Night of the Demon is a film that would fit in the horror genre as described by Carroll. According to Carroll the components necessary for a work to fit in the horror genre are that the work must consist of monster that is disgusting, invokes fear and is impossible to exist according to scientific laws. The demon in this film has all of these components. Had the monster not been the demon and simply Karswell, Night of the Demon would not fit into the horror genre so clearly as Karswell is not disgusting and does exist by scientific means. He may inspire fear, but Karswell himself does not have any powers alone, it appears that it is the runes and spells he gets from books that give him this power. So Karwell alone is not a monster.
This film does deliver the emotional effect necessary for the film to be a member of the horror genre by Carrolls definition. However, according to Carroll the emotions of the audience should mirror those of the main positive characters in the work. As we spend part of the film wondering what is causing the demon to exist, our emotions mirror Holdens in that respect and we are fearful. However, as the demon was revealed to us early on, we are not skeptical to its existence as Carroll would have preferred us to be for this film to truly be art horror.
I believe that Night of the Demon could in some aspects be considered an overreacher plot in that Karswell is, although not much of a scientist, but in search of knowledge of the occult that makes him an evil figure. His study of witchcraft led to the creation of the demon and the unleashing of the magic runes. It is also an exaomple of a complex discovery plot. There is a first onset of horrific events with the death of Harrington in which we are led to wonder where the monster came from and what exactly it is. Next, there is a discovery of the cause of Harringtons's death which comes with Eve's production of Harrington's diary. As Holden researches the diary he comes to the discovery of the magic runes and what they cause so they discover the monster. When Karswell is confronted and Holden passes the magic runes that doom him to Karswell, the final stage of the complex discovery plot is completed. According to Carroll, the main difference between the Complex Discovery Plot and the Overreacher plot is that the complex discovery plot has a central theme that denying the unknown will lead to horrible things. As Holden' constant denial of the demon almost leads to his death, it is clear that Night of the Demon is more of an example of a Complex Discovery Plot.
The most suspenseful scene in the film is the scene where the hand is descending the staircase. This is the most fearful to us because we fear the unknown. We do not know whose hand this is or if it is even human. When the door is closed, we are led to believe that whatever the being was that that hand belonged to is now in the room with Holden and Holden is trapped. We are left in suspense wondering when the being will attack Holden yet it never does. This use of the unknown to cause suspense fits Carroll's schema for understanding suspense.
The moral that this story poses is not to get in over your head. When Karswell talks to his mother he asks her where she thinks all the good things that they have came from and tells her that it can all be taken away quickly. This implies that Karwell's greed and desire for power has driven him to continue the study of the occult even after he felt he should stop. Karswell knows what he is doing is wrong but he doesn't know how to stop and he doesn't want to lose everything that he has. This shows that he is clearly in over his head with the witchcraft and it is ultimately his downfall.
The use of showing Karswell's interest in children is done by Tourneur to create more sympathy for Karswell. The film is far more horrific when the antagonist is sympathetic. Karswell does not seem to be a particularly malevolent character. At many points, he seems to be a man who is merely over his head, being controlled by the forces that he is working with. Tourneur's direction of this character adds to the horror.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Night of the Demon
Night of the Demon, a film directed by the noted Jacques Tourneur and based on Casting the Runes by Montague R. James, is undoubtedly a horror film by Noel Carroll's definition. While I sometimes tend to disagree with Carroll's beliefs, I also feel that Night of the Demon fits into the typified horror genre. The presence of a monster (arguably several), the story's complex discovery plot, the numerous suspenseful scenes, and the cinematic techniques employed by Tourneur all aid in the successful creation of a truly 'horrifying' film.
The first issue at hand is that of the existence of a monster. According to Carroll, a true monster must be both threatening and impure, meaning that it cannot scientifically or logically exist in our world. While there is no doubt that there is indeed a monster in the film, pinpointing said monster is a difficult task. In the very first scene we are introduced to a paranoid individual named Harrington who appears certain of his impending doom. Within minutes Harrington is attacked and killed by an enormous, roaring demon. At a first glance, it would appear that the demon is the monster within the film; after all, it certainly is physically and psychologically threatening and in no way can scientifically exist. As the plot develops, however, we are introduced to Karswell, the mastermind who conjured the demon and uses magic to curse those who anger or threaten him in some way. Because he is threatening, it would make sense to argue that he is, in fact, the monster. Carroll might argue that, because Karswell is a human being, he is not technically a monster. However, can a man who is essentially a witch and possesses numerous magical powers logically exist? Assuming that the answer is no, I would argue that Karswell is the true monster in the film.
The existence of multiple "monsters" creates the feelings of art-horror that Carroll emphasizes throughout his text. Whether you consider the monster to be the demon, Karswell, or even perhaps the magical runes that begin the curses and ultimately lead to Karswell's victims' untimely ends, it is undeniable that these cleverly crafted characters and devices generate a true sense of horror. While the demons are portrayed in a rather obvious fashion and don't inspire much in the way of dread or suspense, they are still terrifying in their own right and were designed in order to scare viewers (no matter how ridiculous they might appear to modern audiences). Karswell and his runes, however, truly inspire feelings of dread and suspense. For example, the scene in which Karswell conjures the windstorm and first makes his powers known let's the audience know that something magical is at hand, and that Karswell's threats to Holden have not been empty-handed. The scene in which the runes begin to move on their own accord and attempt to fly into the fire is also suspenseful and defies all logic, thus furthering the audience's sense of dread.
While it could be argued that more than one type of plot is applicable to Night of the Demon, I feel that the most logical option is the complex discovery plot. From the onset, we witness a horrifying and inexplicable event: the arrival of the demon that kills Harrington. For quite a long time, we remain in the dark as to why this demon appears; finally, however, we discover that Karswell conjured the demon in order to kill Harrington and plans to do the same to Holden. A little over midway through the plot, the discovery of Karswell's malice and magical powers is confirmed when the runes given to Holden seem to come alive. Another confirmation point occurs when Holden speaks to the psychologically insane brother of a man who had been killed by Karswell and realizes that he will soon die in the same terrible manner. Confrontation occurs in the final scene when Holden finally tricks Karswell into taking back his runic symbols, thus reversing the curse and causing Karswell to be demolished by the demon.
Perhaps the most suspenseful scene in the film is the one in which Holden breaks into Karswell's mansion in an attempt to acquire information about the curse. When he arrives, however, he finds the "deserted" house to be much creepier than he had imagined. While Holden travels down the staircase, Tourneur made the decision to have a severed and very dead looking hand appear on the staircase in two separate instances. While the appearance of the hand is a very simple concept and took much less work to create than the giant demon, it is perhaps the most horrifying aspect of the entire film. As we watch our protagonist travel down the stairs, we are immersed in a sense of dread as we wonder to whom the hand belongs. Is it Karswell, waiting to finish off before the curse is complete? Or is it some other malicious being that Karswell has conjured and left in his house? The fact that the hand goes unnoticed to Holden is also especially suspenseful; it gives the audience the sense that they are the only ones who have access to a horrifying secret. Tourneur also applied various other techniques--such as the massive windstorm and panther attack--that accurately conveyed a feeling or horror throughout the duration of the plot.
Perhaps the one true theme identified in Night of the Demon is the conflict between knowledge and ignorance. In many ways, it is better for one to turn a blind eye when it comes to horrific events. Eve Harrington, for example, would have been better off not knowing the gruesome details of her uncle's death. Even Holden, for a time, chooses to ignore the warnings he receives and goes so far as to tell Eve that he has always been a man who pays no attention to superstition. There comes a time, however, when one simply cannot ignore facts any longer. For Holden, this moment comes when the runes first fly out of his briefcase and display the fact that they have "a life of their own." Holden, in fact, would have suffered the same fate as Harrington if he had not eventually chosen knowledge over ignorance in his quest to thwart Karswell's curse. The theme of knowledge versus ignorance is solidified in the very last line of the film, spoken after Holden and Eve make the decision not to view Karswell's broken body.
The first issue at hand is that of the existence of a monster. According to Carroll, a true monster must be both threatening and impure, meaning that it cannot scientifically or logically exist in our world. While there is no doubt that there is indeed a monster in the film, pinpointing said monster is a difficult task. In the very first scene we are introduced to a paranoid individual named Harrington who appears certain of his impending doom. Within minutes Harrington is attacked and killed by an enormous, roaring demon. At a first glance, it would appear that the demon is the monster within the film; after all, it certainly is physically and psychologically threatening and in no way can scientifically exist. As the plot develops, however, we are introduced to Karswell, the mastermind who conjured the demon and uses magic to curse those who anger or threaten him in some way. Because he is threatening, it would make sense to argue that he is, in fact, the monster. Carroll might argue that, because Karswell is a human being, he is not technically a monster. However, can a man who is essentially a witch and possesses numerous magical powers logically exist? Assuming that the answer is no, I would argue that Karswell is the true monster in the film.
The existence of multiple "monsters" creates the feelings of art-horror that Carroll emphasizes throughout his text. Whether you consider the monster to be the demon, Karswell, or even perhaps the magical runes that begin the curses and ultimately lead to Karswell's victims' untimely ends, it is undeniable that these cleverly crafted characters and devices generate a true sense of horror. While the demons are portrayed in a rather obvious fashion and don't inspire much in the way of dread or suspense, they are still terrifying in their own right and were designed in order to scare viewers (no matter how ridiculous they might appear to modern audiences). Karswell and his runes, however, truly inspire feelings of dread and suspense. For example, the scene in which Karswell conjures the windstorm and first makes his powers known let's the audience know that something magical is at hand, and that Karswell's threats to Holden have not been empty-handed. The scene in which the runes begin to move on their own accord and attempt to fly into the fire is also suspenseful and defies all logic, thus furthering the audience's sense of dread.
While it could be argued that more than one type of plot is applicable to Night of the Demon, I feel that the most logical option is the complex discovery plot. From the onset, we witness a horrifying and inexplicable event: the arrival of the demon that kills Harrington. For quite a long time, we remain in the dark as to why this demon appears; finally, however, we discover that Karswell conjured the demon in order to kill Harrington and plans to do the same to Holden. A little over midway through the plot, the discovery of Karswell's malice and magical powers is confirmed when the runes given to Holden seem to come alive. Another confirmation point occurs when Holden speaks to the psychologically insane brother of a man who had been killed by Karswell and realizes that he will soon die in the same terrible manner. Confrontation occurs in the final scene when Holden finally tricks Karswell into taking back his runic symbols, thus reversing the curse and causing Karswell to be demolished by the demon.
Perhaps the most suspenseful scene in the film is the one in which Holden breaks into Karswell's mansion in an attempt to acquire information about the curse. When he arrives, however, he finds the "deserted" house to be much creepier than he had imagined. While Holden travels down the staircase, Tourneur made the decision to have a severed and very dead looking hand appear on the staircase in two separate instances. While the appearance of the hand is a very simple concept and took much less work to create than the giant demon, it is perhaps the most horrifying aspect of the entire film. As we watch our protagonist travel down the stairs, we are immersed in a sense of dread as we wonder to whom the hand belongs. Is it Karswell, waiting to finish off before the curse is complete? Or is it some other malicious being that Karswell has conjured and left in his house? The fact that the hand goes unnoticed to Holden is also especially suspenseful; it gives the audience the sense that they are the only ones who have access to a horrifying secret. Tourneur also applied various other techniques--such as the massive windstorm and panther attack--that accurately conveyed a feeling or horror throughout the duration of the plot.
Perhaps the one true theme identified in Night of the Demon is the conflict between knowledge and ignorance. In many ways, it is better for one to turn a blind eye when it comes to horrific events. Eve Harrington, for example, would have been better off not knowing the gruesome details of her uncle's death. Even Holden, for a time, chooses to ignore the warnings he receives and goes so far as to tell Eve that he has always been a man who pays no attention to superstition. There comes a time, however, when one simply cannot ignore facts any longer. For Holden, this moment comes when the runes first fly out of his briefcase and display the fact that they have "a life of their own." Holden, in fact, would have suffered the same fate as Harrington if he had not eventually chosen knowledge over ignorance in his quest to thwart Karswell's curse. The theme of knowledge versus ignorance is solidified in the very last line of the film, spoken after Holden and Eve make the decision not to view Karswell's broken body.
Holden: "You were right. Maybe it's better not to know."
Night of the Demon.
This film seems to capture Carroll's idea of what a horror is by way of what a monster is. This movie could have two possible monsters: The demon itself and Karswell. The demon is an obvious example of Carroll's definition of a monster. It is both disgusting in the fact that it is ugly, big and gross and it is frightening because it shreds its victims into pieces like a wild animal. Karswell also captures the spirit of Carroll's monsters. Karswell is frightening. He delivers scary messages, he allows death to come to those around him and he dabbles in the dark arts. He is also disgusting in the sense that he is so into the dark arts. It is completely unnatural for a man to be able to control the weather. This makes him disgusting. I think that this is a horror, yes. There was a great sense of fear and suspense while watching the film. I found Karswell particularly terrifying in the ways that he manipulated those around him all while seeming to have good intentions.
The film certainly evoked an emotional affect in me. It creates a great deal of suspense which keeps the watcher entertained as well as fearful. Additionally, the demon itself creates a sense of dread and foreboding in the watcher.
The story tends to follow the complex discovery plot that Carroll outlines in his book. The four elements of the complex discovery plot are 1. onset of a horrific event, 2. discovery of its cause, 3. confirmation of its cause and 4. final confrontation. Night of the Demon has all four of these. The first is played out in the death of Professor Harrington, the second is the largest part of the movie where all the dealings of Karswell and the parchment come into play, and the third and fourth coincide with Karswell being slaughtered by the demon.
The most suspenseful scene had to be when Karswell and Holden where on the train together with Joanna at the end of the movie. It made sense for something terrible to happen and the watchers is just waiting for it. Carroll says that to create horror, the moral must be improbable and the immoral must be probable. That's exactly what this moment captured. The immoral, Holden passing his parchment on to someone else to save his life, is exactly what happened. The scene was tense as there were only a few minutes left on the clock before someone had to die.
I feel like I am overreaching slightly by trying to tag a moral onto this story. I don't sense anything social or political trying to be said for the film, but I could come up with a moral. The moral that can be drawn from the movie is not to mess with something you can't fully understand. This is played out by both Karswell and Holden. Karswell delves deeply into the black arts and it comes back to bite him in the end. Holden is not exempt from this moral just because he doesn't play with magic. Holden messes around with hypnosis and allows a patient of his to be drugged by means he obviously cannot understand fully and this ends with the man's death.
Tourneur most notably, for me anyways, uses music to heighten the horror in the film. He uses cliche horror music, but it is still quite effective in scaring an audience or increases the feeling of suspense. He also uses smaller, less noticeable things to create horror. The way the flames barely lick the parchment as it throws itself against the grate created a great deal of suspense, the way he showed the demon as little as possible made it all the scarier, and, finally the way he created Karswell is the scariest of all. Karswell was this man who looked well intentioned. He played with children and puppies, but deep down he was a dark and terrifying man. The way Tourneur directed the actor on how to play the character added a great deal of horror to the film.
The film certainly evoked an emotional affect in me. It creates a great deal of suspense which keeps the watcher entertained as well as fearful. Additionally, the demon itself creates a sense of dread and foreboding in the watcher.
The story tends to follow the complex discovery plot that Carroll outlines in his book. The four elements of the complex discovery plot are 1. onset of a horrific event, 2. discovery of its cause, 3. confirmation of its cause and 4. final confrontation. Night of the Demon has all four of these. The first is played out in the death of Professor Harrington, the second is the largest part of the movie where all the dealings of Karswell and the parchment come into play, and the third and fourth coincide with Karswell being slaughtered by the demon.
The most suspenseful scene had to be when Karswell and Holden where on the train together with Joanna at the end of the movie. It made sense for something terrible to happen and the watchers is just waiting for it. Carroll says that to create horror, the moral must be improbable and the immoral must be probable. That's exactly what this moment captured. The immoral, Holden passing his parchment on to someone else to save his life, is exactly what happened. The scene was tense as there were only a few minutes left on the clock before someone had to die.
I feel like I am overreaching slightly by trying to tag a moral onto this story. I don't sense anything social or political trying to be said for the film, but I could come up with a moral. The moral that can be drawn from the movie is not to mess with something you can't fully understand. This is played out by both Karswell and Holden. Karswell delves deeply into the black arts and it comes back to bite him in the end. Holden is not exempt from this moral just because he doesn't play with magic. Holden messes around with hypnosis and allows a patient of his to be drugged by means he obviously cannot understand fully and this ends with the man's death.
Tourneur most notably, for me anyways, uses music to heighten the horror in the film. He uses cliche horror music, but it is still quite effective in scaring an audience or increases the feeling of suspense. He also uses smaller, less noticeable things to create horror. The way the flames barely lick the parchment as it throws itself against the grate created a great deal of suspense, the way he showed the demon as little as possible made it all the scarier, and, finally the way he created Karswell is the scariest of all. Karswell was this man who looked well intentioned. He played with children and puppies, but deep down he was a dark and terrifying man. The way Tourneur directed the actor on how to play the character added a great deal of horror to the film.
Blog 4: Night of the Demon
I believe the film Night of the Demon is a horror by Carroll's definition. It has two possible monsters, the demon itself and Karswell. The demon is definitely fearsome, disgusting, and impossible according to our accepted scientific beliefs which are all important characteristics of monsters according to Carroll. Defining Karswell as a monster is a little more tricky though. Karswell has his moments of seeming to be a friendly man that just wishes to be left alone, but his connection to black magic in his studies and what seems to be his ability to use black magic to create a wind storm and the charm he placed on his cat to turn into a panther is unnatural and goes against what is held to be scientifically true.
I believe the movie does a good job of creating the emotional effect of Carroll's art horror. Several times throughout the film I felt dread or disgust toward either Karswell or the demon. The scene where the hypnotized man freaks out and jumps out of the window to commit suicide rid him self of just the thought of seeing the demon again was particularly disturbing and frightening.
The plot of the film seems to best fit the complex discovery model. It starts with Holden's arrival to the curious death of his colleague. The movie then spends the majority of his time with the back and forth denial and then belief of Holden in black magic. I think the movie did an excellent job of making a gradual shift of Holden's original self righteous complete denial of black magic to Holden slowly being less and less able to explain the happenings in the world around him. This peaks when Holden actively tries to pass the runes to Karswell because he believes he may be in real danger. The discovery is completed when Karswell is killed by the demon, even though Holden is not 100% sure it was the demon and not the train.
The most suspenseful scene for me was when Holden was sneaking around Karswell's house and a monster like hand kept popping up. This was scary and suspenseful for many reasons. The first was that it was the hand of a unknown being. It was too large and unnatural looking to be Karswell's and far to small to be the demon we see in other parts of the fill. The entire time Holden was in the study, particularly after the doors mysteriously closed, I was waiting for this new monster to show itself, but nothing ever became of it. The complete uncertainty was what made it so suspenseful.
I believe one major theme of the movie was the danger of being closed minded. Holden is a man of science but a little too arrogant about his beliefs. He continually writes off events as coincidence or trickery. Some are justified but other are truly unexplainable by Holden's scientific logic. In the end Holden's arrogance nearly gets him killed, as he decides to take a chance belief in the black magic and pass the runes onto Karswell.
I think Tourner did an excellent job of showing as little as possible to keep the audience guess at different events. If he had been able to no show the monster as he planned I think the film would have been much more scary. Still the hand on the railing, cat turning into a panther, sudden wind storm, and fog in the forest gave the audience plenty to guess at as far is the real presence of black magic or an elaborate hoax. The film had an excellent soundtrack that built strong suspense and made me jump on more than one occasion.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Night of the Demon and Horror
Looking at Night of the Demon, I think it’s worth looking to see if it is in fact horror, and if so what kind of horror it is. Actually, dumb question, it’s definitely horror—the big demon is pretty repulsive, and is definitely pretty dangerous, even if it moves so slowly that pretty much the only way it can possibly hurt you is if you happen to be lying on your back without moving.
But I think it’s pretty clear that the demon isn’t a free agent here—it is being controlled by Karswell. Presumably, the demon is hanging out in the netherworld, doing whatever it is that demons do, when it gets a message saying “kill the guy with the parchment at such and such a date.” We don’t know how he feels about this. Maybe he’s morally opposed, but just can’t help it. His primary interest might be stamp collecting. Anyway, minus Karswell, the demon wouldn’t have shown up, so Karswell is definitely the antagonist. And usually, the antagonist is a horror movie is a monster.
I don’t think Karswell qualifies. Monsters have to be dangerous. Okay, he’s dangerous. He kills people, even if not in the most intimidating way possible. But he’s not really repulsive at all. He does repulsive things, sure, but then who doesn’t? He personally is kind of a nice guy. He takes puppies out of hats for little kids. He gives them ice cream. He’s nice to his mom. He’s not a monster.
What if Tournuer’s vision for the film had won out, and the monster hadn’t been shown? (If you missed it in the packet, Tournuer didn’t want to show the demon, just have it implied, but apparently the guy in the charge of the studio reminded him it was called Night of the Demon for a reason). Then all we would have gotten is a mist approaching towards the characters killed by the demon. It would have been pretty much like the scene in the woods, where Dana Andrews’ character is being chased by the fog monster.
This presents two problems for declaring the film horror. First, the fog can’t be described as threatening. I don’t think that something as nebulous as fog is threatening—for all we known, it’s some weird sort of metrological event. (The weather in England is reputed to be pretty strange). Or, it could be just in the minds of the hysterical victims. (I guess the monster could be too, but it just seems more concrete than the fog would have been).
Also, fog isn’t disgusting. It just isn’t. In my experience, I have never seen a fog and been like, “get it away from me.” So had Tournuer’s vision won out (and I wish it had, because the movie is plenty creepy enough without the monster being shown, and it takes away from the air of mystery. Plus it looks stupid), would it still be a horror movie?
It is filmed like a horror movie—creepy atmosphere, weird characters, except. But can there be a horror movie minus a monster? Carroll suggests no, and that according to Carroll’s definition Night of the Demon: The Director’s Cut (nonexistent as of yet) would be more accurately defined as terror, not horror.
But I think it’s pretty clear that the demon isn’t a free agent here—it is being controlled by Karswell. Presumably, the demon is hanging out in the netherworld, doing whatever it is that demons do, when it gets a message saying “kill the guy with the parchment at such and such a date.” We don’t know how he feels about this. Maybe he’s morally opposed, but just can’t help it. His primary interest might be stamp collecting. Anyway, minus Karswell, the demon wouldn’t have shown up, so Karswell is definitely the antagonist. And usually, the antagonist is a horror movie is a monster.
I don’t think Karswell qualifies. Monsters have to be dangerous. Okay, he’s dangerous. He kills people, even if not in the most intimidating way possible. But he’s not really repulsive at all. He does repulsive things, sure, but then who doesn’t? He personally is kind of a nice guy. He takes puppies out of hats for little kids. He gives them ice cream. He’s nice to his mom. He’s not a monster.
What if Tournuer’s vision for the film had won out, and the monster hadn’t been shown? (If you missed it in the packet, Tournuer didn’t want to show the demon, just have it implied, but apparently the guy in the charge of the studio reminded him it was called Night of the Demon for a reason). Then all we would have gotten is a mist approaching towards the characters killed by the demon. It would have been pretty much like the scene in the woods, where Dana Andrews’ character is being chased by the fog monster.
This presents two problems for declaring the film horror. First, the fog can’t be described as threatening. I don’t think that something as nebulous as fog is threatening—for all we known, it’s some weird sort of metrological event. (The weather in England is reputed to be pretty strange). Or, it could be just in the minds of the hysterical victims. (I guess the monster could be too, but it just seems more concrete than the fog would have been).
Also, fog isn’t disgusting. It just isn’t. In my experience, I have never seen a fog and been like, “get it away from me.” So had Tournuer’s vision won out (and I wish it had, because the movie is plenty creepy enough without the monster being shown, and it takes away from the air of mystery. Plus it looks stupid), would it still be a horror movie?
It is filmed like a horror movie—creepy atmosphere, weird characters, except. But can there be a horror movie minus a monster? Carroll suggests no, and that according to Carroll’s definition Night of the Demon: The Director’s Cut (nonexistent as of yet) would be more accurately defined as terror, not horror.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Casting The Runes For Night of the Demon
The Night of the Demon, loosely based on Casting the Runes, would be considered a horror film per Noel Carroll. It contains monster which by scientific definition should not exist and is impure in its being. Defining what exactly the ‘monster’ is could be a much more difficult task though. If one takes the approach that Dr. Karswell is the monster, then it could be difficult to prove that he goes against science. His beliefs certainly do, which is a focal point of the film. Yet, one could argue that he does go against science because of this. He supposedly conjures up a windstorm on demand, among other naturally impossible events.
On the other hand, one could argue that the paper with the runic symbols is the ‘monster’. With this stance, a paper which controls death certainly goes against nature and science. Yet it seems that the film inflicts more suspense and dread rather than horror. He fantastic and the unknown certainly are at work within the storyline.
Overall, the plot line fits into the family of ‘complex discovery’ plots. The onset includes the death of friend and colleague, Dr. Harrington. The onset though lasts for the majority of the film, until the discovery of the runics in Holden’s own briefcase. Then confirmation is had during a confrontation between Karswell and Holden. Finally, confrontation with death itself comes when the demon kills Karswell in a twist of fate.
Yet this could also be classified as an overreacher plot because of the science versus magic aspect of the story. In the end, the audience is still wondering what this black magic is, and the final scene of the film also speaks to this as Holden walks away and says it may be better to not know.
The most suspenseful scene, in my opinion, was the one in which Holden broke into Karswell’s house and was looking for the book about witches and magic. The part in the library was the peak of that suspense. It is the moral outcome of Holden finding and taking the book versus the evil outcome of Karswell discovering him in the library. The audience is led to believe that Karswell is not home though and the moral outcome is likely, and yet, Holden is caught in the act.
The moral theme of the film seems to surround curiosity and karma. They say that curiosity killed the cat, and it certainly seems that is killed Harrington. Yet, karma, in the end, took out Karswell and left Holden to live. The age old saying ‘What goes around comes around’ seems to ring true within the storyline and sways audiences to not only keep to themselves but also watch the karma they are setting forth.
Overall, Tourneur’s use of shadow and sound is phenomenonal and adds to the horror and suspense of the film. Although the imagery is powerful, it is better due to the sinister soundtrack. Although I think the idea of the demon would be more effective if the demon were not shown, I understand that it was not his desire to fabricate the demon as an image. It is intresting when compared to today's high-tech film and animation devices. Although compared to today's films, the demon is cheesy, for its time when it was made, the representation was probably top of the line. It is a good (loose) representation of the story 'Casting the Runes' and fulfills the requirements for both Carroll's horror and Lovecraft's cosmic fear.
On the other hand, one could argue that the paper with the runic symbols is the ‘monster’. With this stance, a paper which controls death certainly goes against nature and science. Yet it seems that the film inflicts more suspense and dread rather than horror. He fantastic and the unknown certainly are at work within the storyline.
Overall, the plot line fits into the family of ‘complex discovery’ plots. The onset includes the death of friend and colleague, Dr. Harrington. The onset though lasts for the majority of the film, until the discovery of the runics in Holden’s own briefcase. Then confirmation is had during a confrontation between Karswell and Holden. Finally, confrontation with death itself comes when the demon kills Karswell in a twist of fate.
Yet this could also be classified as an overreacher plot because of the science versus magic aspect of the story. In the end, the audience is still wondering what this black magic is, and the final scene of the film also speaks to this as Holden walks away and says it may be better to not know.
The most suspenseful scene, in my opinion, was the one in which Holden broke into Karswell’s house and was looking for the book about witches and magic. The part in the library was the peak of that suspense. It is the moral outcome of Holden finding and taking the book versus the evil outcome of Karswell discovering him in the library. The audience is led to believe that Karswell is not home though and the moral outcome is likely, and yet, Holden is caught in the act.
The moral theme of the film seems to surround curiosity and karma. They say that curiosity killed the cat, and it certainly seems that is killed Harrington. Yet, karma, in the end, took out Karswell and left Holden to live. The age old saying ‘What goes around comes around’ seems to ring true within the storyline and sways audiences to not only keep to themselves but also watch the karma they are setting forth.
Overall, Tourneur’s use of shadow and sound is phenomenonal and adds to the horror and suspense of the film. Although the imagery is powerful, it is better due to the sinister soundtrack. Although I think the idea of the demon would be more effective if the demon were not shown, I understand that it was not his desire to fabricate the demon as an image. It is intresting when compared to today's high-tech film and animation devices. Although compared to today's films, the demon is cheesy, for its time when it was made, the representation was probably top of the line. It is a good (loose) representation of the story 'Casting the Runes' and fulfills the requirements for both Carroll's horror and Lovecraft's cosmic fear.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Crossing the Magnification Line
Tonight is a full moon, the perfect night to discuss the magnification line. Wait, what? You mean werewolves ri*chomp*. What is the magnification line? It is a peculiar recurring theme, or trope, that I have noticed in several horror and fantasy works. The idea runs thus: in general, magnifying a creature makes it more terrifying; however, once you cross the magnification line, the creature is actually scarier in a smaller larger-than-normal form than in a bigger one. This is due, I think, to several erroneous ideas we have: 1)big things are slow; 2)big things are stupid; 3)really big things are too big to think about any one thing personally, they could think about destroying mankind, but not destroying a man. Good illustrations of this idea can be found by looking at the monsters in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Jurassic Park, and Godzilla.
In Chamber of Secret for example, who is more terrifying: Aragog, the big lumbering spider patriarch the size of a car, or his wolf-sized children that move with unnerving speed?
Aragog seems to slow to chase use effectively (though a large spider would be very fast) whereas his wolf-sized spawn seem as though they could even act as a wolf pack and chase us down swiftly before swarming over us (the fact that they do do this in the movie enhances the terror of it all). Thus the less magnified of the two seems scarier.
The next comparison involves multiple factors. Why are the raptors in Jurassic Park scarier than Godzilla, when Godzilla is the more magnified of the two reptiles? First, I think it is because they are agile and fast, whereas Godzilla lumbers about. Second, they are shown to be far more intelligent. Godzilla doesn't plan, he burninates stuff and stomps around. The raptors are far more clever, and can't be simply outrun as Godzilla hypothetically could be. This lack of great intelligence in the larger monster is not unique to Godzilla; the Beast from 20,000 Fathoms shares it, as well. The large monster gives off the impression that it can be outsmarted, whereas the smaller ones give a sense of cunning. I am once again tempted to compare the smaller monsters to a wolf pack, and perhaps it is magnification to wolf size and massification to pack size that is the most terrifying combination. The smaller monsters are also more terrifying because they seem to be specifically targeting the protagonists (and by extension, the audience). Aragog does not take place in the pursuit of Harry and Ron by his children, he merely allows it because they are "food". Godzilla doesn't have it out for innocent bystander #22 or hapless building #5, they just happen to be between him and King Ghidora. In contrast, the smaller spiders and velociraptors are specifically targeting the protagonists for a grisly meal, and have the speed and intelligence to possibly outwit our heroes. Thus, when attempting to design a scary monster, bigger is not always better. Make it too big, and we may assume that, like Godzilla, it is an impersonal force of nature, and rather slow. However, make it in the size range of a wolf to a tiger, and we may attribute to it the intelligence, speed, and predatory nature of those beasts.
So, am I just rambling about the way I see things, or can others corroborate my hypothesis? The floor is yours.
In Chamber of Secret for example, who is more terrifying: Aragog, the big lumbering spider patriarch the size of a car, or his wolf-sized children that move with unnerving speed?
Aragog seems to slow to chase use effectively (though a large spider would be very fast) whereas his wolf-sized spawn seem as though they could even act as a wolf pack and chase us down swiftly before swarming over us (the fact that they do do this in the movie enhances the terror of it all). Thus the less magnified of the two seems scarier.
The next comparison involves multiple factors. Why are the raptors in Jurassic Park scarier than Godzilla, when Godzilla is the more magnified of the two reptiles? First, I think it is because they are agile and fast, whereas Godzilla lumbers about. Second, they are shown to be far more intelligent. Godzilla doesn't plan, he burninates stuff and stomps around. The raptors are far more clever, and can't be simply outrun as Godzilla hypothetically could be. This lack of great intelligence in the larger monster is not unique to Godzilla; the Beast from 20,000 Fathoms shares it, as well. The large monster gives off the impression that it can be outsmarted, whereas the smaller ones give a sense of cunning. I am once again tempted to compare the smaller monsters to a wolf pack, and perhaps it is magnification to wolf size and massification to pack size that is the most terrifying combination. The smaller monsters are also more terrifying because they seem to be specifically targeting the protagonists (and by extension, the audience). Aragog does not take place in the pursuit of Harry and Ron by his children, he merely allows it because they are "food". Godzilla doesn't have it out for innocent bystander #22 or hapless building #5, they just happen to be between him and King Ghidora. In contrast, the smaller spiders and velociraptors are specifically targeting the protagonists for a grisly meal, and have the speed and intelligence to possibly outwit our heroes. Thus, when attempting to design a scary monster, bigger is not always better. Make it too big, and we may assume that, like Godzilla, it is an impersonal force of nature, and rather slow. However, make it in the size range of a wolf to a tiger, and we may attribute to it the intelligence, speed, and predatory nature of those beasts.
So, am I just rambling about the way I see things, or can others corroborate my hypothesis? The floor is yours.
Some Thoughts on Night of the Demon
I too thought that the scariest scene in the Night of the Demon was the scene with the hand on the railing. What made the scene so scary was that the hand was disembodied. Whenever a body part is typically shown in a movie, you always are later shown the person it belongs too, but in Night of the Demon you are left with a very eerie feeling when you never are shown who this hand belongs to. That scene left me completely uneasy and then this sense of dread was immediately diminished with that terrible cat scene. I had a surmounting feeling of “art-horror” and then this feeling was completely robbed from me when Holden was “fighting” the ridiculous panther. I completely agreed with Tourneur that Chester had cheapened the movie by adding in poorly done monster scenes.
The beginning and ending of the movie I would have preferred just the Tourneur way of doing things without the intrusive input of Chester. I liked the opening scene of the long winding road on a dark empty night full of shadows, but then when the demon comes it completely takes away the sense of fear because all sense of mystery is lost. If Tourneur would have done some shadows in the beginning and then a touch of ambiguity, the scene could set the viewer up for a sense of mystery as to exactly how Harrington died that night. Ambiguity would have been a good inclusion, especially in the beginning of the movie because there needs to be some suspense built up to interest the viewer as to what will follow. I liked the scene in the woods with Holden seeing the smoke and hearing the demonic noises, but never actually seeing the demon itself. This could have been all in his mind, but because of the beginning of the movie the viewer knows it is really the demon and does not have maximum curiosity because they have already seen this alleged demon and know that Holden’s time of death is not to come until the next day.
I liked how the ending of the movie had Karswell chasing the slip of paper with the runes written on it. I thought there was a possibility the paper would stop, just as it had in the scene with Holden where the paper almost flies into the fire but stops. The paper never stops and then to add to this sense of desperation, the paper self-destructs. At this point, I thought “well done” Tourneur, but then that poorly made monster comes into view and a King Kong-like scene is shot where the super-sized demon picks up Karswell and shakes him around and beats him a little. This ending could have been better had the demon not appeared so clearly, but maybe just see outlines or shadows in the shape of the demon and then play the demonic sounds. Then Karswell’s death could have occurred behind the train as the train passed and we could have just seen his steaming body lying on the ground after the train passed. That would have been scarier and more effective in stirring up the feeling of “art-horror” and maybe even some cosmic fear in the audience. Instead the audience is shown everything that occurred and is left with no sense of horror, awe or mystery.
Let's Pretend it Never Happened
I know that a thorough analysis of Night of the Demon is to be posted this coming Friday, but I've decided to offer some thoughts in the meantime -namely, what the film could have been like, had the appearance of the monster never happened...
If we pretend that the monster's visage never graced the screen (as Tourneur would have had it anyway), I feel that the role of the monster throughout the entire film has been changed, perhaps even shifted from the demon to another entity. Without having seen the demon at the start of the film, the urgency to avoid the demon itself is lessened, and it is rather the prospect of a sealed fate, the idea that these runes have doomed Holden to an inescapable and unpleasant end, becomes that which is feared; instead of the demon being run from, it is the runes which demand attention. This is what I think drove the original story, "Casting the Runes," in which it is the fear of the unknown which drives the characters, rather than the fear of the particular means of destruction.
I also think that with the emphasis placed upon the runes, instead of the demon, explanation of the plot lends itself well to Lovecraft's theory of "cosmic awe." The violation of the natural order, of the moral order, is not created by the demon, but by the idea of the runes' ability to control that which is supposed to be beyond control -fate. This supports Karswell's role as a semi-monster himself. When he is presented as the man in control, when the rune's are his tools and the demon at his disposal, he is the monster -an interstitial being in that he is beyond man with his ability to dictate the fates of others. This also explains the audience's ability to sympathize with a character who is shown to be human and flawed, for when he admits he has very little control over the runes and the demon, and when he finally meets his end by them, he ceases to be the monster and the role of the antagonist falls again to the runes and this unfathomable, untamed power that they represent.
The sense of "cosmic awe" encountered in Night of the Demon (sans demon's cameo) is much like the naturalistic sense of fate one finds in Melville's Moby Dick. Karswell might just as well be an Ahab-type character, attempting to exert his dominance over a force against which he stands no chance, a force which, in the end, conquers him as it has countless others.
And all this never actually happens because the demon is shown within the first 10 minutes... Oh well.
If we pretend that the monster's visage never graced the screen (as Tourneur would have had it anyway), I feel that the role of the monster throughout the entire film has been changed, perhaps even shifted from the demon to another entity. Without having seen the demon at the start of the film, the urgency to avoid the demon itself is lessened, and it is rather the prospect of a sealed fate, the idea that these runes have doomed Holden to an inescapable and unpleasant end, becomes that which is feared; instead of the demon being run from, it is the runes which demand attention. This is what I think drove the original story, "Casting the Runes," in which it is the fear of the unknown which drives the characters, rather than the fear of the particular means of destruction.
I also think that with the emphasis placed upon the runes, instead of the demon, explanation of the plot lends itself well to Lovecraft's theory of "cosmic awe." The violation of the natural order, of the moral order, is not created by the demon, but by the idea of the runes' ability to control that which is supposed to be beyond control -fate. This supports Karswell's role as a semi-monster himself. When he is presented as the man in control, when the rune's are his tools and the demon at his disposal, he is the monster -an interstitial being in that he is beyond man with his ability to dictate the fates of others. This also explains the audience's ability to sympathize with a character who is shown to be human and flawed, for when he admits he has very little control over the runes and the demon, and when he finally meets his end by them, he ceases to be the monster and the role of the antagonist falls again to the runes and this unfathomable, untamed power that they represent.
The sense of "cosmic awe" encountered in Night of the Demon (sans demon's cameo) is much like the naturalistic sense of fate one finds in Melville's Moby Dick. Karswell might just as well be an Ahab-type character, attempting to exert his dominance over a force against which he stands no chance, a force which, in the end, conquers him as it has countless others.
And all this never actually happens because the demon is shown within the first 10 minutes... Oh well.
fear of monsters and gods and jesus as the anti-monster
I was also surprised by the relationship Lovecraft saw between religious awe and horror. But once I started thinking about it I started seeing more connections. For instance, this passage is from Zora Neale Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God:
All gods who receive homage are cruel. All gods dispense suffering without reason. Otherwise they would not be worshipped. Through
indiscriminate suffering men know fear and fear is the most divine emotion. It is the stones for altars and the beginning of wisdom. Half gods
are worshipped in wine and flowers. Real gods require blood. (145)
Is fear the common denominator between the two? According to Hurston, we only worship because we fear, and I think there’s some truth to that. People give sacrifice because they’re scared of what might happen if they don’t appease the gods. Carroll summarizes Lovecraft's beliefs in saying that “the attraction of supernatural horror is that it provokes a sense of awe which confirms a deep-seated human conviction about the world, viz., that it contains vast unknown forces” (162). I think that the attraction many feel toward religion is something very similar to this—believing in these vast unknown forces. Everything about that, that it’s out of our control, that it’s powerful, that it’s unknown, instills fear in us. This “indiscriminate suffering” Hurston talks about is all part of it—the unknown, the idea that you can try to appease the higher power but you might not ever be able to.
The difference is that monsters are disgusting and deities are anything but. They are beautiful and powerful. Therefore, we worship deities and we cringe away from monsters, and sometimes ultimately defeat them. To me, there is a relationship between these two things but it is not exactly the same. Horror stories are a kind of watered down version of religious ones of vengeful gods. Vengeful gods are all-powerful, and so there’s nothing you can do but worship them to escape their wrath. Monsters are how humans can psychologically come to terms with this deep-down feeling that there are forces out there that we can do nothing about. Monsters are disgusting, and therefore we can hate them rather than worship them, and their disgustingness is a flaw that means that we can fight them rather than worship them. Horror stories are psychologically comforting compared to religious ones.
The story told in the bible, at least in the New Testament once Jesus enters the scene, does not fit into this. Jesus does not let us believe in a vengeful God who brings wrath and fear like some of the beliefs of what we think of as pagan religions. And yet, I saw some really weird parallels between how Carroll was talking about horror and the Gospel of Mark, which I’ve been reading for my New Testament class. Now this might be a stretch, and I don't mean to blaspheme, but here goes.
What if we start looking at the Gospel of Mark as a story with Jesus as a kind of anti-monster? Jesus cannot be explained scientifically. He is a mixture of two things that cannot be logically mixed: human and divine. Monsters are disgusting and threatening. Jesus draws people to him (obviously opposite of disgusting) and he goes around healing everybody (opposite of threatening). The whole gospel is shaped as a narrative in a kind of complex discovery plot. Jesus starts performing miracles, the disciples find out that he can do all these supernatural things, and so they start trying to convince everybody that he really is the anti-monster. But some of the people are still scared of his power: the Pharisees. And they decide that this anti-monster must be put to death. This is a horror story, not a story of religious awe, in that the anti-monster can be defeated. Jesus dies at the end. But then the story twists again: Jesus is resurrected. He ultimately does have all the power. The story is one of how people tried to get rid of the power that they were unable to understand, but were ultimately unable to overpower.
All in all, I think there are some connections between horror and religion because they both deal with the supernatural. But they are not quite the same. The connections between Jesus narrative and what Carroll sees as the horror narrative are interesting, but I wonder if it just means that you can always find connections between any narratives.
All gods who receive homage are cruel. All gods dispense suffering without reason. Otherwise they would not be worshipped. Through
indiscriminate suffering men know fear and fear is the most divine emotion. It is the stones for altars and the beginning of wisdom. Half gods
are worshipped in wine and flowers. Real gods require blood. (145)
Is fear the common denominator between the two? According to Hurston, we only worship because we fear, and I think there’s some truth to that. People give sacrifice because they’re scared of what might happen if they don’t appease the gods. Carroll summarizes Lovecraft's beliefs in saying that “the attraction of supernatural horror is that it provokes a sense of awe which confirms a deep-seated human conviction about the world, viz., that it contains vast unknown forces” (162). I think that the attraction many feel toward religion is something very similar to this—believing in these vast unknown forces. Everything about that, that it’s out of our control, that it’s powerful, that it’s unknown, instills fear in us. This “indiscriminate suffering” Hurston talks about is all part of it—the unknown, the idea that you can try to appease the higher power but you might not ever be able to.
The difference is that monsters are disgusting and deities are anything but. They are beautiful and powerful. Therefore, we worship deities and we cringe away from monsters, and sometimes ultimately defeat them. To me, there is a relationship between these two things but it is not exactly the same. Horror stories are a kind of watered down version of religious ones of vengeful gods. Vengeful gods are all-powerful, and so there’s nothing you can do but worship them to escape their wrath. Monsters are how humans can psychologically come to terms with this deep-down feeling that there are forces out there that we can do nothing about. Monsters are disgusting, and therefore we can hate them rather than worship them, and their disgustingness is a flaw that means that we can fight them rather than worship them. Horror stories are psychologically comforting compared to religious ones.
The story told in the bible, at least in the New Testament once Jesus enters the scene, does not fit into this. Jesus does not let us believe in a vengeful God who brings wrath and fear like some of the beliefs of what we think of as pagan religions. And yet, I saw some really weird parallels between how Carroll was talking about horror and the Gospel of Mark, which I’ve been reading for my New Testament class. Now this might be a stretch, and I don't mean to blaspheme, but here goes.
What if we start looking at the Gospel of Mark as a story with Jesus as a kind of anti-monster? Jesus cannot be explained scientifically. He is a mixture of two things that cannot be logically mixed: human and divine. Monsters are disgusting and threatening. Jesus draws people to him (obviously opposite of disgusting) and he goes around healing everybody (opposite of threatening). The whole gospel is shaped as a narrative in a kind of complex discovery plot. Jesus starts performing miracles, the disciples find out that he can do all these supernatural things, and so they start trying to convince everybody that he really is the anti-monster. But some of the people are still scared of his power: the Pharisees. And they decide that this anti-monster must be put to death. This is a horror story, not a story of religious awe, in that the anti-monster can be defeated. Jesus dies at the end. But then the story twists again: Jesus is resurrected. He ultimately does have all the power. The story is one of how people tried to get rid of the power that they were unable to understand, but were ultimately unable to overpower.
All in all, I think there are some connections between horror and religion because they both deal with the supernatural. But they are not quite the same. The connections between Jesus narrative and what Carroll sees as the horror narrative are interesting, but I wonder if it just means that you can always find connections between any narratives.
The Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires
Fellow sojourners, I bring you today a film that I can guarantee has not been viewed in its entirety by anyone reading this post. It is a true classic of 70’s horror, and would surely provide an interesting talking point among your horror-inclined friends…assuming you have any (Hey, guess what movie I just saw?) Without further ado, I present to you the 1974 classic, “The Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires”.
What I learned from the Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires:
1) Chinese vampires constantly hop up and down (in the film, the vampires never move in natural ways, jumping up and down, and moving in slow motion. They are in many ways similar to zombies)
2) The broken down ancient Gothic castle motif cannot be done in rural China. (Instead, the vampires live in a multi-story Chinese hall of death!)
3) Scandinavian billionaire heiresses are pretty good vampire hunters
4) Chinese vampires die pretty easy
5) Dracula lives in a stone tomb with a gigantic “D” on the front (in case he forgot who he was)
6) Just because a vampire glitters, does not mean that it is Gold (however, all vampires featured herein are indeed Golden)
But you must watch the film to learn more pearls of wisdom from this classic film.
If the title wasn’t good enough for you, then the premise is sure to catch your attention. It is a conceptual home run, being the first (and only) collaboration between the British B Horror giant Hammer Films and the Hong Kong Kung Fu Shaw Brothers studios. The film revolves around the following ideas: A Chinese vampire, one of the titular 7 Golden Vampires, traveled to Transylvania in the 19th century to seek help from Dracula in maintaining their desperate hold over a small rural province in central China. Seeing an opportunity to free himself from the curse laid upon him by the Van Helsing family (it is too late to catch you up on the Hammer Dracula chronology), Dracula possessed the body of this poor Chinese vampire, and traveled to China to start a completely new empire! 100 years later, Professor Van Helsing gives a lecture at a college in Hong Kong about the cursed vampire village of Pang Kwei (yes, the same village Dracula took over). He tells of a brave man who gave up his life to seal the vampires in their tombs, but could not forever end the vampire curse. Van Helsing then is approached by a man claiming to be the grandson of this brave vampire hunter. Together, Van Helsing and the brave Hsi Ching journey to the Cursed Village to rid China of vampires once and for all.
So, in short: An English professor, his son, a rich Scandinavian heiress with cash to burn, and seven kung Fu experts travel to a cursed Chinese Village to kill the Chinese Dracula. Before you stop reading this post to find the film, just listen for a little while anyway…
HERE BE SPOILERS
This merry band of misfits travel to the mysterious village of Pang Kwei to destroy the vampire curse, but they are discovered by the 7 Golden Vampires, who are waking out of their 100 year sleep to feed and terrorize once again. The Vampires attack unsuspecting neighboring villages (in search of authentic Chinese take-out) and begin to increase their ranks, in anticipation of the vampire hunters’ attack.
The hunters, dangerously close the village, decide to spend the night in an abandoned cave, seeking to stay out of sight.
(Perhaps dark caves adjacent to vampire infested villages are not the best sleeping arrangements…) Sensing trouble, Van Helsing warns the group of an impending attack. And sure enough, a massive horde of vampires attack! Three of the 7 golden vampires lead the group of undead against our heroes, and they are soundly defeated. There are some really nice novelty Kung Fu vampire deaths here, including head severing, being shot through the heart with a wood tip arrow, and the classic immolation by torch.
The climax of the film comes when the group of hunters (headed by Van Helsing and Ching) make it into the village, which they soon outfit with an inventive series of vampire traps (stakes, oil trenches, etc) and brace for the final assault of the remaining Golden Vampires. Led by more of the Golden Vampires, a second wave of zombie Renfields engage the hunters. Vanessa (the heiress, and love interest of Ching) is killed when she is bitten by one of the Golden Vampires, and she is killed by Ching, who is mortally wounded by the vampire Vanessa. All but the Van Helsings and Ching’s sister are killed in the battle.
I know it is getting a little plodding at this point in the review, so I will hurry the plot summary.
The last of the 7 Golden Vampires captures Ching’s sister, who was romantically involved with Van Helsing’s son. Van Helsing and his father storm the castle, killing the last of the 7 Golden Vampires, and rescuing Ching’s sister….. but all is not well. The vampires have been killed, but evil remains.
Enter Dracula.
Still in the form of the Chinese vampire he possessed, Dracula rises from his tomb to kill his mortal enemies, the Van Helsings. After using a spell to revert Dracula back to his original form (it is just more believable to have an imposing British stage actor to play Dracula instead of a Kung Fu master…) Van Helsing quickly, and disappointingly stabs him in the heart with a stake, presumably killing him forever. The film ends with Dracula turning to dust, while the Van Helsing’s (with Ching’s sister) walk off safely into the sunset.
There are several notable elements in the film, including a genuine atmosphere of horror. The scene in the beginning of the film recounting the 7 Golden Vampires terrorizing the village showed many gruesome scenes, but also much darkness and fog to highlight the dangerous environment.
However, the most obvious elements of the film are comedic in nature, including bad zombie makeup, ludicrous dialogue sequences (as when Van Helsing is delivering his lecture, where he constantly refers to the curse of vampires, and the reality of Dracula… I suppose professor will say anything if you give them tenure) and the general plot structure itself begs for laughter.
Noel Carroll would definitely classify this as horror, as it features gruesome, threatening, and disgusting monsters. As a narrative, it would most likely fall into a sort of onset/discovery/confrontation plot structure.
The Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires is a must-see for all connoisseurs and potential practitioners of horror. Historically, it marks the first time Christopher Lee seems to have turned down a script… so is must be good…
Robert
For those who are interested, I have attached the film in its entirety (no worries, it is in the Public Domain, as far as Google can tell..)
Trueblood
Trueblood, for those who have not seen it, is a HBO show (but even better books) about vampires and other creatures of the night. It tells the story of a barmaid, Sookie Stackhouse, who is a telepath. Vampires just “came out of the coffin” and revealed their presence in this world after the Japanese made a synthetic blood they could live off of instead of people and they are fighting for their rights. Sookie finally met her first vampire, Bill Compton, at the bar she worked at and after she saves his life, he saves hers in return. They fall in love and she is forever entangled in the supernatural world that she didn’t even know existed. She encounters creatures of all kinds after she meets vampires: shape-shifters, werewolves, demons, fairies, witches, etc.
They fit the “art horror” monsters as they are dead but still around and living and since they don’t have active brain waves, Sookie the telepath, cannot read their thoughts. Because of this, it makes them even more ominous. Usually if someone is plotting something Sookie can stop them after hearing what they were planning on doing but these incredibly fast and ridiculously strong creatures of the night can do whatever they please without our heroine’s knowledge. They are trying to mainstream into the normal society but there are still some vampires that think they are superior and human lives don’t matter. They kill at will and without effort in most cases. It’s hard to imagine winning against these strong, fast, and hypnotic creatures (once they look in your eyes they have control of your will) but they also have many weaknesses even as monsters. They can be weakened by silver, they are not allowed to enter a resident’s home unless invited, and a stake to the heart will finish them forever. So even though they can be vicious monsters, most are trying to live in the normal society and get along so they can live relatively normal lives like they once did.
This show is horrifying because the monsters. This is a great example of the universal theory of horror. The plot is good but what draws people in and keeps them hooked are the monsters in the stories, which in this show there are many. It seems in every episode there is a new one and just as repulsive and impossible. Usually they are people and monsters though, like the werewolves, and you learn to understand them and how, most of them, just try to be normal and yet they can’t hide the monster they are. It is fascinating to watch; the ones that try to keep their humanity fight the ones that give themselves over to their monstrous behaviors.
The Thing From Another World and the Onset/Confrontation Plot
Greetings all! Its only been about..... one... two... oh forget it. I am back! This week's analysis is of The Thing From Another World, an RKO Radio Pictures production from 1951, starring everybody's favorite marhshall and battle of Anzio veteran James Arness.
Howard Hawks’ 1951 Sci-fi/horror classic The Thing (From Another World), starring James Arness (of Gunsmoke fame) in the titular role stands as a potent blend of science fiction and horror. The Thing is a science fiction film by virtue of its exploration into the potentialities of extraterrestrial life, space ships, and new technology, and The Thing also fits Noel Carroll’s criteria for being a horror film. It has a monster, the Thing, which is both fearsome (it is seven feet tall and strong as an ox) and it is disgusting, being a humanoid, bloodsucking vegetable organism. The creature is disgusting because it is an unnatural, impossible, interstitial hybrid of man and vegetable. As Carroll notes, “the creature in Howard Hawks’ classic The Thing is an intelligent, two-legged, bloodsucking carrot. Now that’s interstitial” (Carroll 32).
The theme and atmosphere of The Thing is also characteristic of the horror genre. Our characters are completely isolated, outside the reach of humanity, and plagued by an unknown threat, which could be lurking behind every corner. The Thing does fit into one of Carroll’s characteristic narrative structures, namely the “Onset/Confrontation” plot. The Thing also provides a classic example of Cold War Horror.
Carroll identifies the horror genre as having two general narrative families, the Discovery plots and the Overreacher plots (mad scientist plots). The Discovery plots consist of four main movements: the onset, the discovery, the confirmation (present in ‘complex discovery’ plots), and the confrontation. These basic movements can be divided to form different types of stories, but no horror film involving the discovery of a monster can be without all of them. The Thing represents the onset/confrontation plot structure, which for Carroll “seems to be a function of the fact that there is really no distance between onset and discovery…there is no question about the existence and the nature of the present danger to all concerned…some characters might not think that the monster should be destroyed and may impede efforts to kill it. But there is no question that it is a monster that is at large” (Carroll 111). The plot of The Thing fits this structure very well.
The film begins with the Air Force being called to the North Pole at the request of Dr. Carrington, an eccentric researcher, to investigate the crash of a UFO in the ice. After failing to preserve the craft, the crew is able to salvage the frozen body of the pilot and take it back to the base. At the base, Carrington and the commanding officer Capt. Hendry disagree on what is to be done with the body; Carrington wanting to thaw it for observation and Hendry wanting to keep it frozen and await higher commands. A massive snow storm cuts them off from the outside, complicating what the orders of operation are from the Air Force. One of the guards of the body, disturbed by the visage of The Thing, covers the block of ice with an electric blanket (unbeknownst to him) and thaws the creature, which subsequently escapes. The Thing is then attacked by sled dogs, which manage to sever its arm. The crew examines the severed arm, and concludes that it is some form of plant life which is nourished by ingesting blood. Carrington then engages in secret experiments involving ‘seedlings’ of the Thing, which he has cultivated in a green house using human plasma.
In the base green house, Carrington finds the blood-drained body of a sled dog, confirming his thesis that the Thing lives on blood. Two men who guard the greenhouse are killed by the Thing and drained of blood that night. A survivor of the attack notifies the rest of the crew that the Thing is on the loose, and out for blood. During this crucial part of the film, the tension between scientists and the military reaches a high point. Capt. Hendry learns of Carrington’s illicit experiments, but before he can confront him, the Thing strikes again, but this time the crew is able to temporarily trap it in the green house, buying them valuable time to formulate a plan, but it escapes. Failing to destroy it using kerosene, the crew devises a plan to electrocute it to death. Carrington attempts to foil the crew in this plan and save the Thing by shutting the power down and attempting to reason with the creature, but Carrington is violently tossed aside by the Thing instead. With Carrington out of the picture, the crew is able to lure the Thing into a trap and electrocute it to death, thus ending to threat to humanity (for now). The film ends by imploring the audience to “Keep watching the skies!”
This type of story is typical in the onset/confrontation plot which often involves an atmosphere of intense isolation, suspense, and a feeling of decisive conflict (ex: Alien). Another hallmark of the Thing is that the monster could be anywhere at any given time, thereby generating an intense suspense and dread (ala Evil Dead). The film seamlessly flows from onset (finding the monster, who is undeniably a monster, and who undeniably kills crew members and drains them of blood) to confrontation (the crew immediately devises a way to destroy the monster). The primary contribution of The Thing to the horror genre is its near flawless execution of the onset/confrontation plot in a sci-fi setting. The Thing is almost equal parts science fiction and horror, which is a difficult combination to have for a film without it sacrificing its effectiveness in either genre. It is able to successfully create an environment of genuine fear and suspense, provide a disgusting monster, and at the same time explore salient social issues (what would Lovecraft think?...). The fusion of science with horror is a unique element in The Thing. In the Cold War, science and scientific advancements were the sources of endless new horrors, such as the Atom Bomb, Intercontinental Missiles, Eugenics, etc. Science Horror movies, like The Thing, were armed with new horrors to art-horrify audiences with. The use of science fiction also lends more effectiveness to the exploration of social issues at the time. Fears of “the outsider” (the Thing), the dehumanizing effects of science, the threat of seemingly unstoppable forces (Communist Russia) and tensions within society about the proper relation of science to the military all were effectively explored in The Thing by virtue of its strong science fiction element.
As such, The Thing is a prime example of a Cold War Era monster movie, which usually explored themes of societal tension, Red Scares, and the larger theme of Science versus Military. Dr. Carrington represents the unscrupulous advancement of science, at the expense of mankind, as evidenced by his autonomous view of science: “In Science there are no enemies, only phenomena”. Capt. Hendry represents the courageous forces of the armed forces, which will defend mankind from any threat, foreign or domestic. In the end, it is very important that the sensible scientists ally themselves with the military to defeat the unstoppable monster (representing Communism). This synergistic alliance between the military and reasoned scientists was a prevalent thread in the social fabric of the early nineteen fifties. In the end, the monster is defeated, unscrupulous science is subordinated, and we are all safe, but the final message of film begs us all to be vigilant (presumably for Communists) and “watch the skies”.
The Thing is a timeless piece of horror sci-fi, and is also a seminal film for 50’s Cold war monster movies.
Robert Spoor
Witches! Witches! Witches!
As the central antagonist in Night of the Demon was a man who practiced the black arts, I began thinking about the role of witches in the horror genre. Witches have inspired fear in humanity for centuries and centuries. I find witches one of the most fascinating figures in the supernatural mythology in that the belief in them that humanity has held has lead to the condemnations and executions of many real people in history. What is it about witches that terrifies us so much?
They are generally seen as normal people with extraordinary abilities. The mythology is a little lenient in how they come about these abilities, as there are variety of ways that are portrayed in literature, mythology and film. In the television show Charmed the three women that act as benevolent witches and save the world on a weekly basis came from a long line of witches and were merely born with their supernatural abilities. In Night of the Demon, it seems that Karswell derived his powers from ancient texts and magic runes. In other works, such as the recent film The Sorcerers Apprentice the witches get their power from special objects that hold that power, such as a ring or talisman. More realistic witches, such as the individuals that have been condemned throughout history were believed to derive their power from devil worship.
The first question I want to pose is can you consider a witch a monster at all? In the works that I mentioned in the previous paragraoh the only one that truly would, in my opinion, be considered a work of horror would be Night of the Demon. In this work, the real monster isn't Karswell, it is the demon. As we know, according to Carroll's philosophy a monster musst be abnormal in the world it is in, as well as invoke a feeling of disgust within us. The demon invokes the fear and disgust in us in Night of the Demon, not Karswell so by Carroll's definition, because he is not disgusting, Karswell is not a “monster”. Is Karswell even a supernatural being? This could probably be argued both ways. Does he exist in our world, in my opinion yes. He is not innately powerful or supernatural, merely pulling his power from a book. Is he disgusting? Not so much, although the demon he conjures is.
Why is it that witches are present in so many different works of horror? In my opinion, witches are so frightening and so compelling because they are ordinary people. They loo no different, do not change in a disgusting way and could be anyone. They are so compelling in that everyone wants to have extraordinary power and be able to do things others cant do. This is so frightening because if there are individuals that have this power, how do you compete with them? So in conclusion, although they are fearsome and fascinating, witches cannot rreally be considered monsters.
They are generally seen as normal people with extraordinary abilities. The mythology is a little lenient in how they come about these abilities, as there are variety of ways that are portrayed in literature, mythology and film. In the television show Charmed the three women that act as benevolent witches and save the world on a weekly basis came from a long line of witches and were merely born with their supernatural abilities. In Night of the Demon, it seems that Karswell derived his powers from ancient texts and magic runes. In other works, such as the recent film The Sorcerers Apprentice the witches get their power from special objects that hold that power, such as a ring or talisman. More realistic witches, such as the individuals that have been condemned throughout history were believed to derive their power from devil worship.
The first question I want to pose is can you consider a witch a monster at all? In the works that I mentioned in the previous paragraoh the only one that truly would, in my opinion, be considered a work of horror would be Night of the Demon. In this work, the real monster isn't Karswell, it is the demon. As we know, according to Carroll's philosophy a monster musst be abnormal in the world it is in, as well as invoke a feeling of disgust within us. The demon invokes the fear and disgust in us in Night of the Demon, not Karswell so by Carroll's definition, because he is not disgusting, Karswell is not a “monster”. Is Karswell even a supernatural being? This could probably be argued both ways. Does he exist in our world, in my opinion yes. He is not innately powerful or supernatural, merely pulling his power from a book. Is he disgusting? Not so much, although the demon he conjures is.
Why is it that witches are present in so many different works of horror? In my opinion, witches are so frightening and so compelling because they are ordinary people. They loo no different, do not change in a disgusting way and could be anyone. They are so compelling in that everyone wants to have extraordinary power and be able to do things others cant do. This is so frightening because if there are individuals that have this power, how do you compete with them? So in conclusion, although they are fearsome and fascinating, witches cannot rreally be considered monsters.
Disecting the Beasts.
I can't help but laugh when the monsters come on screen in the movies we have watched in class. I mean, really 1950s? That's the best you can do? Night of the Demon's horror was ruined by its tacky, cheap monster. I didn't find it nearly as frightening as say, a demon monkey. Or giant squid. Or an army of ants. That being said, I felt the same way about Cat People. I had no sense of fear because the monster was a panther, and we didn't even get to see Irena turn into the cat!
That brings me to my point. Horror movies suck all the fear out of horror stories. Casting the Runes? Scary. It leads the reader into thinking about the demon. The reader can stop and put themselves into that situation. This is much harder to do during the film. You are seeing everything. Nothing is left to the imagination. And the monster they chose to portray was tacky and tame. I know what you are all going to say. "It was the 50s! They didn't have great technology!" I know, I know. But Tourneur didn't want to show the demon. That was an option. Unfortunately his wishes were not fulfilled and the audience is left with a non-scary demon. It ruined the fear that Casting the Runes instilled in me.
That brings me to my point. Horror movies suck all the fear out of horror stories. Casting the Runes? Scary. It leads the reader into thinking about the demon. The reader can stop and put themselves into that situation. This is much harder to do during the film. You are seeing everything. Nothing is left to the imagination. And the monster they chose to portray was tacky and tame. I know what you are all going to say. "It was the 50s! They didn't have great technology!" I know, I know. But Tourneur didn't want to show the demon. That was an option. Unfortunately his wishes were not fulfilled and the audience is left with a non-scary demon. It ruined the fear that Casting the Runes instilled in me.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Modern Technologies Impact on Horror Films
Today, however, technology has advanced and film makers are able to create a more terrifying monster. The following pictures are from the “Exorcist”, “Halloween”, “Nightmare on Elm Street”, “The Devil’s Backbone”, and the “Fourth Kind”. In these images, however, I do see the monsters as horrifying. I certainly would not want to run into any of these creatures at any point in time. They are more believable because they look real. In conclusion, being realistic and believable are an important aspect to horror films in that if the monster is not, the horror aspect is gone, even if it possesses all other characteristics of a horror film. If i have never had access to better technology, however, the image of the devil in "Night of the Demon" may have scared me. Modern technology, however, has therefore ruined previously scary films for today's generation. 
A Blog of That Dark Story...
Cursed by a vengeful witch. Chased by a cloud of smoke...or was it the demon? Is that a train you hear, or was it the cry of a merciless supernatural creature? Are those shrieking violins sending shivers up your spine too??
Night of the Demon definitely had it's moments of fright. But is it truly a horror movie according to Carroll? Is the demon a monster?
To a certain degree, the demon is a monster according to Carroll's definition, but it doesn't completely fit. Carroll defines a monster as something that cannot exist according to science, is some biologically impossible combination, and it must be both disgusting and threatening. A demon's existence cannot be proven or disproved. Therefore, is it truly a monster? Another conflicting problem is the fact that the demon isn't necessarily a combination of two impossible things. It is merely a demon. It could be argued that it is a combination of something natural (a creature as the audience clearly sees) and something supernatural (it is only seen by it's victims in the movie). With it's dripping fangs, beady eyes, and huge clawed hands, there is no contesting the fact that it is both disgusting and threatening. So whether or not this creature of utter despair is a true Carroll monster or not will be left up to the viewer.
I do agree however, even if the demon isn't a "monster", that the film did provoke the emotion of fear and adrenaline. When the actual visage of the demon is seen, it is disgusting (and a bit phony). Here is Carroll's art-horror expressed. However it isn't the actual visual demon that is the source of the fear and disgust that is felt by the audience; it is the idea of the demon being real that is the source of any fear. This idea of a threat matches Lovecraft's theory of cosmic fear rather than art-horror. In my opinion, The Night of the Demon invokes more cosmic fear than art-horror.
The plot is a complex discovery plot, but it is not the usual one. The monster is never truly confronted in the tale. In my opinion, the physical demon plays a rather small role. Again, it is the idea of the demon that is truly frightening. One overarching question is whether or not the demon was real. Could it simply be a figment of the imagination drawn out by the power of suggestion? Another irking question was whether or not the curse had anything to do with the runes. Could the demon simply be an imagined monster the result of opening the door to the belief of something evil?
This brings up a possible moral and social theme. Avoid witches! Anyone who believes in evil things is cursed, and bad things happen to dark people! The prosecution of witches has been around since medieval days. The comatose man who is hypnotized is an example of why the arts of the ancient evil witches should be avoided. See what happened to him??
As for me, the most suspenseful scene in this movie was when the main character was breaking into Koswell's house in the dead of night. A hand comes out of the corner of the screen...the cat watches from glowing eyes, the wind whistles through the trees... It is all very ominous, and as the scene progresses, the odds of the good Holdon escaping alive grow slimmer and slimmer. At first, Koswell is expected to be out of town, thus, Holdon is safe. But as soon as that hand suddenly appears on the banister, the moral outcome becomes quite unlikely.
Throughout the entire movie, I noticed how much Tourneur uses the art of sound to create an emotional response in the audience. The music is eerie and dynamic, growing louder as the danger becomes greater, getting softer as suspense grows. Again, the scene when Holdon is breaking into the house is horrifying because as soon as he is in, there is silence. This cease in music leaves the audience unconsciously on the edge of their seats. When Holdon knocks over the chairs, that silence is broken, causing the audience to feel that jolt of fright. It is artful, clever, and rather cruel in my opinion. Music and sound is an excellent way to play into the subconscious of the viewer. Was it the demon's whistling approach you heard on the tracks, or was it the incoming train?
You'll never know.
Night of the Demon vs. Casting the Runes
While our next blog will be dedicated solely to discussing Night of the Demon, I felt the need to comment on what, exactly, makes this film different from Montague R. James' Casting the Runes. In my opinion, Casting the Runes fits much more securely into the true horror genre--but why, you might ask? Essentially, the plots are the same. Both feature a magical man named Karswell whose purpose is to kill a man who threatens him. Each central character--Karswell's victims--undergoes a state of paranoia brought about by mysterious pieces of parchment containing ancient runes. This paranoia is strengthened by evidence of other deaths at Karswell's hands and by a belief in the presence of malicious demons that will ultimately become deadly. It is precisely these demons, however, that separate Night of the Demon from Casting the Runes.
In Night of the Demon, one of the first shots we see is the monster--a hideous and enormous demon that flails its arms wildly and, by today's standards, is far more comical than horrifying. However, whether horrifying or not, the choice to show the demon from the onset is a highly controversial one. In fact, Jacques Tourneur, the director of the film, publicly expressed his contempt for the demon on more than one occasion. But why? Before reading up on Tourneur's beliefs, I would have assumed that the best way to inspire art-horror in an audience would be to scare them from the onset. And what better way to accomplish this by showing the monster? After comparing both the film to the story, however, it is easy to see why prolonging the appearance of the monster--or removing its appearance altogether--would be a highly effective way of accomplishing the goals of a horror film.
In Casting the Runes, there are virtually no descriptions of a monster of any kind. The fact that the demon is not described from the onset lets readers remain in a state of suspense throughout the duration of the plot. After each development, no matter how blatantly supernatural, I was still left wondering whether or not there really was a supernatural element to the story. It is precisely this confusion that left me with an unshakably eerie feeling throughout the duration of the plot and, in my opinion, this feeling is from what a true sense of art-horror was derived. Displaying the demon from the onset of Night of the Demon forced me to believe in the presence of monsters; it left me with no doubt that there was a supernatural element at play. I must admit that this mindset was relatively boring and, essentially, not scary at all.
I fully agree with Tourneur's belief that displaying the demon at the beginning of the film was a huge mistake. Perhaps what is most terrifying to me is a sense of the unknown; that feeling that you must continue to explain things scientifically in your mind until there is simply no more room to doubt that a supernatural element is at work. Whatever the reason, I think Night of the Demon should only have revealed its monster toward the end of the film, and that these glimpses should have been short-lived and mysterious as they were in Casting the Runes.
In Night of the Demon, one of the first shots we see is the monster--a hideous and enormous demon that flails its arms wildly and, by today's standards, is far more comical than horrifying. However, whether horrifying or not, the choice to show the demon from the onset is a highly controversial one. In fact, Jacques Tourneur, the director of the film, publicly expressed his contempt for the demon on more than one occasion. But why? Before reading up on Tourneur's beliefs, I would have assumed that the best way to inspire art-horror in an audience would be to scare them from the onset. And what better way to accomplish this by showing the monster? After comparing both the film to the story, however, it is easy to see why prolonging the appearance of the monster--or removing its appearance altogether--would be a highly effective way of accomplishing the goals of a horror film.
In Casting the Runes, there are virtually no descriptions of a monster of any kind. The fact that the demon is not described from the onset lets readers remain in a state of suspense throughout the duration of the plot. After each development, no matter how blatantly supernatural, I was still left wondering whether or not there really was a supernatural element to the story. It is precisely this confusion that left me with an unshakably eerie feeling throughout the duration of the plot and, in my opinion, this feeling is from what a true sense of art-horror was derived. Displaying the demon from the onset of Night of the Demon forced me to believe in the presence of monsters; it left me with no doubt that there was a supernatural element at play. I must admit that this mindset was relatively boring and, essentially, not scary at all.
I fully agree with Tourneur's belief that displaying the demon at the beginning of the film was a huge mistake. Perhaps what is most terrifying to me is a sense of the unknown; that feeling that you must continue to explain things scientifically in your mind until there is simply no more room to doubt that a supernatural element is at work. Whatever the reason, I think Night of the Demon should only have revealed its monster toward the end of the film, and that these glimpses should have been short-lived and mysterious as they were in Casting the Runes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)