Carroll's Monster

When many people think of horror films, they think of monsters. According to Noël Carroll, author of The Philosophy of Horror, in order to be considered a horror movie, the movie must contain a monster. Although it is true that monsters can be found in genres other than horror (i.e. fairytales and science-fiction), monsters of the horror genre can be distinguished from monsters of other genres in many ways. In order to be considered a horror monster, Carroll writes that a creature must be fearsome, disgusting, and must be inconceivable by the standards of science.
A monster is considered fearsome if the characters in the movie are scared of it. In general, the responses of the audience of a horror movie are supposed to mirror the responses of the characters in the movie. If the characters in the movie are frightened of the monster, it can be shown by the character screaming, shrinking away from the monster, or trembling. If the monster in a horror movie elicits this kind of response from the characters in the movie, it can be assumed that the audience will exhibit similar responses. This type of response was shown in Nosferatu directed by Murnau. When Count Orlok arrives at his new home in Wisborg, the character of Ellen is frightened and startled upon seeing Orlok. She screams and appears to be frozen in fear. It can be assumed from the response of Ellen, that the response of the audience will be a one of similar fear.
In his book, Carroll writes that monsters in horror movies are usually threatening, unclean, physically repulsive and disgusting. While many creatures in horror movies are associated with decay, contamination, dirt, and slime, some creatures, such as Count Dracula in Tod Browing’s Dracula, although not physically repulsive, are considered disgusting because they are impure. According to Mary Douglas’s study Purity and Danger, an object is considered impure if it does not fit into cultural categorization. Count Dracula, for example, would be considered impure because he is both a human and a bat. Because Count Dracula cannot fit into one category, his impurity creates a feeling of disgust. Frankenstein, as depicted in James Whale’s version of the book by Mary Shelly, is also considered impure because he is a composition of body parts from various dead people, which makes it difficult to categorize Frankenstein into either category of “dead” or alive.” A monster in a horror film can be physically disgusting, or the actions of the monster may be considered disgusting.
In addition to being fearsome and disgusting, a monster in a horror film must also be scientifically inconceivable. In movies, this can be portrayed by creating a character such as Count Dracula or Frankenstein, or by giving creatures certain traits such as magical powers or inhuman strength. The monster Dracula is considered to be scientifically inconceivable because the existence of a vampire has not been proven. According to science, vampires do not exist, therefore a vampire is considered to be inconceivable. Similarly, no one has been able to create life from a combination of dead body parts; therefore the concept of Frankenstein being created by a human is inconceivable.
According to Carroll’s definition, however, there are many creatures in horror movies that are considered to be “monsters” by the public. An example of this would be serial killers in movies that are considered to be “horror” movies. Carroll explains this by stating that some movies considered to be horror movies by the popular audience are actually “terror” movies. He says that serial killers are not scientifically inconceivable because serial killers actually belong to the everyday world. Because the notion that a human being will kill others is not scientifically inconceivable, that is, it is not beyond the laws of science; human beings cannot be considered monsters in horror films.