How does Carroll define a monster? It must be something that doesn't exist according to current science, it must be disgusting, and it must be fearsome/threatening. There are contradictions it would seem, once you realize that Jaws isn't technically impossible, of if you view Jigsaw as a horrific being. Norman Bates is just a crazy guy, simply speaking. Arguably, these are horrifying things, but they don't meet the criteria Carroll establishes. Carroll retorts with an explanation about Norman being "Nor-man", existing as two Genders, embodying the the impure combination of man and woman into one being.
If we permit a looser interpretation, we can allow Norman into our litany of monsters as he exists outside of our socially accepted behavior. And that appears to be the essence of what Carroll is discussing. Monsters represent the dread-inducing manifestations that exist at the fringes, or beyond the social norm.
Thus, Carroll is attempting to establish Art-Horror as consisting of an integral element that disrupts the ordinary with an extraordinary being (multitude of ants, super-intelligent shark, demonic inchworm, whatever) that represents violation of the status quo.
From this, I argue that Will Ferrell, in his various roles, acts as a hideous monster that works to undermine the order of our society. I am not denouncing Will Ferrell as a individual; much like Bela Lugosi, he acts to epitomize an actor in his genre. Will Ferrell consistently acts as a disgusting individual and threatens society by undermining values (think sexist, childish, alcoholic, sex addict, etc.). The only specific criteria he doesn't meet is that his characters can indeed exist within the confines of contemporary science. But, much like Jaws, I believe it takes a of faith to believe anybody can be as dense and idiotic as Ron Burgandy or Chazz Michael Michaels. I don't believe Jaws really exists, and neither do I believe Chazz Michael Michaels can really exist as such a horrible person (the former is, I permit, less credible).
The point I'm getting to is that such discussions of monsters is a way to portray what we regard as least human, or most destructive, to our order. Ants that can think tactically, Elder Gods that cause us to babble nonsensically, and Will Ferrels that refuse or ignore social graces. If this is the purpose of monsters in horror, to manifest that which ought not be (instead of what can't be), then Comedies accomplish the same goal.
At the very least it allows me to present another example of how Will Ferrell may be one of the better actors of portraying that which is truly horrifying by including this possibly NSFW picture (no nudity, but heavily suggested) Taken from Semi-Pro if you'd like to know.
2 comments:
I agree that the definition of what constitutes a moster, taken a bit more loosely, must therefore permit anything which shocks the conscience collective, the the social order, anything that society hasestablished as an acceptable mode of being. This is why we find phsycopaths and sociopaths and murders committed by otherwise normal individuals so frightening (and perhaps why they can be found in the horror section of your local video store).
Furthermore, if we are to accept mosters that fit this criteria, then it makes perfect sense to apply the term to those characters in comedic works who function to do the same. It is not the nature of the character that neccessarily keeps the audience from being horrified instead of amused, but rather the combination of the incongruent personality in the setting, the reactions of other characters, the presentation of circumstances, etc. Actually, when you think about it, the plots and premises of many works of comedy could easily be twisted in such a way so as to make them into something more sinister...
This is a neat point--and I'd agree that there is a very fine line between comedy and horror. However, I think that most comedies ultimately reinforce traditional social values. They begin by turning them upside down, but at the end even the perhaps disgusting Will Ferrel has settled down into society with a wife. The order returns at the end of the movie. Whereas in a horror story, order can never truly be restored. If the horror story presents us with a monster which contradicts our beliefs about the world, even if it is destroyed,the previous social order cannot go back to normal. A monster never returns to society with a wife at the end of the movie. (Or if it did it would be a comedy).
Post a Comment