Carroll's insistence on his very specific set of conditions to achieve his particular genre of horror, in my opinion, is ignorant of the dynamic nature of what scares people. Throughout his process of eliminating films from his genre, Carroll seems to split hairs in order to eliminate movies that some people find extremely frightening. Now I know that Carroll wants to call it something different, such as dread, but I think that we can agree that when you're reading a book or watching a film that gives you a queasy feeling in your stomach, and the hairs on your neck are standing up, your first thought is not going to be, "I wonder if what I'm feeling is artistic horror or dread." You are going to think "Holy @$*%$! I'm scared!"
I do appreciate Carroll's attempt, for two reasons: there is another side of the spectrum (the one that recognizes everything under the sun as "horror" because it has a frightening scene), and secondly, coming up with a definition of horror that spans all time periods seems extremely difficult. I also think that for this second reason, his attempt to categorize "art-horror" has a lot to overcome. What was seen as horrific at the time of the Gothic novels does not seem very horrific today.
All of that said, it is early in the course, and perhaps I will reach a point at which things click and I start to agree with Carroll's assessment. As for now, I'm not scared of monsters, because I don't think they exist, and if I saw one at least I'd know what I was dealing with. I'm scared of things that I can't see.
No comments:
Post a Comment