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.
No comments:
Post a Comment