off of the balcony. The audience thinks that this is the end of Michael, but we then see a shot of the ground below the balcony and Michael is not laying there. This is where the movie ends causing the suspense and questions of where did he go and what will happen next.
The way that Michael is never in a hurry and always walks every where creates fear as well. It gives us the sense that he is unconquerable and is confident that he will accomplish what he has set out to do. Also, the fact that he never speaks creates a mysteriousness and curiousity for the audience. This is definately an art-dread film because no one likes to see innocent people get murdered and how he goes about what he does is terrifying.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Halloween and Cinematic Devices
Cinematic devices such as camera angulations, camera positioning, lighting, set design, and asynchronous sound are used to illicit fear and horror in audience members while watching horror films. Halloween uses multiple cinematic devices to create these feelings throughout the movie. The movie begins when we perceive the life of Mike Meyers through his first murder. The camera is positioned as if we are the character walking through the house into the room where his sister is present. When he commits the murder it is as if we the audience members are committing the heinous act because we perceive it through his eyes. One interesting device used here is how the murder is seen being committed. Mike Meyers is known for the white mask he wears, we see the murder committed through only the eyeholes, as if we are the ones with the mask. We see his sister and then the bloody knife through these holes as if our own arm is making the stabbing motion. The movie then proceeds to Mike’s adulthood where he is being transported to another type of hospital facility. In this scene the lighting is very dark. Viewers can barley see the characters in the car but, when they enter the hospital parking lot a mysterious figure is seen in the background wearing a white gown. We see the figure at a distance, which allows for an interpretation that the viewer cannot be sure of what it is. This creates the beginning of a sense of dread in the movie. It evokes a sense of anxiety towards the possibility of something profoundly threatening occurring, which ultimately does. The movie then shifts scenes again to the Haddonfield where the first murder was committed. After Laurie visits the rundown house with Tommy Mike begins to stalk them. Again the viewers see these scenes through the eyes of the killer. We see Mike’s profile in the window like we are starring at them from inside the house. From this point he begins to follow both them through their daily activities. Similar to the beginning of the film we see most these events from the viewpoint of the killer. At the school Mike grabs the boy. Although we do not see his face the reaction of the character lets the viewers assume he provoked a sense of fear. When Laurie is walking home from school she is also stalked by Mike. In this scene we see Mike beside a bush but the camera shifts back to Laurie and he disappears making the viewer question if they really saw the figure or not. This is also where the thematic music begins to play analogous to seeing Mike Meyers. It begins to cue the audience that something dangerous is lurking in the shadows and to pay close attention when heard. The scenes shift to night after this making lighting an important effect. We see Mike’s silhouette outside Annie’s house and then his facial profile darkened as he peers through the windows. The remaining night scene’s all render Mike this way. He is shadowed so only the silhouette of his body and white mask can be seen. The scene where Mike attacks Annie the lighting is only focused on her in order to scare the viewer of what is in the back seat of darkness, Mike Meyers. This is also the case when Mike kills Annie’s friends. The lighting is focused mainly on the other characters in order to scare the viewer of Mike when he comes from the pitch-blackness of the house. The lighting of the house set at this time also creates a feeling of danger and imminent threat in that none of the lights in or outside of the house are on meaning anything can come from this darkness without the audience being aware, such as the bodies of Annie’s friends. When confirmation occurs between Mike Meyers and Laurie lighting is focused mainly on Laurie so that the audience is scared of the events that are going to occur in the house. Mike attacks and creeps out of the shadows of the set while the audience is focused on Laurie. During these scenes the camera is mostly focused on Laurie and shifts vastly to Mike Meyers and back again. This type of camera work gives the audience a reaction of jumping out of their seats. Without these types of cinematic devices the movie would not be as terrifying as it was. The emotional affects they created, which is one particular reason to watch horror films, would be lacking if not for these types of cinematic play.
The Village
Like a time portal, “The Village”, takes you to a period that’s seemingly past. A very small village in the middle of the woods is haunted by beasts whom are attracted to the color red. The movie opens showing two women dancing while sweeping the front porch of a house. While performing this act of pleasure, the women notice a red flower. The flower is quickly plucked from it’s roots; hastily the women dig a hole in the ground and bury the bright red flower. It is with this opening that the movie quickly sets up the dichotomy of joy and conservatism.
This village is apparently based strongly in tradition and religion. The elders of this society are chiefly responsible for the decision making and governing of the village. It is because of this that the elders wield such power and influence over the children. While the decisions made by the elders seem to be in the best interests of the constituents there is an ominous feeling of malevolence in their actions.
With the extent of influence that the elders carry with them comes a level of corruption that is inherent with that amount of power. The elders convince their subordinates that the woods that surround the village are extremely dangerous and that to merely enter them would bring great harm to not only the person entering the woods, but also the entire village.
Ivy, the protagonist, falls in love with a very quiet, stoic character. She professes her love to him, only to find these words falling on deaf ears. When out enjoying some stolen time with her friend, a mentally challenged character, she runs into Lucius near the edge of the woods. It is at this time that she informs her love that she feels the reason her words of love were not received by him, was because some people choose not to show any do something out of fear that their true desires will be revealed. It is these lessons that finally weigh true to Lucius, he realizes that his actions are counterintuitive to his needs and desires.
Noah Percy, the mentally challenged character, makes a mistake; the mistake that is made leads to drawing the monsters out of the woodwork. The monsters, dressed in red, with intimidating faces and spikes protruding from their backs, begin to invade the village. With the invaders infiltrating various houses, Ivy is loyally waiting on Lucius to come and rescue her. This blatant disregard for her own safety is an attempt to prove to both herself and Lucius their love for each other.
When attempting to save Ivy and her family, Lucius is nearly fatally injured. With only the primitive medicine of the village, Lucius would almost certainly die. Ivy finds this proposition unacceptable, and wants to find the means of saving Lucius’ life. Explaining to her father that without Lucius alive, she has no reason to go on with life.
Ivy’s father is then forced to make a life changing decision: protect the secret of the elder’s and the way of life for the people of the village, or provide his daughter with the knowledge necessary to save the life of the one she loves. The secret that is his burden to keep is that the elders of the village orchestrated and constructed the town to escape the frustrations and hardships of real life. It is because of this decision to abandon real-life and create their own reality that he is burdened with the guilt of knowing that he created his own daughter’s adversity.
Her father makes the tough decision that he values his daughter over the integrity of the village. While this decision will result in the possible outcast of himself and his family, he still feels that what happened to Lucius was a crime that he could have prevented. Her father providers her with the proper medication to give to Lucius. The medication must be acquired in a neighboring town. The very existence of this town is in itself the principle lie that the elders have constructed to sell to their children. In order to qualm the curiosity of the younger people whom have not been told the secret of the town, the elders create a myth of ravenous monsters that reside in the surrounding forest. It is these monsters, dressed in the “bad color”, that terrorize the village.
It is before her quest that her father explains to her that the not only are they not an isolated village, but the creatures are merely a myth perpetuated by the elders. Fueled with the ambition for saving her love as well as the newly found knowledge that her life has been a farce, she drives her way through the forest with resolve one would not think possible from a blind women. When she finally reaches the neighboring town, she is confronted by a park ranger. When explaining her plight to the guard, he reluctantly agrees to help her find the medicine necessary to save Lucius. After getting the medicine for Lucius, Ivy returns to the village and is able to save his life. The movie, however, ends rather ambiguously not necessarily explaining whether or not the elders decide to carry on with the village.
This film seemed to fall into the art-dread category instead of the art-horror. The film extracted emotions which were of nervousness, anxiety, and intense worry. These emotions however were for the characters instead of for myself. I felt these feelings when trying to figure out the big question of where the monsters came from and why they were attacking this village. The monsters were pretty gross looking, but nothing that scared me to the point where I felt the emotions that come with art-horror. They were almost more comical than horrifying but that could have been because the film seemed to lack entities that make up a typical horror movie. The movie seemed rather predictable and had a plot line that was lacking. According to Carroll, the plot is a key element to an art-horror film. Overall, this film lacked the material necessary for a horror film or a feature film in general.
This village is apparently based strongly in tradition and religion. The elders of this society are chiefly responsible for the decision making and governing of the village. It is because of this that the elders wield such power and influence over the children. While the decisions made by the elders seem to be in the best interests of the constituents there is an ominous feeling of malevolence in their actions.
With the extent of influence that the elders carry with them comes a level of corruption that is inherent with that amount of power. The elders convince their subordinates that the woods that surround the village are extremely dangerous and that to merely enter them would bring great harm to not only the person entering the woods, but also the entire village.
Ivy, the protagonist, falls in love with a very quiet, stoic character. She professes her love to him, only to find these words falling on deaf ears. When out enjoying some stolen time with her friend, a mentally challenged character, she runs into Lucius near the edge of the woods. It is at this time that she informs her love that she feels the reason her words of love were not received by him, was because some people choose not to show any do something out of fear that their true desires will be revealed. It is these lessons that finally weigh true to Lucius, he realizes that his actions are counterintuitive to his needs and desires.
Noah Percy, the mentally challenged character, makes a mistake; the mistake that is made leads to drawing the monsters out of the woodwork. The monsters, dressed in red, with intimidating faces and spikes protruding from their backs, begin to invade the village. With the invaders infiltrating various houses, Ivy is loyally waiting on Lucius to come and rescue her. This blatant disregard for her own safety is an attempt to prove to both herself and Lucius their love for each other.
When attempting to save Ivy and her family, Lucius is nearly fatally injured. With only the primitive medicine of the village, Lucius would almost certainly die. Ivy finds this proposition unacceptable, and wants to find the means of saving Lucius’ life. Explaining to her father that without Lucius alive, she has no reason to go on with life.
Ivy’s father is then forced to make a life changing decision: protect the secret of the elder’s and the way of life for the people of the village, or provide his daughter with the knowledge necessary to save the life of the one she loves. The secret that is his burden to keep is that the elders of the village orchestrated and constructed the town to escape the frustrations and hardships of real life. It is because of this decision to abandon real-life and create their own reality that he is burdened with the guilt of knowing that he created his own daughter’s adversity.
Her father makes the tough decision that he values his daughter over the integrity of the village. While this decision will result in the possible outcast of himself and his family, he still feels that what happened to Lucius was a crime that he could have prevented. Her father providers her with the proper medication to give to Lucius. The medication must be acquired in a neighboring town. The very existence of this town is in itself the principle lie that the elders have constructed to sell to their children. In order to qualm the curiosity of the younger people whom have not been told the secret of the town, the elders create a myth of ravenous monsters that reside in the surrounding forest. It is these monsters, dressed in the “bad color”, that terrorize the village.
It is before her quest that her father explains to her that the not only are they not an isolated village, but the creatures are merely a myth perpetuated by the elders. Fueled with the ambition for saving her love as well as the newly found knowledge that her life has been a farce, she drives her way through the forest with resolve one would not think possible from a blind women. When she finally reaches the neighboring town, she is confronted by a park ranger. When explaining her plight to the guard, he reluctantly agrees to help her find the medicine necessary to save Lucius. After getting the medicine for Lucius, Ivy returns to the village and is able to save his life. The movie, however, ends rather ambiguously not necessarily explaining whether or not the elders decide to carry on with the village.
This film seemed to fall into the art-dread category instead of the art-horror. The film extracted emotions which were of nervousness, anxiety, and intense worry. These emotions however were for the characters instead of for myself. I felt these feelings when trying to figure out the big question of where the monsters came from and why they were attacking this village. The monsters were pretty gross looking, but nothing that scared me to the point where I felt the emotions that come with art-horror. They were almost more comical than horrifying but that could have been because the film seemed to lack entities that make up a typical horror movie. The movie seemed rather predictable and had a plot line that was lacking. According to Carroll, the plot is a key element to an art-horror film. Overall, this film lacked the material necessary for a horror film or a feature film in general.
Immunity to Horror
Cat People. Village of the Damned. The Horror of Dracula. Night of the Demon. The Exorcist. Even though we watch some of these films and find some of the scenes to be comical, all of these movies were viewed as extremely scary when they first came out. Audiences were shocked at some of the things they saw in the theater. Some people fainted upon first seeing The Exorcist because they had never seen anything like it.
How could people have reactions like this if they do not believe that it is actually happening or could ever happen? Carroll’s explanation for this paradox of fiction says that it is the thought of something that arouses our emotions. In horror, the thought of the monster inspires us to be art-horrified. We do not have to suspend our beliefs so that believe that what we are seeing is real or pretend to be afraid. We are actually frightened by the thought of the horror. All of this is not based on the reality of a vampire or werewolf that is attacking people, but on the thought of the impure creature and what it could do.
In the past, psychological horrors such as Cat People were very successful at invoking fear in the audience. When Cat People first came out in 1942, audiences were able to imagine the threat of Irena turning into a dangerous cat and were frightened. Similarly, although Dracula is never shown actually sucking anyone’s blood, audience members have to use their imaginations in picturing how the vampire really takes his victims.
Watching more recent horror movies is an almost completely different than watching earlier ones. People are used to being scared now and the shock value of many films has disappeared. Films are saturated with guts and gore, and because of new technologies, they have more realistic looking monsters. This leads to us becoming immune to the effects of horrors. We have no imagination and are not affected by suggestions of monsters because we do not see them.
When we see a movie such as The Horror of Dracula today, we laugh at scenes that were once horrifying. Certainly the thought of a vampire inspires some fear in us, but that fear is dispelled when we see the lack of special effects in the movie. Exposed to sunlight and a cross made out of two candlesticks, Dracula turns to dust and disappears. Past audiences may have seen this as horrifying, but today’s audience thinks it is comical. Many other B horror movies had a man in a rubber suit as a monster. Obviously, we do not see this as scary today and often laugh aloud. This is because we are used to much more sophisticated animation and special effects.
Horror has entered into a new era as a result of the immunity of audiences to any monster they can produce. In the movie Targets, Boris Karloff is shown as an old man with no place in horror movies anymore because Gothic horror is being replaced with modern horror. It is the same with horrifying, supernatural monsters today. They are being replaced by serial killers and psychopaths. To many people today, it is much scarier to think about a person whom they cannot explain than it is to think about a monster they cannot explain, but know is fictional.
Hopefully this shift to being unable to be horrified by horror movies does not go any further. What would happen if teenagers who long for the thrill and fascination of horror did not feel any art-horror while watching scary movies? If audiences become immune to even the blood and guts in movies and violent video games, where will the genre of horror turn then? With no imagination to entertain the thought of evil things, maybe the only thing that will cause people to feel horrified is an actual serial killer, and then eventually that probably will not even affect them anymore. Since audiences viewing old horror movies find them comical, I wonder what will happen when the slasher movies of today become old and the genre has to find another way to art-horrify people. Will they be able to do it, or have we just become immune to that kind of stuff?
Erin Baumgartner
Horror films, according to Carroll, must contain a monster. This monster must defy social norms and be impure and disgusting to be more specific. So following the Carrollian model, some may discount the film Halloween (1978), as the “monster” in this film is not a monster like Frankenstein or Dracula, who are respectively creations and unexplained natural beasts, but our monster, Michael Myers, is human—or is he?
Halloween begins with a scene depicting a young woman, Myers’ sister, and man, rapaciously groping one another, with young Myers, unbeknownst to the audience at this point, watching the whole scene from outside his home. The two lovers descend the stairs and fulfill their passions quickly and the man leaves in quite a hurry. Myers enters the home, and retrieves a knife from the kitchen, then slowly creeps up the stairs in the shadowy abode to find his sister brushing her hair in front of a bureau. Before she can turn, the cold steel has already pierced her and she falls lifeless to the floor with only a few shrieks of pain and helplessness. Myers makes his way out the front door to find his parents arriving home. Myers is sent to a mental asylum to be under the care of Dr. Loomis.
Myers, fifteen years later, is able to escape and steals an official state vehicle and returns to his home in Illinois. The film is pure suspense from this point on, as teenagers Laurie, Annie, Lynda, and Bob are all home without parental supervision on Halloween night. Annie is the first victim, as she clumsily spills butter on herself she is forced to use the washer and dryer in the garage—which happens to be across the lawn in a separated garage. The door locks behind her and she fumbles around attempting to get out, eventually succeeding, but with many suspenseful sequences in the dark room. Her luck runs out though when she must pick up her boyfriend, Paul, to bring him back to the house. Upon getting in her vehicle, we are startled by a hand from the back seat. Annie struggles but to no avail as she is strangled by Myers. The next victim is Bob, Lynda’s boyfriend, who escapes to the kitchen for a beverage after “spending time” with Lynda. Bob quickly finds himself permanently affixed to the pantry door via Myers’ knife. Myers ascends the stairs to Lynda, who is lying in wait for Bob to return with her beer—we see in the doorway a sheet cloaked Michael Myers wearing Bob’s era appropriate large glasses over the sheet. After a short exchange of words, all spoken by Lynda, she carelessly turns her back to the killer to call Laurie, who lives across the street. This does not end well, for after her connection with Laurie, Myers strangles her with the telephone cord to the ears of her neighbor across the street. Upon this exchange Laurie makes her way across the street to check on her friends. She is horrified by the display of the bodies in the house and turns to leave. She is nearly a victim as Myers appears from the darkness with a swipe of his butcher knife. She falls down the stairs and quickly leaves the house to retreat to hers across the street. After much noise she finally gathers the attention of the boy she is babysitting who lets her into the house just in time—another suspenseful sequence in which the morally unlikely outcome is the one which occurs (contrary to Carroll’s theory). Myers breaks into the home and is stabbed by Laurie with a knitting needle to the neck. She fails to recognize that he is dead, and he lunges over the couch, in front of which she is resting, and nearly misses her again—the morally unlikely again is the outcome. She runs up the stairs and locks herself in the closet, with Myers close behind. He breaks in, but Laurie has bent a coat hanger into a useful weapon and stabs him in the eye. Again she fails to ensure the death of the killer and he takes her into a chokehold. She struggles with him and is able to break free, by this time Dr. Loomis has come into the house after seeing the children Laurie was babysitting fleeing to safety. He shoots Myers and he falls from the second floor balcony. After all of his wounds, Myers somehow escapes as Dr. Loomis looks to the ground, and he is gone.
Myers definitely defies the abilities of a human and is more apt to likening to a traditional horror monster. His ability to live after many potentially fatal wounds; his emotionless killings; and his ghastly appearance are all factors in his category violating nature. Dr. Loomis himself, in the film, says to the police officer who is assisting him, “this is no man.” Michael Myers certainly has the capacity to art-horrify anyone, and the added suspense via startle tricks (‘buses’) and the ominous music that plays on screen when he is nearing victims only exacerbates the edge-of-your-seat, pardon the colloquialism, fear. And the ending of the film is a dead, pardon the pun, giveaway for the necessity of a sequel—and I believe there were several.
Halloween begins with a scene depicting a young woman, Myers’ sister, and man, rapaciously groping one another, with young Myers, unbeknownst to the audience at this point, watching the whole scene from outside his home. The two lovers descend the stairs and fulfill their passions quickly and the man leaves in quite a hurry. Myers enters the home, and retrieves a knife from the kitchen, then slowly creeps up the stairs in the shadowy abode to find his sister brushing her hair in front of a bureau. Before she can turn, the cold steel has already pierced her and she falls lifeless to the floor with only a few shrieks of pain and helplessness. Myers makes his way out the front door to find his parents arriving home. Myers is sent to a mental asylum to be under the care of Dr. Loomis.
Myers, fifteen years later, is able to escape and steals an official state vehicle and returns to his home in Illinois. The film is pure suspense from this point on, as teenagers Laurie, Annie, Lynda, and Bob are all home without parental supervision on Halloween night. Annie is the first victim, as she clumsily spills butter on herself she is forced to use the washer and dryer in the garage—which happens to be across the lawn in a separated garage. The door locks behind her and she fumbles around attempting to get out, eventually succeeding, but with many suspenseful sequences in the dark room. Her luck runs out though when she must pick up her boyfriend, Paul, to bring him back to the house. Upon getting in her vehicle, we are startled by a hand from the back seat. Annie struggles but to no avail as she is strangled by Myers. The next victim is Bob, Lynda’s boyfriend, who escapes to the kitchen for a beverage after “spending time” with Lynda. Bob quickly finds himself permanently affixed to the pantry door via Myers’ knife. Myers ascends the stairs to Lynda, who is lying in wait for Bob to return with her beer—we see in the doorway a sheet cloaked Michael Myers wearing Bob’s era appropriate large glasses over the sheet. After a short exchange of words, all spoken by Lynda, she carelessly turns her back to the killer to call Laurie, who lives across the street. This does not end well, for after her connection with Laurie, Myers strangles her with the telephone cord to the ears of her neighbor across the street. Upon this exchange Laurie makes her way across the street to check on her friends. She is horrified by the display of the bodies in the house and turns to leave. She is nearly a victim as Myers appears from the darkness with a swipe of his butcher knife. She falls down the stairs and quickly leaves the house to retreat to hers across the street. After much noise she finally gathers the attention of the boy she is babysitting who lets her into the house just in time—another suspenseful sequence in which the morally unlikely outcome is the one which occurs (contrary to Carroll’s theory). Myers breaks into the home and is stabbed by Laurie with a knitting needle to the neck. She fails to recognize that he is dead, and he lunges over the couch, in front of which she is resting, and nearly misses her again—the morally unlikely again is the outcome. She runs up the stairs and locks herself in the closet, with Myers close behind. He breaks in, but Laurie has bent a coat hanger into a useful weapon and stabs him in the eye. Again she fails to ensure the death of the killer and he takes her into a chokehold. She struggles with him and is able to break free, by this time Dr. Loomis has come into the house after seeing the children Laurie was babysitting fleeing to safety. He shoots Myers and he falls from the second floor balcony. After all of his wounds, Myers somehow escapes as Dr. Loomis looks to the ground, and he is gone.
Myers definitely defies the abilities of a human and is more apt to likening to a traditional horror monster. His ability to live after many potentially fatal wounds; his emotionless killings; and his ghastly appearance are all factors in his category violating nature. Dr. Loomis himself, in the film, says to the police officer who is assisting him, “this is no man.” Michael Myers certainly has the capacity to art-horrify anyone, and the added suspense via startle tricks (‘buses’) and the ominous music that plays on screen when he is nearing victims only exacerbates the edge-of-your-seat, pardon the colloquialism, fear. And the ending of the film is a dead, pardon the pun, giveaway for the necessity of a sequel—and I believe there were several.
Halloween
Halloween is a horror film about Michael Meyers, a boy who killed his sister and later escaped a metal hospital to go on a killing spree. It is a horror film as defined by Cynthia Freeland, who disagrees with Carroll that what makes a movie horrifying is the unnatural, impure and disgusting monster. Freeland defines art dread as an emotion of dread evoked by or in response to an artwork. This dread is a result of an encounter with something terrible or unsettling that is difficult to comprehend. The character of Michael Meyers is a perfect example of this. The whole movie is filled with suspense of where he will turn up next, if his main target Laurie will out run him and out smart him and if he will be caught by the police and his doctor. Watching the movie is dreadful because Laurie knows someone is following her and doesn’t listen to Tommy, the boy she babysits, that there is someone at the house across the street. She says its not the boogeyman to try and calm his fears, but she should have been more cautious to his concerns. What makes all this even more dreadful is that we have no idea why Michael is doing this. The movie opens up with his sister messing around with her boyfriend and then Michael going upstairs to kill her. He is put away and does not speak. He finally breaks out of the institution he was placed in and goes on to murder a group of teenagers. There is nothing to allude to why he is doing this. Not knowing his motive creates a sense of curiosity and uneasiness which adds to the suspense of the film.
The plot of the movie follows Carroll’s definition of a complex discovery plot. Onset occurs when Laurie notices that someone is following her. She becomes very hesitant when walking to and from home, even with her friends. Laurie tells her friend that Michael was behind a bush and her friend goes to check it out, only to find that he wasn’t there. Both the audience and Laurie know that he was there for a moment in time though. Discovery happens when Tommy sees Michael outside of his neighbors house. He thinks that Michael is the boogeyman and tries to make Laurie see him. Laurie tries to assure him there is no such thing and that she will let no such monster get him while she is there. Tommy does lighten up but still sees Michael’s silhouette across the street. Finally, after not being able to get in contact with Annie, her friend who was babysitting at the neighbors house, Laurie goes to see what is going on. At the house Laurie sees the dead bodies of her friends and runs back to Tommy’s house after being harassed by Michael. This is confirmation for Laurie. She believes and tries to contact others. She is unable to do this and hides in the house. Confrontation occurs when she tries to defend herself against Michael with a sewing needle. She stabs him in the neck, but he still continues to finish what he set out to do. Laurie goes to hide in the closet and Michael breaks in. She stabs him with a hanger and then with the knife he was carrying. He lays only for a minute, then is back to pursuing her. The doctor finally finds them and has a confrontation of his own. He shoots Michael multiple times till he falls off the balcony. Although we think that finishes him the camera takes another shot of where he fell and Michael was not there. This scene ended the movie.
Ending the movie with the disappearance of Michael adds to the suspense and horror of the film. The audience is already terrified of him and questioning why he is committing all these murders and to leave the movie with a cliff hanger makes it more frightening. Although Carroll may not think its a horror movie, Halloween definitely fits Freeland’s description of art dread.
The plot of the movie follows Carroll’s definition of a complex discovery plot. Onset occurs when Laurie notices that someone is following her. She becomes very hesitant when walking to and from home, even with her friends. Laurie tells her friend that Michael was behind a bush and her friend goes to check it out, only to find that he wasn’t there. Both the audience and Laurie know that he was there for a moment in time though. Discovery happens when Tommy sees Michael outside of his neighbors house. He thinks that Michael is the boogeyman and tries to make Laurie see him. Laurie tries to assure him there is no such thing and that she will let no such monster get him while she is there. Tommy does lighten up but still sees Michael’s silhouette across the street. Finally, after not being able to get in contact with Annie, her friend who was babysitting at the neighbors house, Laurie goes to see what is going on. At the house Laurie sees the dead bodies of her friends and runs back to Tommy’s house after being harassed by Michael. This is confirmation for Laurie. She believes and tries to contact others. She is unable to do this and hides in the house. Confrontation occurs when she tries to defend herself against Michael with a sewing needle. She stabs him in the neck, but he still continues to finish what he set out to do. Laurie goes to hide in the closet and Michael breaks in. She stabs him with a hanger and then with the knife he was carrying. He lays only for a minute, then is back to pursuing her. The doctor finally finds them and has a confrontation of his own. He shoots Michael multiple times till he falls off the balcony. Although we think that finishes him the camera takes another shot of where he fell and Michael was not there. This scene ended the movie.
Ending the movie with the disappearance of Michael adds to the suspense and horror of the film. The audience is already terrified of him and questioning why he is committing all these murders and to leave the movie with a cliff hanger makes it more frightening. Although Carroll may not think its a horror movie, Halloween definitely fits Freeland’s description of art dread.
The Exorcist: A Battle of Good Against Evil by tomd
A 1973 thriller that captured the interests and imaginations of film viewers around the globe. Set within the context of the Maryland urban climate of Catholic Georgetown University, the plot revolves around a young uncharacteristically delightful and charming twelve year old, named Regan and her demonic possession after she delves into the spiritual world by her playful experiences with a Ouija Board game. The film is both spell bounding and horrific creating within the viewing audience a sense of wonderment and fascination at a possible world beyond the grave inhabited by devils and daemons that seek a human body to inhabit and cause havoc and harm to those they possess. Noel Carroll would most likely not place this film in the genre of a true horror classic, nor would he say that it evoke an emotion of "art horror."
Highlighting Carroll's recipe for horror, that requires a monster to consist of the most grotesque kind, fearsome, powerful, utterly disgusting and repulsive nature beyond scientific empiricism, Regan does not fit the bill. Moreover Regan's possessed fission character does not elicit the kind of response from the characters in the film or the audience (me) that showed that kind of fear and repulsiveness that would be required in a truly "art-horror" emotion. I did not experience those sensations of muscular contractions, tension, cringing, shrinking, shuddering, recoiling etc. emotions that true fear would generate; in fact I felt quite safe as the characters seemed to be. More in line with Psycho, this film keeps the attention of the viewing audience by holding in suspense while the "fabula" of the narrative slowly unwinds with the erotetic questions seeking answers by the bewildered scientific medical establishment and the archaic past of the Catholic Church which has thrown out such belief's in daemonic possession with the Age of Enlightenment and Reason.
The plot involves the use of the "Complex Discovery Plot" where the fabula consists of the onset, discovery, confirmation and confrontation stages of development. The onset stage introduced the characters and the ambiance to the audience showing them in their natural setting and only slowly do the events unfold that creates a sense that something unnatural has possessed Regan. Her previously polite and engaging personality begins to suffer decay replaced by a demanding, uncontrollable, dirty mouth, insensitive psychotic personality. The onset moves to the discovery stage as all medical tests fail to reveal any physiological maladies to explain Regan's behavior changes. The Church's Jesuit psychiatrist does not want to accept any preternatural explanation and does not want to explore the need for an exorcism without adequate proof of daemonic possession. The confirmation stage results from the priest psychiatrist views first hand Regan's inhabited spirits and reluctantly confirms the very real possibility of daemonic possession to his Bishop. The confrontation stage begins with the arrival of an elderly, but experienced exorcist, who with the assistance of the priest psychiatrist perform the Roman Rite of Exorcism. In this confrontation scene the elderly priest succumbs to a heart attack, a condition he already had, and the death of the psychiatrist priest who threw himself out the window after the daemon(s) left Regan and entering into him. I was left with the impression that when the human form died so too did the daemons. Regan was released from the throws of the daemons and returns to normal. In the end good wins out over evil, but the price that is paid is in self-sacrifice, in this case the priest who willingly invited the daemons to leave Regan and enter him and then throw himself out the window to die.
This film could easily fit into Cynthia Freeland's account of "art-dread" type of fiction. Freeland considers, with Aristotle, that horror movies of mood and atmosphere are interesting for how they treat moral struggles with evil. Dread, Freeland insists, involves a threat that is not only unidentified and powerful but also unnerving and evil, yet not well-defined or well understood. Dread is more like a gut response to things that are deeply unnerving for no clear reason. She suggests that art-dread offers imaginative and plausible encounters with evil and cosmic amoralities, and they help us ponder and respond emotionally to natural and deep worries about the nature of the world. In this case what is unknown captures our attention and our imagination drifts to what may lie beyond the visible world.
If anything can be gained from the human standpoint is that of providing hope. In that I mean that whatever man may encounter in this life he is not alone and that good does win out over evil, with the caveat that sacrifice has a part to play in its destruction. The audience is left with a sense of a "fantastic marvelous" outcome but offers throughout an question as to its moral probability. I felt somewhat assured of the outcome since the Church was acting in opposition to the evil elements and expected a moral/likely outcome. I felt too that it fit well into the suspenseful genre without the object of the monster.
Highlighting Carroll's recipe for horror, that requires a monster to consist of the most grotesque kind, fearsome, powerful, utterly disgusting and repulsive nature beyond scientific empiricism, Regan does not fit the bill. Moreover Regan's possessed fission character does not elicit the kind of response from the characters in the film or the audience (me) that showed that kind of fear and repulsiveness that would be required in a truly "art-horror" emotion. I did not experience those sensations of muscular contractions, tension, cringing, shrinking, shuddering, recoiling etc. emotions that true fear would generate; in fact I felt quite safe as the characters seemed to be. More in line with Psycho, this film keeps the attention of the viewing audience by holding in suspense while the "fabula" of the narrative slowly unwinds with the erotetic questions seeking answers by the bewildered scientific medical establishment and the archaic past of the Catholic Church which has thrown out such belief's in daemonic possession with the Age of Enlightenment and Reason.
The plot involves the use of the "Complex Discovery Plot" where the fabula consists of the onset, discovery, confirmation and confrontation stages of development. The onset stage introduced the characters and the ambiance to the audience showing them in their natural setting and only slowly do the events unfold that creates a sense that something unnatural has possessed Regan. Her previously polite and engaging personality begins to suffer decay replaced by a demanding, uncontrollable, dirty mouth, insensitive psychotic personality. The onset moves to the discovery stage as all medical tests fail to reveal any physiological maladies to explain Regan's behavior changes. The Church's Jesuit psychiatrist does not want to accept any preternatural explanation and does not want to explore the need for an exorcism without adequate proof of daemonic possession. The confirmation stage results from the priest psychiatrist views first hand Regan's inhabited spirits and reluctantly confirms the very real possibility of daemonic possession to his Bishop. The confrontation stage begins with the arrival of an elderly, but experienced exorcist, who with the assistance of the priest psychiatrist perform the Roman Rite of Exorcism. In this confrontation scene the elderly priest succumbs to a heart attack, a condition he already had, and the death of the psychiatrist priest who threw himself out the window after the daemon(s) left Regan and entering into him. I was left with the impression that when the human form died so too did the daemons. Regan was released from the throws of the daemons and returns to normal. In the end good wins out over evil, but the price that is paid is in self-sacrifice, in this case the priest who willingly invited the daemons to leave Regan and enter him and then throw himself out the window to die.
This film could easily fit into Cynthia Freeland's account of "art-dread" type of fiction. Freeland considers, with Aristotle, that horror movies of mood and atmosphere are interesting for how they treat moral struggles with evil. Dread, Freeland insists, involves a threat that is not only unidentified and powerful but also unnerving and evil, yet not well-defined or well understood. Dread is more like a gut response to things that are deeply unnerving for no clear reason. She suggests that art-dread offers imaginative and plausible encounters with evil and cosmic amoralities, and they help us ponder and respond emotionally to natural and deep worries about the nature of the world. In this case what is unknown captures our attention and our imagination drifts to what may lie beyond the visible world.
If anything can be gained from the human standpoint is that of providing hope. In that I mean that whatever man may encounter in this life he is not alone and that good does win out over evil, with the caveat that sacrifice has a part to play in its destruction. The audience is left with a sense of a "fantastic marvelous" outcome but offers throughout an question as to its moral probability. I felt somewhat assured of the outcome since the Church was acting in opposition to the evil elements and expected a moral/likely outcome. I felt too that it fit well into the suspenseful genre without the object of the monster.
The Blair Witch Project, Tourneur's Dream Film
In modern cinema produces, directors, and story writers are given increasing freedom, through less censorship and more technology, to realize their ideas on the silver screen. It would be interesting to find out how a classic horror artist such as Jacques Tourner would approach filmmaking today. A good example of what I believe would be his ideal film is the one I watched for my independent film assignment, The Blair Witch Project. The Blair Witch Project was written by and directed by Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez and was released in July of 1999. The film is presented as a documentary made by three student filmmakers about a legend in the town of Burkittsville, Maryland known as the Blair Witch.
The claim at the beginning of the film is that the students disappeared in 1994 during the filming of their documentary in the woods the movie's producers discovered their film in the woods a year later and are now presenting it to the world. The three students, Heather Donahue, Joshua Leonard, and Michael C. Williams, equip themselves with camping supplies and two cameras and head off into the woods near Burkittsville in search of signs of the Blair Witch. They eventually find themselves inexplicably lost and begin to find evidence of a presence in the woods like piled rocks and sticks bound into strange symbols hanging from the trees.
Throughout the course of the film we bear witness to many strange happenings but we never actually see a monster or find an explanation for the events the students experienced. This leaves the story's events subject to the skepticism of the audience and places the film in the genre of the fantastic. The characters in the film eventually become convinced that there is a witch however we are never given any definitive evidence that it isn't a case similar to Deliverance. Even if we assume that there is a witch, Nöel Carroll would probably not classify the film as horror because we have no idea as to the nature of the witch. We do not know what the witch looks like, aside from a dodgy description by a crazy woman in town who claims to have see it, we do not know what the witch's capabilities are, or what categories it fits let alone if it violates them. The witch may just be a crazy person who practices some odd ritualistic religion and therefore would not be a monster. All of these unknowns allow for a large amount of Art-Dread, Cynthia Freeland's alternate for Art-Horror, the emotion that strongly pushes the movie into the horror genre despite the lack of a confirmed monster. The dread increases as the witch further plagues the filmmakers and we increasingly fear what is beyond the campfire and suspense builds as the likeliness that they make it out of the woods decreases and the likelihood of meeting their doom at the hands of a malicious entity increases.
Interestingly enough the "documentary" follows a standard onset/discovery/confrontation variant of the complex discovery plot. The onset occurs as the students begin to get the feeling that they are lost on the first day out. It continues up through the second night when they hear the twigs breaking all around them from this point the plot moves into discovery as the students realize something is out there and it is after them. The plot sums up in confrontation the second night after Joshua disappears when Heather and Mike try to save him from the witch, they fail but the plot component still exists.
If Jacques Tourneur had his way his films probably would be very much like The Blair Witch Project. Tourner did not want to make something that Carroll would call a horror film but would prefer to allow the viewer to envision the monster for themselves or even question whether or not there really was a monster. He probably would also use as few special effects as possible even to the point of not using them at all, like The Blair Witch Project. If the studios had let him have his way they probably could have made even more money on his releases. The Blair Witch Project holds the record for having the highest revenue-to-cost ratio of any film ever released, costing only $22,000 to make and generating a whopping $248,639,099 in revenue for a ratio of 11,301:1. Perhaps the intriguing fantastical style of Jacques Tourneur and Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez will rise as a trend in horror films and audiences around the world can be frightened by what they conceive in their own heads.
The "Art-Horror" of Ju-on
Ju-on is a probably one of the greatest examples of what Noel Carroll classifies as “art-horror”. The reason I say this because the movie actually “horrified” several individuals in our class through its monster(s), plot, scenes, shots, and details.
According to Carroll for a movie to be “art-horror” it has to have a monster. This monster has to be threatening (dangerous) and impure (unclean, scary, and a sense of uneasiness). Ju-on is a great example of an art-horror movie. In this film the monster(s) are both threatening and impure. The monster(s) are threatening because they seem to try to kill anyone that comes inside the house. If I remember there were more than twelve deaths throughout the film. If someone goes into the house the evil spirit will follow them until they die. This goes against the moral order of the world and the idea of the monster(s) seeking to destroy people’s identities. The impurity of the monster in this film is that it is scary looking and unclean. The monsters are ghost who have are blue, disgusting, and revolting looking. They move oddly and look very abnormal.
Carroll also mentioned that the characters must show emotion to the monster(s). In the film the characters and audience both fear the monster because they are disgusting and revolting. The characters in the film show their disgust by shrinking, screaming, shuddering, and nausea. The audience does these things as well, because “Our (the audience) response are meant, ideally, to parallel those of the characters” (Carroll 18).
If I were to classify the monster(s) I would say that they would be classified as both fusion and masses. The reason that I say that it would be classified as a fusion monster is for the fact that the monster(s) are spirits in human form. They are dead spirits, but can walk, touch, and take hold of humans through human touch. Also, the monster can do many unusual things with the human body, such as crawl oddly, crack the neck oddly, and the little boy was seemed to look alive when Rika and her friend talked to him. The second type of monster classification that I would use is the idea of masses. When the school girl was about to die she had five ghosts following her. These ghosts were her school friends who died earlier, she saw her father’s spirit, and the main girl ghost took her body away and killed her.
The next reason that it should be classified as an art-horror film is that it has an “art-horror” plot. Ju-on is considered to have a complex discovery plot. The onset in the film is the history of why the house is haunted and who is haunting the house. The audience knows this but the characters do not. The discovery of the movie is when Rika and other characters discover that there are ghosts inside the house. Rika is probably one of the main discoverers because she mentions to the authorities about the little boy that she saw in the house and the oddness of the grandmother. Other characters discovered the ghosts but weren’t able to tell anyone about it because they died beforehand. The third part is the confirmation scene. Rika tries to convince to the authorities about what she saw, but they don’t seem to believe her and wanted to get more information before they did anything about it. They later find out the truth and they both end up dying. The confrontation scene in the end was very dramatic and suspenseful. In the end, Rika sees the ghost and flashbacks of the ghost human life, and the deaths that she caused. Rika is later seen to have been killed by the ghost of the spirit’s husband in the end. This meant that evil prevailed.
The scenes and shots throughout the film caused a lot of suspense and horror to the film. The first thing that should be mentioned is the mise-en-scene. The darkness (lighting) made the movie scarier and mysterious. Also, the lighting used in the flash forward helped emphasis that it was a scene for the future and not for the present. The eerie music and voices of the characters caused me and others to shudder. The monsters’ makeup and dark appearances made the monsters more like spirits/ghosts. The messy house, photos, and the telephone ringing at a random time made the movie more horrifying and scary. Also, the use of shadows helped show the temptation and harming of the monster.
The second thing that should be talked about is the mise-en-shots. There were many close-ups of the monsters. This closeness of the monsters seemed to make the movie more dramatic and horrifying. Also the camera angles gave the ghosts a more terrifying look. There were also emphasis on doors and objects to help the audience know that something was about to occur. Also, there is great use of editing. In one scene, there would be a character who seemed to think that something is behind them. The character then slowly turn around and the camera would change to a shot of the room, showing only the room and not the ghosts. This made the shots more dramatic and eerie. The same thing could be said about the cat shot in Rika’s bedroom. In this scene there were several cats but a second later there were no cats to be seen.
There are other details that also should be talked about. Schneider says that “arguing that the life of the horror genre is in its detail” (Schneider 33). For one thing, the movie had a lot of suspense scenes. For example, the audience hopes the characters in the film will get away from the monster(s) but in the end the audience knows that it unlikely that they will (morally desirable/unlikely). Also it can be said that evil will mostly likely win in the end (evil/likely outcome). A lot, of the scenes build so much suspense that it is built up that they might get away from the ghosts, but in reality the audience knows the characters will die sooner or later. Another detail that should be mentioned is that the audience wants to know what will happen to the characters in the film. It is the curiosity of the audience to figure out how, who, and when the characters will die next. The movie is also erotetic. The reason I say this is for the fact that the audience keeps questioning the plot and what could happen next. Some of the questions that could arise are: Is the ghost behind the door, who will die next, where is the little boy’s body that is still missing, and can the ghost be stopped. Many of these questions are answered but some of them are left unanswered. It would be these questions that would lead the audience to keep watching until the very end.
In the end, I would like to say that I find this movie more of an art-horror than an art-dread. The reason I say this is because there are more attributes that make it an art-horror than an art-dread Film. Also, Schneider says, “…audiences too, can and do create their own pathways through horror as well, providing their own definitions of what horror is for their own purposes” (Schneider 31). My definition of horror is a movie that scares me and makes me jump. In the case of Ju-on it did a little bit of both and I am usually not easily scared. Ju-on is a great example of a horror movie and if I had to recommend any horror movie this would be the one I would recommend.
Exorcism?!?!
The Exorcist is a modern United States horror film. In this movie, there is a monster portrayed as the devil in a little girl named Regan. The monster reveals itself through the bodily changes Regan goes through. Some of these body changes include skin color changes and cuts and bruises all over her body. The devil inside Regan makes her commit some of these things to herself. As a result, Regan is tied down in her bed and things are placed around her bedroom to keep her from hurting herself. Another way we witness the monster inside Regan is the change in her voice. The devil changes her voice, and it comes across as a deep man’s voice. Also, we see the monster in Regan when she can not control her bodily functions. In the first part of the movie, Regan urinates on the floor. Later in the movie, she vomits all over and seems to have no control with of her body. At first I could have been led to believe that the devil working through the little girl was the monster, however, with all of the changes the girl goes through, I knew there was something else involved.
The plot of The Exorcist is a complex discovery plot. It contains an order and the situations seem to flow in a sequence. We first sense something is not right when the little girl complains that her bed is shaking. Then the mother hears what she believes to be rats in the attic. When the mother witnesses the bed shaking, she knows something is wrong. The mother decides to takes Regan to see a doctor. The doctor performs many tests but can not find anything specifically wrong with Regan. She finally goes and speaks to a priest. The priest decides to perform an exorcism on Regan.
The Church agrees to allow two priests to perform the exorcism. Upon arriving at the girl’s home, one of the priests comes to a startling reality. The devil’s voice coming from the little girl confronts this priest and talks about his dead mother. He is confused by this talk because no one knew about his dead mother besides the other priest. As part of the exorcism, the priest sprinkles some holy water on Regan, which in turn burns Regan’s skin. During the exorcism, one of the priests is killed. He falls out of Regan’s bedroom window. The other priest continues the exorcism until it is complete. After the exorcism is over, Regan remembers nothing of what had happened to her. As a result of everything that had happened to Regan in her house, her mother decides they need to move.
Throughout the film, we do not actually see the actual monster; however, we see many characteristics of the monster through the character of Regan. Furthermore, the changes in the set affect the way we view the film. The bed shaking and the cold air we witness in the room by Regan’s breathe are two examples of how the set affects our perspective.
Likewise, I believe lighting plays a key role in The Exorcist. Like many other horror films we watched in class, suspense and fear come from darkness. I feel that The Exorcist contains a lot of dark shots. These dark shots result in added suspense. From the darkness outside of Regan’s house to the darkness in her bedroom, the suspense adds up throughout the film. Furthermore, uneasiness of the unknown in the darkness adds to the suspense.
All in all, I really enjoyed watching The Exorcist. While watching this horror film, I could relate to a lot of the topics that Carroll had written about and we had discussed in class.
The plot of The Exorcist is a complex discovery plot. It contains an order and the situations seem to flow in a sequence. We first sense something is not right when the little girl complains that her bed is shaking. Then the mother hears what she believes to be rats in the attic. When the mother witnesses the bed shaking, she knows something is wrong. The mother decides to takes Regan to see a doctor. The doctor performs many tests but can not find anything specifically wrong with Regan. She finally goes and speaks to a priest. The priest decides to perform an exorcism on Regan.
The Church agrees to allow two priests to perform the exorcism. Upon arriving at the girl’s home, one of the priests comes to a startling reality. The devil’s voice coming from the little girl confronts this priest and talks about his dead mother. He is confused by this talk because no one knew about his dead mother besides the other priest. As part of the exorcism, the priest sprinkles some holy water on Regan, which in turn burns Regan’s skin. During the exorcism, one of the priests is killed. He falls out of Regan’s bedroom window. The other priest continues the exorcism until it is complete. After the exorcism is over, Regan remembers nothing of what had happened to her. As a result of everything that had happened to Regan in her house, her mother decides they need to move.
Throughout the film, we do not actually see the actual monster; however, we see many characteristics of the monster through the character of Regan. Furthermore, the changes in the set affect the way we view the film. The bed shaking and the cold air we witness in the room by Regan’s breathe are two examples of how the set affects our perspective.
Likewise, I believe lighting plays a key role in The Exorcist. Like many other horror films we watched in class, suspense and fear come from darkness. I feel that The Exorcist contains a lot of dark shots. These dark shots result in added suspense. From the darkness outside of Regan’s house to the darkness in her bedroom, the suspense adds up throughout the film. Furthermore, uneasiness of the unknown in the darkness adds to the suspense.
All in all, I really enjoyed watching The Exorcist. While watching this horror film, I could relate to a lot of the topics that Carroll had written about and we had discussed in class.
Halloween, 1978
Halloween is an iconic “slasher” film with many sequels and a lot of copycats. In my opinion, I believe that NoĂ«l Carroll would call this film horror and would have no problem giving Michael Meyers the distinction of a monster. The plot is that of a complex discovery with a very indefinite confrontation scene so as to leave open the possibility of a sequel.
I found the camera work, or mise-en-shot to be particularly effective in creating art horror. Many scenes appear to be shot from Michael’s point of view as he spies on his future victims. The audience is getting to see things only a peeping tom would chance to see, but the reality in the film is that Michael is planning his attack which makes the scenes horrifying. The mise-en-scĂ©ne is also successful in fabricating fearful situations. Sometimes we see deep focus photography that is especially chilling, for example, when Laurie is groping around in the darkness and we can see Michael’s mask in the background. Michael also only seems to kill at night with shadows enveloping him. The darkness also always provides a cover for Michael so we never know where he may be coming from.
The film begins as a six year Michael kills his sister after she has sex with her boyfriend on Halloween night. Fifteen years later, he escapes the mental institution he has been in and he returns to his hometown, again, on Halloween night. The psychiatrist who had been treating Michael while he was in the institution follows Michael back to his hometown and attempts to stop him before he starts killing again. Michael focuses in on Laurie and her two girlfriends to stalk and kill Halloween night. After all is said is done, Michael has been shot over six times, falls out of a second story window, and escapes with his life after killing four people by stabbing or strangulation.
Halloween has a complex discovery plot that follows a sequence of onset, discovery, confirmation, and confrontation of the monster, Michael Meyers in this case. The sequence may not be followed exactly in this form in Halloween because in the beginning we know that Michael is a monster of sorts. However, all we see is a young man who kills his sexually active older sister. In our society today we hear of young children killing family members, but are they monsters? Psychopaths, yes. But monsters? Were they abused so therefore mildly justified in their murders? So, we could say in the beginning it is affirmative that Michael has mental problems, we are terrified by his behavior, and the looks of an innocent appearing young man wielding a bloody knife could be viewed as disgusting because it is not normal; it violates social norms. Following this train of thought, the onset phase truly does begin with the murder of Michael’s sister. We are not sure if he is a monster or not. When he breaks out of the mental institution, we are still not convinced he is a monster. Who would want to be stuck in a mental institution and wouldn’t jump at the chance to escape? The onset phase then goes on to discovery. The psychiatrist is convinced that Michael is a monster and he must be stopped or he will wreak havoc on society. He tries convincing law enforcement of this fact, but without physical evidence (even though the body of Michael’s sister has gone missing); the police merely go through the motions of helping the doctor. Then, we see Laurie discovering the monster. He appears then disappears with astounding speed and fear. He is huge and has a white face; that is all she sees, and her friends make fun of her constantly, so she tries denying her own discovery. The young man she baby-sits discovers Michael too, but she wants to be “normal” like her friends so she tries to calm him and make him believe there is no such thing as the “boogeyman.” While Laurie is being pursued by Michael and she discovers his previous murders, I believe we are still discovering Michael as monster. However, when he is stabbed in the neck and continues his pursuit at full strength, we can move on to the confirmation stage. There is something inhuman about Michael. Laurie and the psychiatrist then go on to confront him to stop the terror. This procession is quick because we know that Michael is a serial killer, but he is not a monster in Carroll’s terms until he survives stabbings, falls, and gunshot wounds. Michael is confronted, but he then escapes, so we must assume he shall be conquered in the next film. Or the one after that? And so on.
I found the camera work, or mise-en-shot to be particularly effective in creating art horror. Many scenes appear to be shot from Michael’s point of view as he spies on his future victims. The audience is getting to see things only a peeping tom would chance to see, but the reality in the film is that Michael is planning his attack which makes the scenes horrifying. The mise-en-scĂ©ne is also successful in fabricating fearful situations. Sometimes we see deep focus photography that is especially chilling, for example, when Laurie is groping around in the darkness and we can see Michael’s mask in the background. Michael also only seems to kill at night with shadows enveloping him. The darkness also always provides a cover for Michael so we never know where he may be coming from.
The film begins as a six year Michael kills his sister after she has sex with her boyfriend on Halloween night. Fifteen years later, he escapes the mental institution he has been in and he returns to his hometown, again, on Halloween night. The psychiatrist who had been treating Michael while he was in the institution follows Michael back to his hometown and attempts to stop him before he starts killing again. Michael focuses in on Laurie and her two girlfriends to stalk and kill Halloween night. After all is said is done, Michael has been shot over six times, falls out of a second story window, and escapes with his life after killing four people by stabbing or strangulation.
Halloween has a complex discovery plot that follows a sequence of onset, discovery, confirmation, and confrontation of the monster, Michael Meyers in this case. The sequence may not be followed exactly in this form in Halloween because in the beginning we know that Michael is a monster of sorts. However, all we see is a young man who kills his sexually active older sister. In our society today we hear of young children killing family members, but are they monsters? Psychopaths, yes. But monsters? Were they abused so therefore mildly justified in their murders? So, we could say in the beginning it is affirmative that Michael has mental problems, we are terrified by his behavior, and the looks of an innocent appearing young man wielding a bloody knife could be viewed as disgusting because it is not normal; it violates social norms. Following this train of thought, the onset phase truly does begin with the murder of Michael’s sister. We are not sure if he is a monster or not. When he breaks out of the mental institution, we are still not convinced he is a monster. Who would want to be stuck in a mental institution and wouldn’t jump at the chance to escape? The onset phase then goes on to discovery. The psychiatrist is convinced that Michael is a monster and he must be stopped or he will wreak havoc on society. He tries convincing law enforcement of this fact, but without physical evidence (even though the body of Michael’s sister has gone missing); the police merely go through the motions of helping the doctor. Then, we see Laurie discovering the monster. He appears then disappears with astounding speed and fear. He is huge and has a white face; that is all she sees, and her friends make fun of her constantly, so she tries denying her own discovery. The young man she baby-sits discovers Michael too, but she wants to be “normal” like her friends so she tries to calm him and make him believe there is no such thing as the “boogeyman.” While Laurie is being pursued by Michael and she discovers his previous murders, I believe we are still discovering Michael as monster. However, when he is stabbed in the neck and continues his pursuit at full strength, we can move on to the confirmation stage. There is something inhuman about Michael. Laurie and the psychiatrist then go on to confront him to stop the terror. This procession is quick because we know that Michael is a serial killer, but he is not a monster in Carroll’s terms until he survives stabbings, falls, and gunshot wounds. Michael is confronted, but he then escapes, so we must assume he shall be conquered in the next film. Or the one after that? And so on.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Halloween
This week I chose to watch the movie, "Halloween." This movie is about a girl named Lory and her friends, Annie, Paul, Linda, and Bob. The movie begins with the murder of a girl by a little boy named Michael. The movie then moves ahead in time to the life of the main character, Lory. Lory is a very smart girl who keeps mostly to herself and isn't very outgoing. The movie takes place one night when Lory is babysitting and her friend Annie is babysitting three houses down from her. Annie brings Lyndsey, the little girl she is babysitting, over to where Lory is babysitting so that Lory can watch Lyndsey while Annie has friends over at the other house. Annie drops Lyndsey off and then plans on going to pick up her boyfriend, Paul, but never makes it to his house. A crazy man (Michael) has escaped from a hospital and is on a killing spree. When Annie gets into her car, the Michael is in the back seat wearng a mask and he strangles her. Not long after Annie is murdered, her friends Linda and Paul arrive at the house. While the two are alone together waiting for Annie and Paul to get back, Michael stabs Bob and strangles his girlfriend while she is trying to call Lory. Lory gets very suspicious and thinks her friends are playing a trick on her so she decides to head over to the other house to find out what is going on. When she gets there she finds all of her friends dead in the house. Michael then tries to kill her but the doctor who knows Michael is loose, because he is his doctor, saves her life by shooting him. However, when the doctor looks out of the window to see where Michael has landed after the shot, he is no longer there. The movie ends making the audience think there must be a sequel soon to come.
I believe that Noel Carroll wouldn't consider this movie to be a horror film. The reason for this thought is because there is technically no monster in the movie. For Carroll, in order for a movie to be a horror film it must contain an unnatural, disgusting, nauseating monster. The monster in this movie is simply a man in a mask. There is nothing unnatural looking about this man when his mask is off. According to Freeland, however, this movie would be considered a horror film because it evokes a sense of art-dread in the audience. The audience is worried for the character and has absolutely no clue what will happen next but they dread what is about to happen. Freeland doesn't feel that a horror film needs to have a monster in order to be a horror film but that the film must evoke some kind of emotion from the audience.
The plot structure of this movie follows the complex discovery plot, founded by Carroll. It contains an onset, discovery, confirmation, and confrontation phase. The onset occurs in the very beginning when the audience sees the three girls being followed by a strange man. At this point the audience knows that something strange is about to happen while the characters do not yet have a clue. The discovery phase happens when each of the characters are confronted by the man. The main part of the discovery is when Lory discovers this man is trying to kill her. This is also the confrontation phase. Lory tries to defend herself and kill the man/monster. The final confrontation happens when the doctor arrives at the house and shoots the man, saving Lory's life. the confirmation phase happens when the doctor tells the sheriff about the house and the man. The sheriff doesn't really seem convinced but tells the doctor to get the man if he is really out there. Another part of the confirmation phase is when Lory goes around trying to get neighbors to open their doors to her and help her. No one opens their door because they know it is Halloween and a time for pranks to be played.
I believe in Freeland's view of a horror film. I believe this movie is a horror film because it does evoke fear and dread in the audience even though there is no real abnormal looking monster. A monster can be normal looking but the things this monster does can be what really scares the audience.
I believe that Noel Carroll wouldn't consider this movie to be a horror film. The reason for this thought is because there is technically no monster in the movie. For Carroll, in order for a movie to be a horror film it must contain an unnatural, disgusting, nauseating monster. The monster in this movie is simply a man in a mask. There is nothing unnatural looking about this man when his mask is off. According to Freeland, however, this movie would be considered a horror film because it evokes a sense of art-dread in the audience. The audience is worried for the character and has absolutely no clue what will happen next but they dread what is about to happen. Freeland doesn't feel that a horror film needs to have a monster in order to be a horror film but that the film must evoke some kind of emotion from the audience.
The plot structure of this movie follows the complex discovery plot, founded by Carroll. It contains an onset, discovery, confirmation, and confrontation phase. The onset occurs in the very beginning when the audience sees the three girls being followed by a strange man. At this point the audience knows that something strange is about to happen while the characters do not yet have a clue. The discovery phase happens when each of the characters are confronted by the man. The main part of the discovery is when Lory discovers this man is trying to kill her. This is also the confrontation phase. Lory tries to defend herself and kill the man/monster. The final confrontation happens when the doctor arrives at the house and shoots the man, saving Lory's life. the confirmation phase happens when the doctor tells the sheriff about the house and the man. The sheriff doesn't really seem convinced but tells the doctor to get the man if he is really out there. Another part of the confirmation phase is when Lory goes around trying to get neighbors to open their doors to her and help her. No one opens their door because they know it is Halloween and a time for pranks to be played.
I believe in Freeland's view of a horror film. I believe this movie is a horror film because it does evoke fear and dread in the audience even though there is no real abnormal looking monster. A monster can be normal looking but the things this monster does can be what really scares the audience.
Independent Movie Blog By: Erin Leahy
For my independent movie viewing assignment, I decided to watch The Skeleton Key (2005), directed by Iain Softley. The protagonist of the film is Caroline, a young hospice nurse who moves to the outskirts of a Louisianan town to tend to Ben, an elderly man, at the request of the elderly couple’s attorney. Ben lives with his wife, Violet, in an old house. It is suggested throughout the beginning scenes that there is something mysterious or supernatural occurring in the house. Violet finally tells Caroline the story of the people that used to live there. Living in the house was a family with two small children and two servants. The servants practiced Hoodoo, the African American form of the Haitian Voodoo. One evening while the parents are having a party, the servants are caught teaching Hoodoo to the two children. The parents and their guests hang and burn the servants as punishment. As the story unfolds Caroline discovers that Ben did not suffer a stroke. Instead, Violet is using a Hoodoo curse on him to prolong her life at the expense of her husband. Caroline makes it her mission to save Ben from Violet and her magic. In the conclusion of the film, the audience learns the true secret of the house. The Hoodoo curse that was being performed throughout the movie by the servants and again by Violet does indeed work to prolong ones life through the sacrifice of another. It works by the practicer of Hoodoo changing bodies with another. Therefore the two souls exchange bodies leaving the victim in a state similar to a stroke victim. When the servants are caught they were performing the incantation on the children. By the time the parents get there, the servants had already changed bodies with the children. Therefore, the parents actually killed there own children, who were in the servants’ bodies, by hanging and burning them. With the servants then in the children’s bodies they lived out there lives in their new form. They grew up and sold the house to Ben and Violet. However, before the sale was made they used the incantation on Ben and Violet. The servants’ souls now resided in Ben and Violet’s bodies. As these new bodies began to age they were prepared for another exchange. The servant in Ben’s body changed with the couple’s attorney, leaving Ben in a stroke-like state, and Violet was preparing throughout the film to exchange with Caroline. In other words, the souls of the two servants were jumping from body to body, changing as the bodies aged. They left their own bodies and entered the children, then moved on to Ben and Violet, and finally the attorney and Caroline. Their goal: to live forever through the bodies of others.
Many of the concepts we have studied throughout the past three weeks can be seen in and applied to this movie.
In terms of the mise-en-shot, the camera angles were used repeatedly to add an eerie suspense. The audience, in many instances, views the actions of the characters through mirrors. Also used are long shots with nothing in the foreground but the intended focal character in the background. Both of these techniques gave the sense of another force or entity being present. It gives a supernatural feel that is only pertinent to the activity going on in this house. The editing also added to the suspense through the use of tight shot editing. The mise-en-scene also plays a large role. There seems to be a constant stream of rain falling throughout the entire movie, casting a dark light over everything. This darkness also extends into the house. There are never any lights on. The only light used is natural light from the outside, the sun during the day and moon at night. This lack of light adds to the mood of the scenes because the audience can only see a small segment of the scene allowing the mind to wander and imagine what waits in the darkness. The mise-en-shot and mise-en-scene were both used in this instance to exacerbate the eeriness and scariness of the movie.
The plot followed Carroll’s complex discovery plot. The onset occurs when Caroline arrives at the house and learns that there have been numerous hospice nurses to attempt the job before her but that each left because according to Violet they didn’t “understand the secret of the house”. Other strange things present like the fact that the house has no mirrors. These all give Caroline and the audience the sense that something is not right here. The discovery begins when Violet tells Caroline the story of the house and Caroline attempts to learn more about Hoodoo and what power it may have. What is unique about this movie is that the discovery period that Caroline undergoes is directed at herself for confirmation. She does not believe in the power of Hoodoo but tries to learn more to understand better what it means to Ben and Violet. The confirmation arises slowly as Caroline starts to piece the clues together implicating that Violet is the one who is inflicting the suffering on Ben. However, this is not a true confirmation because Caroline never learns the true secret of the house. She believes that she’s confirmed Violet’s role in this is through purely human means. She thinks she may be poisoning Ben but doesn’t realize the goal of the incantation. The confrontation arises when Caroline attempts to drug Violet and run away with Ben to get help while she is unconscious.
Near the end of the film the audience is left regarding the film with fantastic hesitation. The true secret is not presented until the last few scenes of the movie and up until this revelation the audience is unsure whether the threat is coming through human or supernatural means. Finally, with the revelation, the movie is pushed to the side of the fantastic marvelous. This is because it is revealed that Hoodoo, a supernatural means, is being used to threaten the characters.
The final aspect I consider in analyzing the film was whether it fit into the category of art-horror or art-dread. Even to this point I am still unsure of its fit. To follow Carroll’s theory of art-horror a monster must be present. In this case the monster is the servants and through their use of Hoodoo, Violet. The fact the servants are “dead” or merely souls but are still working as a threat through the use of others makes them impure in the fact that they interstitially combine life and death. But they are not regarded as disgusting by the other characters. Since the monster did not fully fit into Carroll’s description of an art-horror monster I thought it could be an art-dread monster. This reasoning came about because through out the movie the Hoodoo workings are an ever-present, ambiguous force that are threatening but are hard to identify until the end when we learn that the supernatural force had materialized through Violet. There are valid campaigns for either categorization but I am still not sure if the film fits completely in one over the other.
Many of the concepts we have studied throughout the past three weeks can be seen in and applied to this movie.
In terms of the mise-en-shot, the camera angles were used repeatedly to add an eerie suspense. The audience, in many instances, views the actions of the characters through mirrors. Also used are long shots with nothing in the foreground but the intended focal character in the background. Both of these techniques gave the sense of another force or entity being present. It gives a supernatural feel that is only pertinent to the activity going on in this house. The editing also added to the suspense through the use of tight shot editing. The mise-en-scene also plays a large role. There seems to be a constant stream of rain falling throughout the entire movie, casting a dark light over everything. This darkness also extends into the house. There are never any lights on. The only light used is natural light from the outside, the sun during the day and moon at night. This lack of light adds to the mood of the scenes because the audience can only see a small segment of the scene allowing the mind to wander and imagine what waits in the darkness. The mise-en-shot and mise-en-scene were both used in this instance to exacerbate the eeriness and scariness of the movie.
The plot followed Carroll’s complex discovery plot. The onset occurs when Caroline arrives at the house and learns that there have been numerous hospice nurses to attempt the job before her but that each left because according to Violet they didn’t “understand the secret of the house”. Other strange things present like the fact that the house has no mirrors. These all give Caroline and the audience the sense that something is not right here. The discovery begins when Violet tells Caroline the story of the house and Caroline attempts to learn more about Hoodoo and what power it may have. What is unique about this movie is that the discovery period that Caroline undergoes is directed at herself for confirmation. She does not believe in the power of Hoodoo but tries to learn more to understand better what it means to Ben and Violet. The confirmation arises slowly as Caroline starts to piece the clues together implicating that Violet is the one who is inflicting the suffering on Ben. However, this is not a true confirmation because Caroline never learns the true secret of the house. She believes that she’s confirmed Violet’s role in this is through purely human means. She thinks she may be poisoning Ben but doesn’t realize the goal of the incantation. The confrontation arises when Caroline attempts to drug Violet and run away with Ben to get help while she is unconscious.
Near the end of the film the audience is left regarding the film with fantastic hesitation. The true secret is not presented until the last few scenes of the movie and up until this revelation the audience is unsure whether the threat is coming through human or supernatural means. Finally, with the revelation, the movie is pushed to the side of the fantastic marvelous. This is because it is revealed that Hoodoo, a supernatural means, is being used to threaten the characters.
The final aspect I consider in analyzing the film was whether it fit into the category of art-horror or art-dread. Even to this point I am still unsure of its fit. To follow Carroll’s theory of art-horror a monster must be present. In this case the monster is the servants and through their use of Hoodoo, Violet. The fact the servants are “dead” or merely souls but are still working as a threat through the use of others makes them impure in the fact that they interstitially combine life and death. But they are not regarded as disgusting by the other characters. Since the monster did not fully fit into Carroll’s description of an art-horror monster I thought it could be an art-dread monster. This reasoning came about because through out the movie the Hoodoo workings are an ever-present, ambiguous force that are threatening but are hard to identify until the end when we learn that the supernatural force had materialized through Violet. There are valid campaigns for either categorization but I am still not sure if the film fits completely in one over the other.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Greg Frey Journal # 2 Plots/Theories
Generally, most horror movies share similar plots regardless of the movies content such as wearwolfs or even killer Barbie dolls. Carroll points out that we generally get a sense of what is going to happen or a good range of what might happen at certain climaxes in the film. A typical horror film is set up in the Complex Discovery Plot. The monster is first made apparent and is causing some sort of disruptions or horrific actions. From here, one or more people discover the creature and try to convince others sometimes successfully and some not. The others usually do not realize it until it may be too late and finally confirming that the monster exists. Finally the climax of the story is the confrontation between man and beast with usual predictable outcome—monster defeated and hero gets the girl.
In the book, Carroll also talks about the Universal and General Theories of horror films and why do we as the audiences enjoy watching them. Both of these films discuss how humans being curious, are also fascinated by what is unknown. The Universal theory is directed more with the art horror (disgust and fear) which is entertaining to let our imaginations go free. The General theory is designed to grab the audience because of the plot and not so much the monster. I feel like the movie Carrie (1976) used the General Theory very well that drawled the audience into the character and life of the teenaged girl to ultimately set up her wrath at the end. Even though Carrie was not a monster, the audience, speaking from my perspective, was fascinated by the super-natural and the unknown. This is also Todoron’s definition of “the Fantastic.”
I am indeed intrigued by what is the mystery of the unknown associated with the high level of disgust from a monster. Horror films are an expression possibility related to that time of era such as Gojira a Japanese film of the Godzilla version to which we know released in 1954 to signify the destruction of World War II. These imaginations of horror writers allow us to escape reality and be scared, amused, or fascinated by something out of the norm.
In the book, Carroll also talks about the Universal and General Theories of horror films and why do we as the audiences enjoy watching them. Both of these films discuss how humans being curious, are also fascinated by what is unknown. The Universal theory is directed more with the art horror (disgust and fear) which is entertaining to let our imaginations go free. The General theory is designed to grab the audience because of the plot and not so much the monster. I feel like the movie Carrie (1976) used the General Theory very well that drawled the audience into the character and life of the teenaged girl to ultimately set up her wrath at the end. Even though Carrie was not a monster, the audience, speaking from my perspective, was fascinated by the super-natural and the unknown. This is also Todoron’s definition of “the Fantastic.”
I am indeed intrigued by what is the mystery of the unknown associated with the high level of disgust from a monster. Horror films are an expression possibility related to that time of era such as Gojira a Japanese film of the Godzilla version to which we know released in 1954 to signify the destruction of World War II. These imaginations of horror writers allow us to escape reality and be scared, amused, or fascinated by something out of the norm.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
TARGETing a new audience
Targets is yet another movie that Carroll does not recognize to be an “Art-Horror” movie because the only monster in the movie is a human, and a “true monster” must be unexplainable by science. This film would be classified as Art-Dread, because it lacks truly repulsive, unnatural monster; even though we tend to think of the person going on a shooting spree to be a monster. A human is a human no matter how you explain it; thus, that monster can exist at anytime. You neighbor could be a serial murderer, someone in your family might want to kill you, but you would never know until it happens. This I believe is more scary than something that cannot possibly happen and if that means that it is not a horror film, then Art-Horror films are not very good compared Art-Dread films—especially if there goal is to scare the audience. This movie is about a regular man in a middle-class family, that just so happens to be living with his parents still. He gets fed up with the life that he is living and kills family, but he doesn’t stop there. His next move is to buy more ammo and take his guns to the top of a building. The building is close to the highway and he begins to fire at the people in the cars that are driving down the highway. So after he kills his family and some innocent drivers, he tries not to get caught by the police by hiding in a Drive-In movie theatre. He finds a hole in the movie screen and he climbs behind it and starts firing at the people in their cars watching the movie. The killer is confronted by the main character Byron Orlok, and is soon apprehended by the authorities, this ends the movie.
This movie has the typical mise-en-shot, nothing fancy like long-shots. There was probably a lot more focus on editing as compared to deep-focus photography. The stage design was nothing outstanding, there was more attention placed on plot and content. The atmosphere of the movie made it seem really realistic, because something like that could happen and it did happen. This film has very little resemblance to the genre of the fantastic but you make a stretch to say it is fantastic uncanny, if you thought he was processed in some way. The point being that this is a really great film, that sort of makes you feel uneasy and disturbed but since it lacks the presence of a monster that is both disgusting and unnatural it cannot be labeled as a Art-Horror movie according to Carroll, it is some other genre—that genre being Art-Dread.
It is my belief that Art-Dread is better in everyway from Art-Horror, if what you are looking for is: to be scared, to question the safety of your life, and challenge the knowledge of what the universe is all about. If it is good plot you are looking for then the playing field is at least equal, when it comes to Horror vs. Dread. So for Carroll to discredit films that evoke only Art-Dread he is taking away from the genre of Horror. He is saying that horror is not as good of a genre compared to others. He talks of character identification, what better way to connect with character, than if they are all human. The conclusion that I have came to regarding horror films is that the films we regard as true ‘classic horror’ no longer have the same effect as it did during the time it was created. It could be that we are bored with seeing make-believe monsters; it could be that our society is going to crap, or it could mean that we no longer feel the same way about how a horror film should work. I feel that the ‘classic horror’ films are very entertaining, but no longer ‘scary’ in the true sense of the word. Films that cause me to jump, to see the actual events occurring, and that tap into my imagination in a different way are the movies I prefer. If you want to see a person in a rubber suit then go ahead, but I like to connect with the film by identifying with film; through understanding and adding to the plot using my imagination and gathering insight from the producers of the film. Movies that fall into the category of the complex discovery plot are too boring and predictable, in order to eliminate that feeling the movie-making industry must constantly keep changing things and coming up with new ways to portray quality plots.
This movie has the typical mise-en-shot, nothing fancy like long-shots. There was probably a lot more focus on editing as compared to deep-focus photography. The stage design was nothing outstanding, there was more attention placed on plot and content. The atmosphere of the movie made it seem really realistic, because something like that could happen and it did happen. This film has very little resemblance to the genre of the fantastic but you make a stretch to say it is fantastic uncanny, if you thought he was processed in some way. The point being that this is a really great film, that sort of makes you feel uneasy and disturbed but since it lacks the presence of a monster that is both disgusting and unnatural it cannot be labeled as a Art-Horror movie according to Carroll, it is some other genre—that genre being Art-Dread.
It is my belief that Art-Dread is better in everyway from Art-Horror, if what you are looking for is: to be scared, to question the safety of your life, and challenge the knowledge of what the universe is all about. If it is good plot you are looking for then the playing field is at least equal, when it comes to Horror vs. Dread. So for Carroll to discredit films that evoke only Art-Dread he is taking away from the genre of Horror. He is saying that horror is not as good of a genre compared to others. He talks of character identification, what better way to connect with character, than if they are all human. The conclusion that I have came to regarding horror films is that the films we regard as true ‘classic horror’ no longer have the same effect as it did during the time it was created. It could be that we are bored with seeing make-believe monsters; it could be that our society is going to crap, or it could mean that we no longer feel the same way about how a horror film should work. I feel that the ‘classic horror’ films are very entertaining, but no longer ‘scary’ in the true sense of the word. Films that cause me to jump, to see the actual events occurring, and that tap into my imagination in a different way are the movies I prefer. If you want to see a person in a rubber suit then go ahead, but I like to connect with the film by identifying with film; through understanding and adding to the plot using my imagination and gathering insight from the producers of the film. Movies that fall into the category of the complex discovery plot are too boring and predictable, in order to eliminate that feeling the movie-making industry must constantly keep changing things and coming up with new ways to portray quality plots.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Plots?!?!
Throughout this week’s class discussions, we have looked at how directors form the plots unto which movies and books are based. A plot is the structure of the flow of the story. Carroll makes reference to three major categories through which to classify a plot. Carroll’s first major plot category is called the discovery plot. The second major plot category is the overreacher plot. The overreacher plot has four subcategories that consist of preparation, experiment, boomerang, and confrontation. The third major plot category is a complex discovery plot. There are four subheadings under a complex discovery plot which include: onset, discovery, confirmation, and confrontation. Onset is seen at the beginning of the film. It takes place from the first visualization of the monster to the discovery of the monster by another character. Discovery is when the monster is realized by one or more of the characters. Confirmation is a prolong persuasion of the monster to the authorities. Confrontation is when the characters confront the monster. Furthermore, confrontation is when suspense is added to the film or book.
In class, we discussed the plot of The Haunting. We talked about it being a complex discovery plot. We also looked at how the many aspects added up in this plot category. One student in class, however, brought it to our attention that the plot might possibly be only onset. This statement made me wonder what plot possibilities could there be in this movie. I began my questioning with onset. Onset is the beginning of the film to the first visualization and discovery of the monster by the characters. I thought about how we had not visualized any monster. Though there was no massification, fission/fusion, magnification, and metonomy, there could have been some supernatural monster. In considering all the loud noises, moving of the walls, and at the end something in the car with Eleanor, I believe there had to be something in the house. I do not think that a house, even an old house such as the one in this movie could possibly make noises as this one had. Also, I do not think the walls of a house could move like these did, as if they were breathing. In my mind, all of these things did not add up to normal phenomena. There had to be something supernatural in that house.
After analyzing this movie, I came to the conclusion that this film does have a complex discovery plot. The onset and discovery aspects are resolved in the beginning of the film, when the doctor receives the house, and chooses the people to join him. The confirmation in the film consists of the loud noises and the walls moving. The confrontation relates to Eleanor and how she encounters the monster. Throughout the film, we hear thoughts going through Eleanor’s head and learn why she believes the monster is after her. In the end, Eleanor is confronted with the monster in her car. She was leaving the house and the monster took hold of her wheel, and she crashed into a tree. As a result, she ends up being killed.
Through the many films we have viewed in class, The Haunting seems to have had the greatest affect on me. I felt a lot of suspense in this film. The film left me with many questions to think about. Some of my questions include: Why did the wife run when seeing Eleanor? How did the wife end up outside by the car crash? Did the wife disappearing in the house, and then reappearing after Eleanor’s death have some sort of significance? Many thoughts crossed my mind while watching this film, and have led me to take a deeper look at this film.
In class, we discussed the plot of The Haunting. We talked about it being a complex discovery plot. We also looked at how the many aspects added up in this plot category. One student in class, however, brought it to our attention that the plot might possibly be only onset. This statement made me wonder what plot possibilities could there be in this movie. I began my questioning with onset. Onset is the beginning of the film to the first visualization and discovery of the monster by the characters. I thought about how we had not visualized any monster. Though there was no massification, fission/fusion, magnification, and metonomy, there could have been some supernatural monster. In considering all the loud noises, moving of the walls, and at the end something in the car with Eleanor, I believe there had to be something in the house. I do not think that a house, even an old house such as the one in this movie could possibly make noises as this one had. Also, I do not think the walls of a house could move like these did, as if they were breathing. In my mind, all of these things did not add up to normal phenomena. There had to be something supernatural in that house.
After analyzing this movie, I came to the conclusion that this film does have a complex discovery plot. The onset and discovery aspects are resolved in the beginning of the film, when the doctor receives the house, and chooses the people to join him. The confirmation in the film consists of the loud noises and the walls moving. The confrontation relates to Eleanor and how she encounters the monster. Throughout the film, we hear thoughts going through Eleanor’s head and learn why she believes the monster is after her. In the end, Eleanor is confronted with the monster in her car. She was leaving the house and the monster took hold of her wheel, and she crashed into a tree. As a result, she ends up being killed.
Through the many films we have viewed in class, The Haunting seems to have had the greatest affect on me. I felt a lot of suspense in this film. The film left me with many questions to think about. Some of my questions include: Why did the wife run when seeing Eleanor? How did the wife end up outside by the car crash? Did the wife disappearing in the house, and then reappearing after Eleanor’s death have some sort of significance? Many thoughts crossed my mind while watching this film, and have led me to take a deeper look at this film.
The Exorcist
The Exorcist was an interesting and complex film about a demonic possession. It was complex in the way that it was hard to determine whether the girl was really an art horror monster or something that could be looked at as possible, if you believed in the devil. After watching the film though, it became clear that the girl was considered a monster when thinking about the plot. The Exorcist followed the complex discovery plot. Onset took place when Regan tells her mother that she can’t sleep because her bed is shaking. Her mother dismisses it and Regan goes back to bed. Later her mother has a party and Regan comes downstairs to for warn a guest that he will die. Part of the onset is also seen when she tells the man of his death, because right after she pees on the floor. Finally her mother sees that her bed is shaking and that weird things happen to Regan, like not being able to control what happens to her body. The demon causes her to flip uncontrollably back in forth in her bed and her mother can’t stop it. Discovery happens when Regan’s mother cannot find help for her daughter. She takes her to the hospital to get many tests done and see many psychologists. They give her ritalin, but it doesn’t work. Finally, Regan’s mother goes to see a priest to speak about an exorcism. This is the beginning of confirmation. The priest must follow Church guidelines in order to do the exorcism, so he tape records a session with Regan. From the session he believes she is possessed and asks to do the exorcism. Confrontation occurs when the priest, Father Karrass, is teamed with another priest, Father Merrin, an experienced priest when it comes to exorcism, to perform the exorcism. Father Merrin dies in the process and Father Karrass finishes the exorcism. He tells the demon to take his body and when the demon comes into his body, he jumps out the window to end his life, and save Regan from being possessed.
What makes Regan an art horror monster is how the demon makes her physically change and be very disgusting and impure. Her body turns white and her face seems to be bloated. She has cuts on her and she even inflicts some of these wounds on her own. In one scene she is seen stabbing herself in the thighs with a crucifix. She is also very mangy looking and dirty from sweat and, later, vomit. Eventually she has to be tied down to her bed and during the exorcism she comes loose. What also makes her disgusting is that the demon changes her voice to be deep and scary and she is very vulgar with her thoughts and language. It’s off-putting and shocking. Regan is made to do horrific things such as turning her head all the way around and writing on her stomach “help me” in some unknown way. All of these things evoke art horror in the audience because the demon is threatening, disgusting and impure.
This movie can be explained by the thought theory. We couldn’t fathom this happening to anyone, but because the movie plays that this happens because of the devil there is always that “what if” factor. We are scared because the thought of it actually occurring is horrific and terrifying beyond belief. Are question of how it happened was answered though, she was possessed by a demon. How the demon was killed was not a far stretch either. It was killed through an exorcism performed by a Catholic priest. There is such things as exorcisms, though not commonly used today. Just knowing that they were once used still leaves us with the curiosity and fear that maybe it could happen. Overall the movie did a great job portraying and evoking art horror.
What makes Regan an art horror monster is how the demon makes her physically change and be very disgusting and impure. Her body turns white and her face seems to be bloated. She has cuts on her and she even inflicts some of these wounds on her own. In one scene she is seen stabbing herself in the thighs with a crucifix. She is also very mangy looking and dirty from sweat and, later, vomit. Eventually she has to be tied down to her bed and during the exorcism she comes loose. What also makes her disgusting is that the demon changes her voice to be deep and scary and she is very vulgar with her thoughts and language. It’s off-putting and shocking. Regan is made to do horrific things such as turning her head all the way around and writing on her stomach “help me” in some unknown way. All of these things evoke art horror in the audience because the demon is threatening, disgusting and impure.
This movie can be explained by the thought theory. We couldn’t fathom this happening to anyone, but because the movie plays that this happens because of the devil there is always that “what if” factor. We are scared because the thought of it actually occurring is horrific and terrifying beyond belief. Are question of how it happened was answered though, she was possessed by a demon. How the demon was killed was not a far stretch either. It was killed through an exorcism performed by a Catholic priest. There is such things as exorcisms, though not commonly used today. Just knowing that they were once used still leaves us with the curiosity and fear that maybe it could happen. Overall the movie did a great job portraying and evoking art horror.
Does the analogy to Christ in “Cronos” create art-horror?
Del Toro's movie “Cronos” is filled with symbolism that leaves lots of room for discussion. Focusing on the main character Jesus Gris there are many comparisons to the religious figure Christ. According to Rudolf Otto the object of religious experience is tremendous causing fear within a subject. The attraction of horror connected with the elements of religious accounts creates a certain fascination within the audience. Carroll theorizes that the fascination with art-horror is driven by curiosity. Curiosity involves the desire to know created by the drama of the existence of a monster and its properties. Within religion there is a sense of curiosity of knowing what is meant for us after death. Is death really the end or is there eternal life after death? Del Toro brings out these elements with the development of Jesus Gris and connects him with similarities of Christ in turn creating a monster that audiences are fascinated as well as horrified with. In Carroll’s sense Jesus became a monster when he returned from his death seemingly alive. I say seemingly alive because Jesus becomes a disgustingly undead creature. He feeds on the blood of humans, his skin begins to peel into a marble slimy coating, he cannot tolerate sunlight, etc. He becomes interesting to the audience due to this nature. It gives an interpretation of what eternal life after death can bring. The development of Jesus in connection to Christ throughout the movie also creates fascination driven by curiosity. The plot of the movie takes place around Christmas, the time of Christ’s birth. This coincidence gives the audience the sense of celebration of life connected to rebirth. Christ is first introduced into the plot when Jesus willingly allows the mechanism to insert into his hand. He prays for his soul to remain attached which gives the audience a sense of suspense. Jesus seems to have the knowledge that whatever the device carries could be unholy. It foreshadows what is to come, an unholy version of eternal life. The device seems to be an addiction for Jesus that he becomes dependent upon. The feeling of eternal life and youth overcomes him self as he believes he can beat the process of death. When Jesus returns from the dead there are interesting marks on his body to compare to the death of Christ on the cross. Puncture wounds through his palms and glass in his foot resemble the wounds created when Christ was nailed to cross. As Jesus learns that blood from human life rejuvenates his body his skin begins to peel. In comparison to Christ this is Jesus’ resurrection. The peeling off of his skin is a rebirth into human form for Jesus. His skin is no longer full of death and decay, but life. This places the question in the audience’s mind of what is to come next. Is Jesus going to turn on his granddaughter and others for their blood? This knowledge creates a fear in the audience that Jesus could turn evil at any time. When he begins to turn on his granddaughter for her blood, she becomes his anchor and calls him into reality. In the end Jesus rejects his monstrous self and destroys the Chronos device, another analogy to Christ that good overcomes evil. According to Carroll the analogy between religion and art-horror appears to be hazardous and unreliable. So the use of the religious analogy to Christ does not create art horror it is the disgusting nature of the monster that does.
The Fly
How far is too far when discussing the limits of human science? Should all fields of science be explored to the greatest extent, reason be damned? A fledgling scientist played by Jeff Goldblum in “The Fly” attempts to explore the limits of human exploration. One of the greatest achievements of man, or at least one of the greatest achievements on the big screen, is one of teleportation. Imagine the benefits, the ability to travel great distances in a moment’s time. Such an accomplishment would greatly change the world, however, what would the cost be?
Seth Brundle is a scientist struggling to develop a miracle, to attain the impossible. He discovers a way to transcend time and space and teleport inanimate objects as well as living tissue. What Seth does not realize he has also discovered what a potential ramification of such an act might provide. Humans are not meant to travel in such means, the price of playing god in such a way could be enormous.
After several very successful attempts of sending small inanimate objects through his teleportation machine, Seth decides to raise the bar. He feels that it is time to send living tissue through his machine. His first attempt is done by attempting to transport a baboon from one pod to another. This experiment ends in a frightening failure. In a dramatic bang as the bloody hand of the baboon is slammed against the opaque door of the teleportation machine. When the doors swings open after Seth initiates the opening sequence a writhing, bloody carcass of the baboon foreshadows what is to come.
The failure of the first baboon only stood to drive Seth further on his quest for teleportation. He continued to refine and perfect his work until he finally was able to send a baboon through the teleportation machine successfully. With furthering ambition after fruitfully sending a live baboon through the machine, Seth feels that it is time that he once again raises the bar. He decides that it is time to send the ultimate species through the machine. He decides to send a human and the human that he settles on is himself.
Utilizing a “state of the art” computer, Seth sets the final parameters on his teleportation machine. Nervously stepping into the teleportation pod, Seth commenced to send himself across the room to the second pod. Ominously, during the sequence, the light noise of a fly buzzing about is heard through the speakers. Seth seems oblivious to this fact as he steps into the unknown.
He walks out of the second pod, almost reborn as a new man. He is whole, complete; nothing has appeared to have gone awry. Appearances aren’t always as they seem. Sadly, a common housefly had entered the pod without Seth’s knowledge. Through a process known as “fusion”, Seth had been unwittingly fused on a molecular/genetic level with the fly. This process was a slow change, resulting in the gradual degradation of Seth’s humanity as well as his sanity. Replacing Seth’s humanity was something more sinister, something more fly-like. This fly is solely devoted to the acquisition of food and procreation.
Seth transitions from something human, something rational to something simpler, more basic. What Seth has become is simply “The Fly”. At this point Seth hardly can be referred to as human or even as Seth. The fly with its basic instincts becomes something more of an evil killer. With the transformation complete the only viable solution to the problem becomes clear. The fly must be destroyed. In a dramatic sequence involving the teleportation pod and a shotgun the fly is finally killed.
The Fly has many elements that make up the “art-horror” film including the visual representation of the disgusting. The monster is clearly the scientist Seth whom turns into this awful looking creature. His flesh starts peeling and limbs transform into a fly-like being. The transformation is thoroughly disgusting. The monster is fearsome and promotes the idea of fusion, which shows the horrific biology that makes the monster up.
Seth Brundle is a scientist struggling to develop a miracle, to attain the impossible. He discovers a way to transcend time and space and teleport inanimate objects as well as living tissue. What Seth does not realize he has also discovered what a potential ramification of such an act might provide. Humans are not meant to travel in such means, the price of playing god in such a way could be enormous.
After several very successful attempts of sending small inanimate objects through his teleportation machine, Seth decides to raise the bar. He feels that it is time to send living tissue through his machine. His first attempt is done by attempting to transport a baboon from one pod to another. This experiment ends in a frightening failure. In a dramatic bang as the bloody hand of the baboon is slammed against the opaque door of the teleportation machine. When the doors swings open after Seth initiates the opening sequence a writhing, bloody carcass of the baboon foreshadows what is to come.
The failure of the first baboon only stood to drive Seth further on his quest for teleportation. He continued to refine and perfect his work until he finally was able to send a baboon through the teleportation machine successfully. With furthering ambition after fruitfully sending a live baboon through the machine, Seth feels that it is time that he once again raises the bar. He decides that it is time to send the ultimate species through the machine. He decides to send a human and the human that he settles on is himself.
Utilizing a “state of the art” computer, Seth sets the final parameters on his teleportation machine. Nervously stepping into the teleportation pod, Seth commenced to send himself across the room to the second pod. Ominously, during the sequence, the light noise of a fly buzzing about is heard through the speakers. Seth seems oblivious to this fact as he steps into the unknown.
He walks out of the second pod, almost reborn as a new man. He is whole, complete; nothing has appeared to have gone awry. Appearances aren’t always as they seem. Sadly, a common housefly had entered the pod without Seth’s knowledge. Through a process known as “fusion”, Seth had been unwittingly fused on a molecular/genetic level with the fly. This process was a slow change, resulting in the gradual degradation of Seth’s humanity as well as his sanity. Replacing Seth’s humanity was something more sinister, something more fly-like. This fly is solely devoted to the acquisition of food and procreation.
Seth transitions from something human, something rational to something simpler, more basic. What Seth has become is simply “The Fly”. At this point Seth hardly can be referred to as human or even as Seth. The fly with its basic instincts becomes something more of an evil killer. With the transformation complete the only viable solution to the problem becomes clear. The fly must be destroyed. In a dramatic sequence involving the teleportation pod and a shotgun the fly is finally killed.
The Fly has many elements that make up the “art-horror” film including the visual representation of the disgusting. The monster is clearly the scientist Seth whom turns into this awful looking creature. His flesh starts peeling and limbs transform into a fly-like being. The transformation is thoroughly disgusting. The monster is fearsome and promotes the idea of fusion, which shows the horrific biology that makes the monster up.
Drama or Suspense?
What is truly more horrifying? An actor relinquishing his career of worn-out, vintage, horror? Or a “perfect” family man turned relentless sniper.
This film (Targets) really gave the viewer the impression that the producer was attempting to create a true story for the audience and by using special sequences of events and strategic conversation between the characters, it is this “true story” that is to be horrifying. It almost seems as if the director/producer read Carroll and then decided to create a monster that would be so fuzzy around the edges that Carroll would have trouble defining the true meaning of this horror monster. Perhaps Carroll would be better at characterizing this film as more of a suspense drama than a horror film. It is true that the film horrified the viewer; however, not in the true sense of “art-horror” that has been previously discussed. The theme of the film truly taunts the viewer because one would expect this film to have been of the horror genre; however, at the local Blockbuster, it was listed under drama/suspense instead. The mass killing spree that included all innocent victims (i.e. the message of: “it could happen to you”) was truly horrifying. The director depicted several strong takes of people responding to the shooting. Characters were frightened and the scenes from the expressway and the theater were chaotic. It was heart-wrenching to see the crying child in the car next to his father who has just been senselessly shot in the neck and is clearly dead, or the innocent woman running along the expressway looking for help (her driver has just been shot) and she is then sent sprawling to the ground through a wound in her back.
It seems heinous to analyze the manner of the characters dying; however, the director was making a strong point with the method and the actual depiction of fresh corpses. It seemed that all the bodies that were killed lacked realism in a sense. From a biology major’s perspective, those that were shot did not put up a fight once shot. A bullet to the lung will collapse the lung, but if the other lung and the heart are still in one piece, the victim has a little breathing time to curse his victimizer. Any person shot in the film, literally fell straight to the ground; consequently, it can be considered that the killer was, indeed, merely a good shot; nevertheless, it was the attention drawn to the fact of what little blood was shed from vital organs. A shot to the neck/jugular would have easily spewed blood forth onto everything or at least a burn wound would be more appropriate. The director was conveying that the fact of the matter is that these people all died. They suffered for no reason and their killer was random. No scenes of people being carried away in ambulances, no scenes of any fighting him back or shooting back at him, there was nothing to give the viewer any peace to these deaths. The people, immediately after being shot, died. This is why the movie is horrible. This is why it is horrific. There are no second chances, because once the sniper fancies shooting you-that’s it.
The mis-en-shot that the director utilized of viewing things from the angle that the sniper saw things, especially through the lenses of his rifles as he was reeking havoc upon civilians, was effective. The nature of the shots allowed the viewer to see the world as the sniper did; consequently, the viewer also sees the carnage and destruction that the shooter is unsympathetic to. It makes the killer seem all the more heartless and the killings all the more senseless. Carroll’s Erotetic view of suspense/horror would be a good model for interpreting the director’s method of outcomes and imaging that forms the central plot of the story. I found myself asking questions such as: “how long till he strikes again”, “who will put a stop to all this”, and “where does the actor fit in?” the answers to these questions were subtle with regards to the micro answers, and the macro questions were summed up in the climax that was also the denouement. The actor ironically yet expectedly is the character to end the real-life horror even though he is the embodiment of horror on screen. He slaps the gunman as if the killer was a destructive, misbehaving child and the killer responds accordingly by sulking in a corner with his hands over his head.
What is the real message here? It is perhaps the re-occurring factor of life horror in comparison to make-believe horror. Through this comparison the director is drawing attention to the fact that only the truly grotesque horrifies people onscreen, yet we can watch the news everyday and not seem to fear for our daily lives. It is this separation of perspective that causes the viewer to think, how are these stories (horror films and real life happenings on the news) really different at all? They are both portrayed onscreen. They are both following the plot of a terrorizing character/monster. The news stories hit closer to home usually than a far-fetched plot of a monster in the woods of Canada; yet, we fear the monster in Canada more than the child molester in our neighborhoods. This at least seems to be the gist of the film, Targets.
This film (Targets) really gave the viewer the impression that the producer was attempting to create a true story for the audience and by using special sequences of events and strategic conversation between the characters, it is this “true story” that is to be horrifying. It almost seems as if the director/producer read Carroll and then decided to create a monster that would be so fuzzy around the edges that Carroll would have trouble defining the true meaning of this horror monster. Perhaps Carroll would be better at characterizing this film as more of a suspense drama than a horror film. It is true that the film horrified the viewer; however, not in the true sense of “art-horror” that has been previously discussed. The theme of the film truly taunts the viewer because one would expect this film to have been of the horror genre; however, at the local Blockbuster, it was listed under drama/suspense instead. The mass killing spree that included all innocent victims (i.e. the message of: “it could happen to you”) was truly horrifying. The director depicted several strong takes of people responding to the shooting. Characters were frightened and the scenes from the expressway and the theater were chaotic. It was heart-wrenching to see the crying child in the car next to his father who has just been senselessly shot in the neck and is clearly dead, or the innocent woman running along the expressway looking for help (her driver has just been shot) and she is then sent sprawling to the ground through a wound in her back.
It seems heinous to analyze the manner of the characters dying; however, the director was making a strong point with the method and the actual depiction of fresh corpses. It seemed that all the bodies that were killed lacked realism in a sense. From a biology major’s perspective, those that were shot did not put up a fight once shot. A bullet to the lung will collapse the lung, but if the other lung and the heart are still in one piece, the victim has a little breathing time to curse his victimizer. Any person shot in the film, literally fell straight to the ground; consequently, it can be considered that the killer was, indeed, merely a good shot; nevertheless, it was the attention drawn to the fact of what little blood was shed from vital organs. A shot to the neck/jugular would have easily spewed blood forth onto everything or at least a burn wound would be more appropriate. The director was conveying that the fact of the matter is that these people all died. They suffered for no reason and their killer was random. No scenes of people being carried away in ambulances, no scenes of any fighting him back or shooting back at him, there was nothing to give the viewer any peace to these deaths. The people, immediately after being shot, died. This is why the movie is horrible. This is why it is horrific. There are no second chances, because once the sniper fancies shooting you-that’s it.
The mis-en-shot that the director utilized of viewing things from the angle that the sniper saw things, especially through the lenses of his rifles as he was reeking havoc upon civilians, was effective. The nature of the shots allowed the viewer to see the world as the sniper did; consequently, the viewer also sees the carnage and destruction that the shooter is unsympathetic to. It makes the killer seem all the more heartless and the killings all the more senseless. Carroll’s Erotetic view of suspense/horror would be a good model for interpreting the director’s method of outcomes and imaging that forms the central plot of the story. I found myself asking questions such as: “how long till he strikes again”, “who will put a stop to all this”, and “where does the actor fit in?” the answers to these questions were subtle with regards to the micro answers, and the macro questions were summed up in the climax that was also the denouement. The actor ironically yet expectedly is the character to end the real-life horror even though he is the embodiment of horror on screen. He slaps the gunman as if the killer was a destructive, misbehaving child and the killer responds accordingly by sulking in a corner with his hands over his head.
What is the real message here? It is perhaps the re-occurring factor of life horror in comparison to make-believe horror. Through this comparison the director is drawing attention to the fact that only the truly grotesque horrifies people onscreen, yet we can watch the news everyday and not seem to fear for our daily lives. It is this separation of perspective that causes the viewer to think, how are these stories (horror films and real life happenings on the news) really different at all? They are both portrayed onscreen. They are both following the plot of a terrorizing character/monster. The news stories hit closer to home usually than a far-fetched plot of a monster in the woods of Canada; yet, we fear the monster in Canada more than the child molester in our neighborhoods. This at least seems to be the gist of the film, Targets.
A 'monster' that is not impossible
Does a movie really need to have a monster that is not possible according to modern science in order to be considered a work of art-horror? According to Noel Carroll, this is a requirement. The monster must also be out of place in its environment, dangerous, and impure. Surely any movie with a character such as a vampire or werewolf is horrific. However, I do not think that it necessarily needs to be a requirement.
Personally, I find movies that do not focus on an impossible monster to be more horrific and scary than those that do. Seeing a movie with a scary monster is frightening and shocks me, but later on I can explain it away by telling myself that there are no such things as zombies and ghosts and I am not so scared anymore. If I know that something I saw in a horror movie could potentially happen, I am much more scared. After watching such a movie, I am usually looking over my shoulder and avoiding walking by myself in the dark for weeks.
One example of a movie that has no supernatural monster is Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I would consider this to be a horror movie because it is extremely scary. The cannibal killer chases after five teenagers who are passing through the town with a chainsaw and kills and tortures them. Although “Leatherface,” as the serial killer is called, is a human being and could exist, I would consider him to be a monster. If we can assume that, all the other elements of horror are there and Texas Chainsaw Massacre would be classified as horror. Clearly, Leatherface is threatening and dangerous. Wielding a chainsaw, he chases after his victims who can only run for their lives. He is also disgusting because he wears a mask made out of some of his victim’s faces. The movie is full of blood and gore, which makes it even more disgusting.
Like the films Carroll classifies as horror, Texas Chainsaw Massacre aims to evoke an emotion from the audience that mirrors that of the characters. Members of the audience are supposed to feel scared and horrified as they watch the character’s reactions of immense fear and disgust.
The plot of Texas Chainsaw Massacre follows the complex discovery plot, as well. There is an onset when we learn of the ‘monster’s’ existence. The characters discover him and then try to convince the authorities and anyone they can find that the killer is chasing them. Unfortunately as each character confronts or is confronted by Leatherface, he or she is killed. One of the main elements of a horror film is its plot, according to Carroll, and this movie clearly follows a plot similar to many horror movies.
In addition to a good horror plot, Texas Chainsaw Massacre has suspense. There is always a question as to what is going to happen next. There are macro-questions, such as ‘Will the teenagers escape the killer alive?’ as well as micro-questions like ‘Will the car start when they are trying to drive away?’ With the cannibal killer chasing unarmed teenagers around with a chainsaw, it is obvious that the morally desirable outcome of the teenagers surviving is highly unlikely. Also, the morally undesirable outcome of the teenagers being killed is very likely. This follows Carroll’s formula for suspense.
A movie with a psychotic person who harms those around him can have all the same characteristics as a horror film that meets Carroll’s definition including a fearsome and disgusting ‘monster,’ an emotion of horror from the audience which is based on that of the characters, a complex discovery plot, and suspense. The only difference is that the ‘monster’ could possibly be real. At the beginning and end of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, footage is shown which is supposedly real video of police investigating the killer. The camera dramatically falls to the ground as the police officer encounters him and is killed. The audience may actually believe that this is real footage because it is entirely possible. However, after investigating its truthfulness, I found out that the footage is all just part of the movie. The movie is based on serial killer Ed Gein, who did not kill his victims with a chainsaw, but was in fact a cannibal and used human skin to make himself a mask, clothes, and furniture. Even though the footage was not real, the fact that it could be real makes it a lot scarier. That is why I think that a horror monster should not have to be impossible or supernatural, but could be a person who might actually exist.
Erin Baumgartner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)