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.