It stands to reason that one would tire of the same formula over, and over, and over again... and yet when it comes to entertainment and horror, as Carroll suggests, we seem content to have it that way. The complex discovery formula that he presents and its many variations really do occur in most works of horror that I've experienced, and it's not that the audience conveniently forgets that they've seen something like this before when they're enthralled in a scary movie, either. In fact, I think it's the very fact that the audience has experienced similar formulas that they garner more enjoyment from the experience. Just as we know to expect something sinister to occur when the doorknob slowly turns and the frantic violin music begins, so do we also -whether we can say so or not- know what to expect when we go into a movie that follows a familiar formula for good horror.
What's more: I think we like it that way. People like knowing what to expect, we like being able to predict the sequence of events. Though many will contest that they tire of those mediocre and very predictable films, movies and dramatizations, we all will pay to see a new and intriguing movie or read the new book that meshes original premises with those ever-occurring formulas. I think of it in the same way that people love to hear and tell the same stories over and over again. We, perhaps unconsciously, like knowing what might happen next. And it's not that we don't like being surprised, because there's plenty of room for surprise in a "formulaic" work, but we like getting the satisfying experience that these reoccurring patterns present. Much the same way that a good story will follow the pattern of exposition, rising conflict, climax, resolution and denouement, so does horror depend on a certain structure to satisfy the audience.
As mentioned above, no matter how much we like having a familiar course of events, the creators of a work of horror do still need to do some work to keep our interest. Even if we're sure of how a work will end, there's intrigue to be found in the many ways one might come to the conclusion. So perhaps it's accurate to say that the presence of any of the various formulae introduced by Carroll isn't indicative of a good work of horror, but rather these formulae are common characteristics among effective works of horror.
2 comments:
This kind of work occurs in every genre - when soft white light obscures the borders during a romantic comedy we know that the big kiss is coming, or what have you. How many romantic comedies are produced each decade? These are simply variations on a theme. Knowing the theme, the ultimate message, is what's satisfying to the audience. The variation must not impede that formula, as you suggest, lest it distance itself away from the audience.
"Avatar" by this reason is a great example of this: it has a guy believe that his society is the force of good in the world, the submergence into a foreign culture, the revelation of understanding his worldview may actually be exploitative of this foreign culture, he then switches sides and then saves the day because the foreign culture can't stand up for themselves against this Europea-I mean, Earth force.
This is also the plot of Pocahontas and (arguably) the video game Morrowind.
I for one enjoy horrible films because one can always expect them to ruin the medium somehow, it's exciting to find new and innovative ways to observe just how terrible something is.
Consider this...
Perhaps the reason Carroll's theory for art-horror requires a monster is because nothing else in the plot can change. It must have the structure to be horror, and it must have a monster. Thus, the monster seems to be the most flexible variable.
Personally, I find the most horrifying and suspenseful stories to be the ones that have the most plot twists. A disturbance in what the human mind is accustomed to perhaps is what Carroll refers to breifly as art-dread.
Post a Comment