The Smell of Fear

Will's magnificent post on infrasound has inspired me to contribute my thoughts on a similar subject. Just as undetectable sonic stimuli can be effective in inducing fear in people, so, too, can smell and, in particular, pheromones. I'm sure most of you have heard someone, somewhere, talk about smelling fear, and this is something that you can actually do. Nervous people smell nervous and terrified people manufacture a certain "eau d'horreur" of their own. All that talk about lions being able to smell you when you're afraid wasn't any rubbish either. It's true, I promise. In fact, it's a lot like being able to smell when a dog or other animal is nervous or scared (don't believe me? Just step inside any veterinarian's office and you'll see -er, smell what I mean).

But does the smell of fear make us afraid? Not necessarily. Oftentimes, if anything, the smell of fear can serve as a warning, indicating that all is not hunky-dorey and that you might want to keep a look out. I've wondered if this is why some people think watching horror films in the theatre makes them so much scarier. Perhaps it's not the surround sound and ten-foo image that does it, but rather the encouragement to trepidation by all of the fear you can smell from the people around you. You egg each other on, so to speak.
What has been proven to induce true fear, however, are panic pheromones. In studies with colonial animals which rely heavily on group communication (such as bees, and ants -that and an ant farm makes a much simpler test subject than a group of meerkcats) the release of panic pheromones, and even synthetic imitations of these pheromones, can almost instantaneously unsettle all of the animals in proximity. Such forms of unspoken communication evolved specifically to spread the message of danger quickly and in no uncertain terms.

Now, I'll admit I'm much less familiar with the use or even existence of such pheromones in humans... but I can't help but wonder... I mean, one might argue that, being very sociable and verbal animals, we don't need such a communication mechanism. We can scream and people usually get the picture, right? Well, sure, but then why do we still emit pheromones when we're around that girl we've got a crush on, or that really cute guy at the checkout counter? That "chemistry" people talk about having is a real thing. If we can do it in that arena, why not in horror? The existence of such unspoken communication might explain how an individual can step out into a small crowd a people and know that something is not right, without having to be told. It might be able to explain how, no matter how good they are at hiding it, we can sometimes sense someone else's worry or fear.

Granted, if chemists got to making a synthetic version of some kind of human panic pheromone, I'm sure it would be a coveted weapon among terrorists and a black market commodity among horror filmmakers alike. But it's an awful fun thought to entertain...

Infrasound: Your Worst Nightmare

I’m sure that almost everybody in the seminar has seen the TV shows in which a team full of wildly pierced twenty-somethings (Paranormal State) or a couple of very skiddish middle-aged men (Ghost Hunters) travel to locations that have been “haunted” in order to do “research” (I’m making the finger quotation marks and speaking with sarcastic tone). Now don’t get me wrong, I’ll be the first person to admit that I believe in the supernatural, and that for the most part if people claim to have encountered a ghost or spirit, I’ll likely believe them. However, there is a scientific explanation for that sinking I-think-something-wants-to-devour-my-soul feeling, as is outlined in an article that I recently stumbled on. What’s really giving you that feeling, apparently, is “infrasound.”

To sum up the article, a scientist named Vladimir Gavreau was working in his robotics laboratory when he noticed one of his researchers was bleeding from the ears. For one reason or another, Gavreau thought that perhaps vibrating steel pipes were the problem. Turns out they were. He discovered that at the right wavelength, sound from the vibrating steel pipes could induce unpleasant effects on those within earshot. However, the “sound” couldn’t actually be heard. Sound waves of between 7 and 19 Hz are below the level able to be heard by humans, though Gavreau proved they could cause feelings of dread and panic. Just below that number is the proper frequency for “the brown note,” which for those of you who have never watched TV is the frequency at which it is rumored (though not proven) that you will uncontrollably defecate.

Perhaps the scariest aspect of Gavreau’s research was that it was conducted as part of an attempt to create acoustic weaponry that could be employed by the military to cause crippling pain in the nerve endings of enemy troops. Think that’s crazy? Nobody would actually subject anyone to a test of this, would they? The United States 1^st Air Cavalry Psy-Ops Division conducted field tests of infrasonic weaponry during Vietnam, though no decisive conclusion could be made as to whether or not this worked (Source). Infrasound has, however, been blamed as a possible cause of death when in which a student at a club told his friends that the bass from the speakers was disturbing him, and promptly keeled over and died of Sudden Arrhythmic Death Syndrome (Source).

Hit ‘em with the sound guns, boys!

How does this relate to the supernatural? Well, suppose you happen to be tiptoeing through your dark house in the middle of the night, and are suddenly taken by feelings of panic and dread. They could be the demon sitting in your recliner waiting for you to come downstairs so he can devour your soul. Or, as the article above postulates, it could be the air conditioning unit producing infrasound as part of its normal operation. While this may sound kooky, the current accepted scientific conclusion as to why infrasound affects humans is that it is an evolutionary response to noise that some predatory animals make (you guessed it: infrasound) that humans cannot hear, but recognize subconsciously as a warning sign.

While this explains how natural infrasound affects humans, how could this be applied in the horror film world? Penny’s recent blog post on sound in horror films raises good questions, and I would definitely agree that sound can be used to create horror in a very powerful way. I’m not saying that filmmakers are pumping out infrasound in order to make your skin crawl. The human hearing range begins at 20 Hz, and I can only imagine the height of a producer’s eyebrow-raising when a director says, “I want to scare people by using sound they can’t hear.” However, knowing that just below the human hearing range is a sound that induces fear, it could be argued that as sound approaches that threshold, it may cause some mild to moderate discomfort.

This also touches on a much more natural explanation as to why horror movies scare us, and perhaps why we want to see them even though they do so. If we look at the human response to certain things such as natural sound and rapid motion, the question has to be raised that it could simply be that horror films engage our fight-or-flight response, that hair-raising, heart pounding feeling we get when we are scared out of our wits. If this is so, then why do we pay our hard-earned money to get scared? Don’t shoot me for saying this, but I think a Freudian wish-fulfillment theory has some merit here (and no, I’m not talking about testicles). Perhaps the real reason that we go to have this biological response induced by art is because we physically enjoy the sensation of being scared. Before you try to discredit this, keep in mind that while fight-or-flight may be part of our daily lives, for the most part few of us will have life-threatening encounters. If this is the case, perhaps answering the question of why we go to horror films is that we simply go for the rush; for the physical excitement that occurs when we are threatened.

Everyone Loves Horror

Tonight, I was subjected to so many references to horror that I felt compelled to share them, so here I am. The serendipity of it seemed surreal and I just had to share the most notable ones:

Tonight on South Park, the creative staff made fun of the BP oil spill by saying they also accidentally drilled a hole to an alternate dimension, culminating in the release of C'thulu (or however you spell it) rising from the sea while a newscaster talks about how a local cult has upstarted in honor of the entity. They also had Cartman recreating a scene from A Clockwork Orange where the main character, Alex, attacks one of his own mates for challenging his authority.

Also today, a webcomic I read has been referencing Cathoosey (or, rather, a feline version) for the past few strips in a manner that also references the Sandman story we've read - click on images to expand them:





Another C'thulesque reference was made (although I might be putting it there more than anything else) on buttersafe.com, another great webcomic:



And on a final note, I'm playing Fallout: New Vegas, a new videogame that takes place in a post-apocalyptic distopia filled with so many depressing and horrifying images. I present you the nightstalker, one of the many very able-to-kill you creatures in this world (imagine being completely by yourself, hearing a howl and a hiss unnaturally molded together coming from behind you, turning around just in time to see seven ungodly creatures rushing to you with their mouths agape while you stumble to draw a weapon - that was what it was like for me to meet these things for the first time):



I guess what I'm trying to get at is that everyone seems to be okay with identifying horror as a valid cultural artifact, or at least the people who I enjoy as artists.

Cat People: Carroll Evaluation

The film "Cat People," was an interesting case in the Horror Genre. It opened the doors to discussing the subtle differences in sub-genres such as the "pure fantastic," "fantastic marvelous," and "fantastic uncanny." Interestingly, the application of any of these genres depends upon the final conclusion reached in the particular work. Fantasitc marvelous ending in a supernatural conclusion, fantastic uncanny a naturalistic one, and the pure fantastic being unresolved.
In relation to "Cat People," it is somewhat unclear which category of Art Horror it should be confined to. Because we never actually see the transformation of Irena, one could say that there is no conclusive evidence that what happened was truly supernatural. My own interpretation, however, was that the occurance was supernatural, but due to technological limitations at the time the film was made, the transformation scene was not obtainable.
The fact that Irena also stole the key to the panther's cage raises questions. The naturalistic viewer would want to believe that Irena never actually transformed, rather she used the panther to do her bidding. The problem with this theory, however, is that there were never any signs throughout the film that Irena had any bad intentions whatsoever. To the contrary, she refused to even kiss her husband in fear she would devour him after.
Because neither one of these views (naturalistic and supernatural) are conclusive at the end of the film, I am inclined to deem this film a work of "pure fantastic." However, using Carroll's own evaluation methods of determining whether a work is a work of Art Horror, I'm not completely sure this is a work of horror.
The first thing one must ask is if there is a monster. I'm not sure how to answer that in terms of "Cat People." If it isn't Irena transforming into a cat, then the obvious answer is no since panthers exist according to science and they aren't disgusting. At the same time, however, even if Irena is transforming into a cat, that isn't necessarily disgusting. I suppose disgusting in that case could be thought of as a disturbance in social norms, seeing as how there aren't many people transforming into cats (not that I've ever noticed, anyway). Also, there must be a complex discovery plot. The onset (when monsters make their appearance) never actually happens. At no point in the movie does the viewer or the characters themselves come in contact with a "cat person." Because of this, I don't believe that one can classify the film "Cat People" as a true work of horror.
However, I have problems with Carroll's technique to determining works a work of fiction. I don't believe a specific plot structure is needed to form a genre. In fact, I believe that it is the openness in a plot structure that allows for the continued development and interest in a particular genre. If every story were completely the same in structure, I believe that a genre would never be able to grasp the amount of attention from viewers to even become and sustain itself as a literary/artistic genre.

Sigmund Fraud on "The Sandman"...Whoops, I meant Freud.

I remember discussing the short story entitled "The Sandman" in relation to the interpretation of the infamous Sigmund Freud. I felt the need to revisit the issue, since the preposterousness of his evaluation still lingers. Essentially, the main element of the story was the idea that "The Sandman" would come to a child's house, steal his eyes, and then feed those eyes to his own children. That's an absolutely terrifying idea. One, because the thought of anyone tearing your eyes out and the pain that would be associated is terrifying in and of itself. Two, because the thought of any being eating the eyes of another (especially a human) is disgusting. At least these are my first thoughts.
Luckily, however, Freud was there to correct me. His interpretation was that men are fearful of this story because of deep, suppressed fear inside of them of losing their testicles. In the story, the eyes were symbolizing the male genitalia. Wow. I completely misinterpreted that one I guess.
I would be extremely interested in going back and talking to the author of this story and discussing this theory. Seeing the look on his face when asked "Were the eyes a symbol of testicles in your story?" would make the trip completely worth it. Essentially, what I'm getting at is I think Sigmund Freud is an absolute joke. I understand that the man is the main contributor to psychological understanding and teachings today. In my mind, however, theories such as this one should call to question every single thing the man ever claimed. I agree with him that most of a person's psychological intricacies have been a development over time, and that an emense number of occurences in childhood have played a part in creating the person. However, I don't see the need of someone claiming that idea. To me, it seems incredibly obvious that, like in so many other things, the present is a product of the past.
I sometimes wonder what authors would think if they could hear some of the contemporary interpretations of their works. For instance, what if Jonathan Swift wrote Gulliver's Travels without any intention of making political statements? What if the entire novel was supposed to be a fun, light-hearted work of fiction? It would be fun to watch his expression as people suggested all of the many political satires throughout the novel if he had honestly no intention of creating them. However, he wouldn't be as renowned an author if that was the case.
In summation, I think Freud was completely wrong in his anaylsis as to why The Sandman was a frightening story.

Leiningen vs. The Ants: Carroll's analysis

In Carl Stephenson's short story, "Leiningen Versus the Ants," the protagonist must overcome a swarm of ants in order to protect the plantation he recently acquired. Not a very typical "horror" story, but I suppose we'll allow it. In my mind, a "horror" story is merely a story in which the main motivation is to frighten the reader. This is the difference between horror stories and stories which contain "scenes of horror" (specific scenes which are terrifying but contrary to the main agenda of the plot). Noel Carroll, however, wishes to attribute some sort of scientific method for answering the question of whether a story should be considered an actual "art horror" story. Okay, well let's play along.
In my analysis of "Leiningen Versus the Ants," the short story is most definitely a work of horror. The only agenda of this plot is to terrify readers. There are no political commentaries hidden within, it is not meant merely to entertain readers, and it certainly is not some romantic novel written in hopes of making readers wish their lives were this way. The solitary, obvious point is to tell a frightening tale.
Now, according to Carroll. Is there a monster? Maybe? Define monster. Oh, he does. A monster is any disgusting being whose existence is contrary to scientific understanding. So, again, is there a monster? Yes? No? Maybe? Ants exist in real life. However, ants which mass themselves "ten miles long, two miles wide" don't seem too prevelant anywhere. I've also yet to see ants which are intelligent enough to create rafts and cross a body of water...But ants do exist. Let's just assume that these are crazy ants, the kind science has no account for. Are ants disgusting? Some might think so. That seems like an arbitrary and completely subjective question to ask. But, for the sake of arguing, let's assume they are. Congratulations Carl Stephenson, if we assume there are ultra-intelligent, mass-gathering, digusting ants which science has no account for in your story, then according to Carroll you've just written a work of art horror. Hmm...Noel Carroll, sorry, but you're definitely no Aristotle.

Sound as a Horror Medium

I think that sound can be especially effective in the horror genre due to the fact that we live in such a visually-stimulated culture. A visual image can evoke disgust and revulsion based upon those principles that we've discussed before, an interstitial state, the violation of certain laws of nature etc.,. but sound operates on a plane that people don't use as their primary means of gathering information about their world. This makes sound particularly effective at making people uncomfortable. When a sound is experienced, the listener most always follows up with an effort to identify its origins -the sound itself leaves a gap that asked to be fulfilled. I believe this is why the concept of a disembodied sound can be so horrifying -it leaves so much to be answered. I think the concept of the "lo-fi" can be applied very readily here, for a lo-fi sound is difficult to place, adding to uncertainty. But then again, this degree of uncertainty can be played with by applying a hi-fi sound, that is, a sound that is clear and whose origins can be placed, but whose context is incongruous with the circumstances. For example, one might be able to place a deep, sonorous growling as coming from the nursery, with the horror effect originating from the inquiry as to why such a noise should come from the nursery.
Because sounds occur all the time and from known and unknown sources, for known and unknown reasons, and because the audience never seems to be satisfied with a sound in the same way we content ourselves with an image, auditory uncertainty is almost always easily attained. What makes the sounds that are heard? Do they mean something? Nothing? Do they signify the unknown, while at the same time confirming the unknown presence? They add to the complexity of the unknown.
In addition, the manipulation of sound as a musical accompaniment or score is another manner by which an audience can be toyed with. Music and sound effects are often utilized to signify and foreshadow, to accentuate the gravity of events and the emotional states of characters. Likewise, the use of silence in juxtaposition with the musical score can leave and audience squirming in their seats, as they assign significance to the absence of sound in anticipation of action. Use of volume and theme, and placement to accentuate and foreshadow are all tools that can confirm the presence of an unknown, create uncertainty ans suspense, and feed and guide the audience's emotional response to the visual accompaniment -or lack thereof- that they experience.

"Real" Monsters, and How they Fit the Art-Horror Scheme

We've talked a lot about the monsters of Noel Carroll’s art-horror. Monsters in movies, monsters in plays, monsters in novels. What we haven’t really talked about is “real,” monsters, and when I say real I mean the monsters that many people to this very day insist are somewhere treading this very earth doing monster-like things, occasionally being captured in controversial photos (then again, considering the things that can be done with Photoshop, every photo is questionable). There are a few monsters (and their variations) that I find worth discussing: Bigfoot, the Yeti, and the Loch Ness Monster. What are they? Why would any sensible person want to track them down?

I. Bigfoot/Sasquatch

The self-proclaimed “only scientific research organization exploring the bigfoot/sasquatch mystery,” BFRO, provides a very detailed description of the anatomy of “Sasquatch,” a bastardized version of a Native American term meaning “Wild Man” (no that’s not a joke). Apparently Bigfoot isn’t exactly something that you’d want to run into. It’s an eight foot tall, 700 pound ape/man covered in hair and emitting a gag-inducing odor of “smegma” (in laymans terms, er……I don’t know if I should…..well okay, it means that he smells like balls). They are nocturnal, have been “observed” reaching running speeds of nearly 40 mph, and are strong enough to pick up your average double-wide trailer. While you’re laughing, take note of the fact that the source of this information is a scientific research organization.

Pictured: Bigfoot or a guy in a gorilla suit. Either way, I’m not getting close enough to confirm using the smell test.

All hilarity aside, this guy fits the bill for a Carroll art-horror monster. He’s definitely disgusting and revolting, his strength and territoriality presents a threat to anyone he encounters, and he wouldn’t be considered part of our natural order (unless you think giant smelly hairy man/apes is normal). I haven’t investigated whether or not Sasquatch has been used in a horror film, but if this is not the case, then he would make a great art-horror film monster for you aspiring filmmakers.

II. The Yeti

The Yeti is, more or less, Asia’s version of Bigfoot, also known as “The Abominable Snowman.”

Like this, only WAY more abominable.

Researching the Yeti online has been difficult, presumably for two reasons: the Yeti and Bigfoot are apparently so alike, and the Yeti lives in the freaking Himalayas, and nobody wants to climb a mountain to figure out whether a mythical beast is real or not. There is some information regarding the Yeti online, but as could be expected, much of this does not come from scholarly sources. According to the Occultapedia, the Yeti is a two meter tall (6’6” for the metrically challenged), hair covered man/ape that inhabits the snow-covered Himalayas. While I haven’t uncovered any accounts of the Yeti’s stench, we can only assume that if he’s anything like his American cousin, the Yeti stinks on ice. Another source notes that Yeti’s have reportedly raided villages for crops, preceded by a high pitched scream, and have been known to mate with human women (hey, even legendary horrifying beasts can be romantic).

“I’m gonna steal your dinner and your girlfriend!!”

The Yeti, like his cousin Sasquatch, has a lot of art-horror potential, for much of the same reasons. This monster, as described above, does not seem to fit in the natural order of things (though I’m not an authority on the natural order of the Himalayas). Keeping in mind the accounts of pillaging, the Yeti is also threatening towards humans. As far as disgusting and revolting is concerned, I think it’s safe to say that even the demon from Tourneur’s film would be disgusted by anything related to Sasquatch.

III. The Loch Ness Monster

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Oddly enough, the only one of our characters so far to have “monster” in its name is one that would disappoint would be art-horror fiction writers and filmmakers. The Loch Ness Monster is a marine lizard related to a dinosaur that, according to researcher Mike Everheart, is something of a snake/turtle combination. This creature could be considered disgusting. However, the Official Loch Ness Monster Website claims that Nessie (as it is affectionately known) only eats small fish, which doesn’t make it very threatening to humans. In fact, it seems to be viewed as a sort of national pet. Furthermore, considering that unclassified rare aquatic life is not out of the realm of reality, it wouldn’t necessarily be anything out of the natural order. Without adding any other fictionaly element to the “real” Loch Ness Monster, it would work better as another typical Pixar animated kids movie than an art-horror flick.

IV. Why would anybody want to find these things?

While the “evidence” of these monsters’ existence is shaky at best, who is to say that Bigfoot, the Yeti, or the Loch Ness Monster don’t exist. What’s more, there are people who are actively searching for them! They take trips into the wilderness where Sasquatch supposedly roams, and they sound the depths of Loch Ness with sonar in search of something looking like a dinosaur. This makes you wonder, who in their right mind would go looking for monsters, and not only monsters, but foul-smelling, angry, car throwing monsters?

These scholarly gentlemen, that’s who.

Carrold says that basically the reason we see art-horror films and read art-horror novels is that we’re attracted to the emotions that horror causes within us. So could the same not apply to that people who chase after Bigfoot and try to snap photos of the Loch Ness Monster? We might refer to these commonly as “adrenaline junkies.” Perhaps those people hunting Bigfoot aren’t crazy after all. Maybe they just like the prospect of being scared to death by a stinky nightmare. There’s that, and then there’s the popular notion that whoever finds Bigfoot and brings him to light is going to get filthy stinking rich. So for you non-believers keeping track, that makes them crazy, misguided, and greedy.

I ****ing love Bigfoot!!!!

Nonetheless, if you’re ever hiking in the Himalayas and you hear a high pitched screaming noise, my suggestion is: run. However, if you, like that Chinese girl in the most recent “The Mummy” flick (I’ve lost track of the numbers and subtitles) speak Yeti, you should be just fine.

A Discussion on Two Presentations of Horror in Electronic Entertainment

Videogames, like all other forms of art, have attempted present the genre of horror through their medium. Two specific sub-genres are worth mentioning here: Action Horror and Survival Horror.

Both are particular types of games that have particular elements unique to them. Compare them to different sorts of horror if you haven’t ever really participated with electronic entertainment and would like something more akin to your interests to relate this to. Compare Saw to the Shining, and you’ll have a pretty decent grasp of the difference here.

Action horror has its roots in First-Person Shooters, a genre of game that is played from the perspective of the main character as if the player assumes that identity in a literal sense. These games, traditionally, feature things like health bars and ammo counters that are present on-screen at almost all times through a Heads-Up Display. Doom is a classic example of this particular genre of gameplay as well as the subgenre of action horror. The game features creatures from hell supplemented by technological advancements such as nuclear armaments and the like. These demonic entities are presented in a very terrifying, disgusting manner. The resolution that occurs in these games consists of the main player shooting and, hopefully, killing these monsters and proceeding on to the larger and more intimidating foes culminating with the Final Boss. This attempt at horror focuses heavily on the aspect of disgust and revulsion. By nature of the gameplay, the main character is usually heavily armed and very capable of fighting these monsters. They are not very threatening or, rather, the main character is really just as threatening. Monsters tend to be numerous and fall before the mighty hero. These games manipulate the reactions to visual stimulus regarding horror; disgusting antagonists make disgusting game, essentially.

A different approach to horror in videogames is the survival horror game. This genre was coined by the developers of Resident Evil that was originally released for the PlayStation. This particular game works from an isometric third-person perspective – a fixed camera observing the character’s actions. This method is not the exclusive method, but the third-person perspective frequently is utilized in this genre. This game includes the visual element that displays disgusting things – Resident Evil features some terrifying creatures of the undead persuasion including dogs, people, crows, and sharks. In addition to this is the emphasis on creating an atmosphere, through the use of other elements besides visually disgusting features on the creatures. Sound is one element that contributes heavily – creaking doors and moaning zombies help to establish an eerie setting. But, the mechanics of the game illustrate the weaknesses of the player. The player is inhibited when compared to action horror games: player movement is restricted to more normal physics, weapons are far and few, ammo is sparse, and the player character is so weak that three to four hits made against them usually results in death. Compare this to action horror where fifty bullets to the head may take only a tenth of the total life bar of the player character. By manipulating mechanics, a new sort of aesthetic appears in the game. The atmosphere is more charged with horrific elements, made more palpable by the need to explore the game in a tactful manner. Instead of “running and gunning” through levels, the player has to carefully consider where priorities lie. It’s a psychological experience more so than a merely visual one.

OMG, Zombies

Zombies are really the most modern monster. Let me clarify what I mean: modernity, for me, is the existence of something simply because its existence can be. For example, modern art, for me, is art that exists simply because it can exist. It is experienced because it something to be experienced. There is no ulterior motive, it is and ought to be seen per its “is-ness.” I look at a red square titled “untitled” at the museum because such a thing can be viewed.

This understanding of modern, which I acknowledge may just be mine, really does establish zombies as the most modern monster. Now, zombies may need to be described a bit better. I do not interpret zombies only in the sense of being a product of voodoo and mystical works; in fact, my favorite explanations of zombies are those that offer none. For example, Romero’s Dawn of the Dead offers a particularly wonderful explanation that I believe is meant to be interpreted non-literally: “When there’s no more room in Hell, the dead will walk the Earth.”

Now, let us look at the zombie itself. It is a mindless entity, constantly dehumanized in popular medium (one notable exception is Shaun of the Dead), and is driven purely by will. The zombie wanders around lethargically – well, at least most of the time – and doesn’t get too excited until there’s some fresh blood and guts getting a little too close. Their motive is to eat these body parts and many presentations of zombies seem to illustrate them having some sort of affinity to brains.

But, they consume and have no need to consume. They have a never ending hunger that they feed but nothing is relieved. It would seem to follow that they are in a constant state of distress then, but this doesn’t follow logically. They have no need to consume, but they consume. They pursue flesh, but only when it is available. If there happens to not be any flesh around for them, then they just wander around doing whatever. Some of them just stand still, putrid flesh falling off now again. This seems, to me at least, a very modern way of being a monster. Unlike Dracula who has some sort of megalomaniac plot for world control and Frankenstein’s monster that lives only for revenge – if you reject that, consider him as a lesson of science going too far then – zombies are and persist because they just do. They don’t have those very human motives that so many other monsters tend to experience. Zombies have no desire to hide what they are and exploit their identity to support some agenda – they merely are, no adverbs needed.

Zombies have no bias, hold no hatred, feel no ill will to anybody, and merely wish to exist as they are. They really make great monsters, there is no way to reconcile with them because they don’t want anything except your flesh and they’ll manage okay even if they don’t get it.

Note: I’m not saying movies about zombies are modern necessarily, just that zombies themselves are.

Night of the Demon

Night of the Demon is a prime example of both the “complex discovery plot” and the “overreacher plot.” For the former we have our onset immediately in the movie; the demon makes himself apparent rather quickly and it’s pretty easy to state that this entity is most likely a monster considering its monstrous actions. Discovery occurs in the sense that Dr. Holden denies the existence of the creature but becomes more and more unstable. Other beings claim that the monster exists while Holden denies it. Confirmation occurs when Holden begins to believe in Karswell’s supernaturel affinities. Confrontation occurs when Holden attempts to pass off the runes, realizing the threat of the mystic runes and attempting to pass them off for fear of losing to an entity of unimagnable power. For the overreacher plot I believe it’s sufficient to point to Karloff as being the one who overreaches. He secures resources, experiments or applies the resources, loses control of the product, and then there is the ultimate confrontation with the product. Karswell doesn’t fare too well.
Considering the film’s ability to fit into these models of storytelling , it would seem that they might fit easily into Carroll’s theory of art-horror. But, the monster here may not be so unnatural. I am hesitant to state that the demon itself is scientifically impossible in this world. It appears to be a fantastic being in a natural world, but many more examples of supernatural activity exist that seem distinct and unique from the demon. I point to the hand on the railing in Karloff’s house and the medium who has spirits communicate through him. These events are not obviously related to the demon, which raises questions. It is a horrifying film but I still am uncertain as to whether it is a art-horror film as Carroll would wish.
From that point, I find this film to follow more closely with the sorts of concepts Lovecraft proposes in regards to horror. Some mysterious other-beings seem to be interfering in the lives of these mere mortals. Once again, the hand on the railing – it isn’t Karswell’s and seems far too tame to be that of the demon’s – and also the runes themselves. The runes seem to have a moving force of their own will, able to escape from any being that they wish. They are cursed, we are told, but by whom and for what purpose? Mysterious questions arise and little is told. Seems rather Lovecraftian to me.

Moving away from observing the content of the piece, it should be noted the techincal aspects used in the film to heighten the tensions present. Two of my most favorite scenes being Holden running through the woods with some sort of mist or steam pursuing him – a tactic that Tourner would’ve most likely kept as the exclusive means of presenting the demon had the producer not undermined his vision – and the wind storm that hits when Karswell and Holden are speaking. These special effects had an incredible impact in establishing the presence of some intangible product beyond the understanding of man. Controlling weather in particular seems sinister. Something so beyond humanity, at least when superficially considering it, would seem so intimidating if it was displayed as the tool for some entity.

Finally, I would like to remark on the possibility of a theme that permeates throughout the piece. The only one that seems rather reasonable is a moral one that I propose which is the observation of tensions between what is known and what is not known. When these two ideals, embodied by Holden and Karswell, antagonize each other then what results is just more chaos and uncertainty. It would seem that if they could reconcile their approaches that they would be able to at least unite against the evil forces that seem to be persecuting them. For example, and I understand how bad this may sound, they might have been able to figure out a way that neither of them would have had to die by finding some unfortunate prisoner awaiting execution as it was and damning him to the fate. Then again, it may just be beyond their control after all is said and done.

Night of the Demon

According to Carrol, the Horror Genre has two main components. It involves a monster and an emotional experience of the audience, which Carrol calls 'Art Horror'. Carrol insists that a work of Horror is "designed to elicit a certain kind of affect" (pg. 15) that being the emotional 'Art Horror'. So, if a work does not attempt to evoke this reaction, than it is not Horror. The monster component has sub-components. That is, their are specifications to make a monster a Horror monster. His main specification is that the other characters in the work must perceive the monster as Abnormal, "as disturbances of the natural order" (pg. 16)

If we are to try and put the movie into this genre, according to Carrol, I think it's necessary to look at point of view. If taken from Holden's point of view, then yes, the monster/demon is unnatural. However, to Kalswell, the demon fits into his realm of reality. He believes in it as a natural dark force. It is menacing, yes, but not unnatural to him. The movie as a whole seems to fit with Carrol's idea of Horror though, since it was intended to provoke an emotional response of Horror from the audience, and at least one character sees the demon as an unnatural monster. However, I feel the aspects of the movie that make it fit with the Horror genre are due to the edits done by the producer, Hal E. Chester, such as adding the scenes with the monster.

Without these scenes with the monster, the movie would have fit more with Carrol's idea of tale of dread or possibly tale of terror. In these forms, it is based more on psychological phenomenon rather than monsters, which I feel is more what Tourneur wanted the movie to demonstrate.

The film does seem to elicit an emotional effect, though everyone will respond differently. I feel one of the key parts of Carrol's description of 'Art Horror' is that it is the goal in producing a work of horror. That does not mean that the goal is necessarily successful, and this can be attributed to the individual's response. According to Lovecraft, what Horror produces is a feeling of Cosmic fear. I do not think the movie evokes this especially for the audience, though it seems for the characters there is a sense of awe and fascination with the idea of the demon and the curse. For Holden especially, there seems to be an obsession with proving that the demon doesn't exist, yet he slowly is struck by it's reality.

The plot of the movie can be seen as a mix of both a complex discovery plot and an over-reacher plot, though it fits with the overarching theme of a complex discovery plot more. In the movie, there is an onset (with the initial sighting of the demon chasing and killing a man), there is discovery (when Holden first witnesses being chased by a foggy creature), their is confirmation (when Holden realizes that he will die and tries to give the runes back to Kalswell), and finally there is confrontation (both when Holden tries to give the slip of paper back to Kalswell, and when Kalswell meets the demon). In this way the movie fits with complex discovery. If, however, we were to shift point of view as with the idea of the monster, Kalwell demonstrates an over-reacher plot. He acts as the "mad scientist" or "necromancer" who criticizes science, which is represented by Holden's obsession with proving that the curse doesn't exist. The key theme of an over-reacher plot is that there are some things better left unknown, and since the last line in the movie is Holden saying how he would rather not know the truth of what happened to Kalwell, this makes the movie as a whole seem to fit more with that theme. The main theme of a complex discovery plot is that there are more things in heaven and earth than are found in our knowledge, which is also shown in the movie by Holden's acceptance that maybe his science cannot explain the events surrounding the runes and the demon.

The most suspenseful scene in the movie would have to be when Holden is trying to give back the slip of paper. According to Carrol, suspense raises questions that were set up from earlier events. The question raised must be well structured and have neatly opposed alternatives. In this case the question is, will Holden get Kalswell to take the paper and thus be able to save his own life, or not?

It seems the main themes of the movie are based on the over-reacher plot. That is, somethings should be left unknown. This is demonstrated through Holden refusing to see what actually happened to Kalswell at the end of the movie. The movie also supports a balance of science and the supernatural. Throughout the film, Holden continually resists any form of belief in the supernatural and it is this stubbornness that gets him so close to being killed by the demon. Everyone around him is willing to accept the curse, along with their beliefs in science, but he is not. It isn't until he admits there might be something unexplainable going on that he is able to free himself from the curse.

Tourneur himself, seemed to focus more on terror than Carrol's idea of horror. He wanted to audience to ask themselves, "did I see it or didn't I?" rather than to evoke a horrific feeling. His cinematic techniques included the sequence in the woods when Holden is first being chased by the demon. In his scene, the demon is never actually shown. Instead, there is a suspense built up from the creeping in of the fog, as well as the questions it raises. I think Tourneur was going for a more psychological suspense rather than horror. He also had a few scenes where he mirrored the characters of Kalswell and Holden. He did this through mirroring the angles and lighting they were shot in. Because of this Tourneur is putting more emphasis on the characteristics of the people in the movie. He presented a sort of binary between the two and showed how the two overlap. He was much less focused on the demon, not wanting to show it at all in the film.

Overall, I think the film does fit with Carrol's idea of Horror, but this was against the main goal of Tourneur. Tourneur was not happy with the addition of actually seeing the monster, and wanted the audience to end with a psychological question of what actually happened and what they believed happened. In my personal opinion, psychological horror is much more effective at creating a strong emotional response, so in that way, by getting rid of the monster, the movie would have fit with Carrol's concept of 'art horror' better, though it would have gotten rid of his need for the monster.

Phantasmagorical Horror Film Festival

Readers and fellow bloggers, in honor of the noble Halloween Season in which we find ourselves, and in honor of this fine class' exploration of the horror genre, I am offering a unique opportunity to those interested. I will be holding a massive horror film festival/marathon (TENTATIVELY) scheduled for Saturday, October 16, 2010 at my humble abode. This marathon will not be like the typical horror film marathons this time of year, and it will surely reflect my interesting and sometimes obscure tastes in film. Films will begin showing at around 5 P.M. and stop sometime during the night. If anybody is interested, I would be glad to have them.

Some highlights:

films will begin screening at around 5 pm

food, drink, and candy will be provided

the time of this event is open to change, if people want it moved

The event can be viewed on facebook here


Finally, I will give all of you the option to pick the film you would like to see the most at this marathon, so I have attached a poll for your review and input (the poll seemed to mess up the background on this blog, so I have a direct link to the poll here

Night of the Demon and Horror II

I kind of addressed the art-horrificness of Night of the Demon in my other blog, but briefly put, this film is pretty clearly art horror. The demon is show on screen a few times, and it is clearly supernatural, disgusting, and dangerous. Karswell is a monster too, and he kind of fits this description. He is frightening, and dangerous. I don’t know if he could be called disgusting—he does things that are kind of disgusting, but I’m not sure to what degree consorting with demons is disgusting. It’s more just generally evil. It’s not like he sucks virgins’ blood or anything.

I think it was Freud who said that much of horror arises from things that should be normal, but aren’t. This is really true in Night of the Demon. Karswell isn’t threatening. The first time Holden meets him, he’s wearing clown makeup, and not really the threatening kind. He does magic tricks. He gives kids ice cream. He’s not particularly impressive physically. He’s normal.

But then he starts spouting off about demons, and how Holden will die soon, and how he can control demons. He still seems pretty ordinary here. He could be ranting about his belief in UFO’s or séances or something. But since the themes he is discussing are at such variance with the tone and impression he leaves while discussing them, we are frightened. Had he been the creepy character from the short story, the fright associated with him would have been lessened.

This film’s plot was part overreacher, part complex discovery. We knew more or less what was happening from the beginning—we saw the monster in the second scene, and Karswell tell Harrington that he can control demons. So basically, we know the whole situation in the first two scenes.

But since we are supposed to identify with the main characters, and they don’t know what’s up, this is also a discovery plot. The problem in this story is not so much what is happening, but how it happens—what are the limits of Karswell’s powers, and how can one defeat him?

The protagonists don’t know the answers, and neither do we, so that aspect of the film is complex discovery. The parchment, for example, is scary because we don’t know what it does. We gradually discover its purpose, and that is what makes the film scary. In fact, the fact that we know something the main characters don’t makes the complex discovery aspect all the more effective. In each scene, they find out something, and we find out something, but we know just a little more than they do, and a few more of our answers are filled. This builds suspense because we wonder just when they’ll finally figure out the truth.

Speaking of suspense, this film has a fair amount. Carrol says suspense is “the situation in which the undesired becomes increasing likely to happen with time.” This happens in this movie. The main problem here, as I see it, is whether or not Holden will discover and realize the significance of the parchment. At first, not a big deal—the parchment probably isn’t anything good, and we kind of know what it does because we saw what happened to Harrington, but he’s got lots of time, and surely he’ll figure things out before then.

But he doesn’t, and it seems more and more likely that he won’t make it. When he is in the coach with Karswell, and Karswell is refusing to accept anything with only a few minutes left, the suspense builds. We know that Karswell and Holden both know what’s happening. Holden is desperate to find a way to slip the paper to Karswell. Karswell is equally eager to stop this. They go back and forth. Then Holden offers Karswell the coat, we know that his is his last chance. This is the peak moment of suspense.

The theme of this movie, I think, is the conflict between science and the paranormal. Holden is a skeptic—that seems to be his job, debunking the supernatural. It’s who he is. If someone proved between all doubt that the supernatural exists, he would go from Important Scientist to crank. He doesn’t believe in the supernatural, and doesn’t want to believe in the supernatural, to the point where he behaves irrationally in his desire to avoid the truth.

Tourneur was really good at using cinematography to make his movies scary. There were some really good examples of that here. One was his use of humor to make scary stuff seem weirder and lighten the mood. For example, when he first meet Karswell, he’s kind of a comic figure, a plump little guy bustling around in greasepaint and talking about ice cream. Then he starts telling Holden about how he’ll kill him. The disconnect there makes things more scary.

Ditto with the séance scene. The medium is a weird little guy, his helpers sing that Victorian hymn off key, nothing is very scary there. Then the medium starts doing voices, which is silly, because his contacts in the underworld aren’t very impressive, but also scary, because we’re not sure what’s going on and the spirits confirm that Holden is in danger.

This method is used pretty well in Joss Whedon’s series’ Buffy the Vampire Slayer (which is much better than the name suggests) and Angel. (It’s also used in Doctor Who). In both those shows, scary stuff will be happening, then someone will drop a pop culture reference or the monster will turn out to be more normal than people suspected. If you’ve seen the third season, the Mayor is a good example of that. He’s evil and dangerous, but he’s so darned nice.

Another effect Tourneur uses is the use of creepy and unexplained events. I know everyone mentioned this, but the hand on the railing was pretty scary. Hands on railings are pretty normal—but the fact is wasn’t there in the other shot, and the scary, dark house combined with its inexplicably, served to make that scene really scary.

I think this movie is about due for a remake. With better effects and acting, this could be a really amazing movie. I mean, if you’re going to spend money on five Resident Evil movies, I think you can spare a little for this one.

The Night of the Demon

One of the main aspects of the horror genre as defined by Carroll is that it must be a work with a monster that has supernatural aspects and that is both threatening and disgusting to the characters in the story. Not surprisingly, The Night of the Demon, features a supernatural monster in the form of a demon. It is definitely threatening, as it kills the only people who can see it, and disgusting in its ugly, brutish facial features and gigantic and abnormal body. Although the demon is only Karswell’s tool, I still think the demon, and not Karswell is the main monster in this film. Karswell is portrayed as very human in the film. Very flawed, but very human. He feels guilt and maybe even remorse and the movie gives reasons for his actions. He uses supernatural forces to do his bidding but he is not of supernatural origin himself. The demon, however is definitely supernatural. The demon is menacing of his own account and not just because Karswell is using him. I got the feeling throughout the whole movie that Karswell was getting too far over his head, and at any time the demon might decide to just go ahead and do whatever he wants. At the end, when the demon kills Karswell, we see that the demon has all the power and Karswell was simply dabbling in a power much greater than himself.
Since the demon was both threatening and disgusting, I think the movie is at least trying to be art-horrifying. It didn’t particularly work for me, because I agree with Tourneur—seeing the monster means that it’s really not scary anymore. However, scenes where the characters are talking about the possibility of the supernatural did evoke in me a sense of dread and even cosmic-horror. I was most scared, I think, like Holden is, by the very idea of there being a whole bunch of evil things out there that we know nothing about and are unable to control. I am horrified in a cosmic kind of way by the idea of a mere human, Karswell, bringing these forces out of the dark unknown and using them for his own gain. In the end, what is truly horrifying is not the thought that the runes worked and that it means that there really is a demon who Karswell was controlling, it is the idea that sometime in the future, the runes might not work. That there will be no way to fight the demon.

The film has components of both the complex discovery plot and the overreacher plot. It is part complex discovery plot, even though the audience sees the monster at the beginning, because Holden refuses to believe it. Because Holden so adamantly refuses to believe in the existence of the monster, the plot is propelled by Holden trying to find a different explanation, and failing. It has elements of the overreacher plot as well, in that Karswell takes the role of a kind of ‘mad scientist’ in dabbling with the power of the runes. He evokes a power that he can’t control, and the plot in this way is propelled by the suspense this causes. (Seeing Karswell in the role as ‘mad scientist’ highlights the idea of Holden and Karswell as foils. They’re both stricken with incredible tunnel vision. Karswell is convinced that he can use and control the demon. Holden is convinced that his way of thinking will prevail and he can control the world through scientific study. In this way it’s kind of a double-overreacher plot. Neither of them is correct, and they’re refusal to understand the world in any other way drives the suspense of the plot.)
Suspense, as defined by Carroll, is the situation in which the undesired becomes increasingly likely to happen with time. To me, the most ‘undesired’ element of this movie are the supernatural forces (we only see the one demon—but the demon’s appearance means that there could be any number of things out there). When the audience sees the hand on the stairwell, the hand that Holden never sees nor knows is there, the suspense is greatest for me. In this scene, we realize, subtly, that Holden’s science is not enough to control and understand the world. We realize that Holden’s tunnel vision is so pronounced that he cannot even see the hand on the stairwell right next to him. And we realize that the same could be true for us. That when we’re scared in the middle of the night for no reason, there could really be a reason. That there could be a hand on the stairwell next to us and we just don’t see it.
The most prominent theme I saw addressed in the film is a social theme about many’s inability to see or even entertain the thought of views other than their own. As I talked about before with Holden and Karswell, they both have incredible tunnel vision. I think the film can be seen as a social commentary about the West’s misguided belief that it can control everything. The Indian professor believes openly in the existence of demons, but Holden refuses to believe. Holden thinks that his way of thinking is the only one that can possibly be right, and believes that his dogma of beliefs control the world. Karswell thinks that he, himself can control the world—even who lives and who dies. Britain believed that it had this power, as Karswell does in the movie, during colonialism when they treated the colonized countries however they wished. America has also been accused of trying to control everyone and imposing their way of thinking on the entire world. In the end, they both get their comeuppance, with Karswell’s death signaling that he does not have control of life and death, and Holden’s dogma of beliefs crashing around him when he cannot explain events with regular ideas about science.
I like how Jacques Tourneur distorts the film when we see things through Holden’s point of view, in order to show that we cannot trust Holden, or maybe we are seeing reality as Holden is gradually beginning to understand it: that everything is not clear as it once was. This technique heightened the suspense in the movie for me because it made it more likely that Holden’s scientific explanation for Harrington’s death and the other events of the film cannot really account for these events. Even though I didn’t find Holden’s character very likable, I tended to be on his side. I like when he talks about how he was a kid and he would always walk under the ladder, just to prove his silly, superstitious friends wrong. Maybe because both of my parents are scientists, I was always this kid. (I once chugged a can of pop and ate a whole packet of Pop Rocks in fourth grade just to prove to my friend that it would not explode my stomach.) I like this technique a lot because it’s emphasizing that Holden’s cozy belief that he knows exactly how the world works and sees it clearly. When his point of view is visually blurred and distorted, we start to believe that he’s not right, and if he’s not right, then we really don’t understand what’s going on.

Another Night of the Demon Analysis

A. Is Night of the Demon Art-Horrific?

Does Night of the Demon fit into Carroll’s definition of art-horror? Well it does have a monster. I did not find the “demon” very revolting, but I would attribute this lack of disgust to the limitations of special effects in Tourneur’s day. With a bit of imagination, I suppose the demon would be frightening, though I could not help but picture Tourneur’s smoke-spewing monster as an oversized Godzilla that some child was using to bash a plastic green army man to smithereens. Nonetheless, monster-wise, Night of the Demon fits well as an art-horror film, as the demon is not a natural occurrence in the world of the film. A disgusting and aggressive monster, however, is not the only requirement that needs to be satisfied in order to elevate Night of the Demon to the level of art-horror.

Not Pictured: Lifeless body being thrashed about, screaming.

B. The Emotional Dynamics of Horror in Night of the Demon

Carroll specifies appropriate reactions that audiences should have when viewing an art-horror film, a reaction that should fit our alignment with the film’s protagonists. Though Holden’s real horror does not begin until he realizes that the story he dismissed as fantasy turned out to be true, it is easy for us as an audience to share in the immediacy and fatal nature of his predicament. We also share in glimpses of the art-horror of Holden’s female companion, Joanna, who is more easily convinced during moments in which we would accept a non-skeptic in Holden’s position to be horrified.

Lovecraft would be as satisfied by the horrific emotions of Night of the Demon as Noel Carroll seemingly should be. While the somewhat more carnal horror of Carroll is very apparent in terms of physical revulsion from the demon, the fear of the unknown, what we can call “cosmic dread” is as strong, if not stronger than that physical disgust. I would argue that cosmic fear dwarfs the fear of the demon as the predominant horrific emotion of the film. While the physical threat of the demon is great, it seems more frightening to me that if I were in the protagonists’ place I would be pitted against something ancient, all-powerful, and perhaps impossible to completely understand. Holden is racing towards his death due to a mystical ancient code, which would inspire a perfect example of cosmic fear.

C. Art-Horrific Plot and Night of the Demon

I agree with many of the previous posters that Night of the Demon does not comfortably fit into any of the understood plot families. It has elements of overreaching, and elements of complex discovery. What is overarching in importance, in terms of plot, is the question of whether or not Karswell is full of bologna. That is, will Holden’s scientific skepticism hold true until the end of the plot, or will the supernatural explanation be confirmed? I personally feel that this opposition between science and the supernatural is very well done throughout the plot. There is a constant almost tangible strain in the characters over whether Karswell is really just a clown or Holden is doomed to a very painful death. While it would seem then that discovery is the primary goal of the plot, we (the viewers) already know, or at least are pretty sure, that the monster is very real and that Holden is in imminent danger. Discovery itself, then, does little for the audience, and timing of Holden’s discovery takes precedence in driving the plot.

D. The Nature of Night of the Demon’s Most Suspenseful Scene

Finding the most suspenseful scene in Night of the Demon is somewhat of a difficult task. A few very suspenseful ones have already been mentioned, such as the scene in which Holden is chased through the forest by the smoke, and the scene in which Holden is trying to return the scroll to Karswell as the clock winds down towards someone-is-about-to-get-really-messed-up hour. In my opinion, the most suspenseful scene in Night of the Demon was the scene in which Holden, while interviewing the hypnotized patient (Hobart) learns of his fate as the man holding the rune scroll. He also learns: how to save his own life, and the sheer terror that awaits him should he fail to do so.

Oh $&@#%

The reason that I find this scene to be the most suspenseful relates to the above explanation on the type of art-horror plot that Night of the Demon follows. This is the point at which Holden (along with those of us who are in his non-believing camp) begin to acquiesce to the reality of a supernatural bad-ass that is gearing up to rock his world by the end of the night, a bad-ass so bad that Hobart would rather throw himself out of a high window than be subject to its wrath. All of the suspense that has been building to this point is now unleashed. What would seem like a good moment (since Holden figures out how to thwart death) is overshadowed by the absolute horror of the bad outcome along with the acknowledgement that he doesn’t have much time left. This sequence of events fits neatly into Carroll’s schema regarding suspense, particularly so considering that as far as the viewer is concerned, the negative outcome is still more likely, since Holden has little time to work with, and Karswell could be making his getaway.

E. Theme(s) in Night of the Demon

I can discern only one major theme that runs throughout this film, and that is science and skepticism vs. superstition and the supernatural. Despite many incidents in the film that would cause a blood-pressure hike and nausea for a majority of people, Holden stands firm in his belief that the supernatural, along with those who believe in supernatural events, is a crock. Even after Holden is chased by smoke, is attacked by a demon cat, and encounters a cult that treats him like a death-row inmate, he refuses to believe that something fishy is going on.

Holden: I’m still not convinced.

On the other end of the spectrum we have Karswell, a wizard of sorts, who can create pull rabbits out of hats, create windstorms, and summon the devil incarnate (pictured above). Throughout the film this conflict of beliefs is waged between Karswell is Holden. At one point, Karswell goes so far as to tell Holden that his skepticism will get him killed, and Holden still resists.

Stuck in the middle of this is what I believe to be the “everyman” of the film, who is in this case Joanna. She represents what we would most likely conceive to be a normal person. She is superstitious enough to be freaked out by incidents such as the séance, but is not a full-blown cult member. By the film’s end it appears that her outlook on the conflict of ideals is the most practical. If there is a lesson to be learned from her belief system, it is this: Not everything is the result of some supernatural force, but if you see Godzilla bearing down on you, your best course of action is to run away screaming like a little girl, not stand there and swear it’s an illusion.

F. Tourneur’s Cinematic Techniques

As has been previously discussed, Tourneur and his associates felt (and rightfully so) that oftentimes it was not seeing the monster that would scare the audience. Rather, seeing or hearing something but not knowing or seeing its origin was a more frightening technique. In Night of the Demon, this technique is carried out with unsettling success. Perhaps the most moving example of this is the scene in which Holden breaks into Karswell’s mansion. We glimpse a mysterious ugly hand following Holden, accompanied by some hair-raising string work. However, we never actually see who, or more sickeningly, what the hand belongs to. The hand, along with the sound and the dominant shadows looming in the mansion, come together to make the viewer wondering when Karswell is going to jump out in a clownsuit with a meat cleaver. This is only one example, however it includes most of the techniques used by Tourneur to keep the audience honest: shadows, freaky sounds, and the non-discovery of their source.

"Nobody is free from fear": An Analysis of Night of the Demon

According to Carroll, the genre of horror evolved from humanity’s innate fear of that which is unknown or goes against preconceived social norms. Night of the Demon focuses on these universal fears and manipulates them, using elements of the supernatural (witchcraft and satanic practices) to comment on the tensions between knowledge and ignorance skepticism and belief. As a result, through its use of the fantastic (although not pure fantastic) and the “art horror” monster, Jacques Tourneur’s film complements Carroll’s hypothesis very well.

To begin, Night of the Demon delivers the emotion of “art horror” by placing the characters in opposition to a monster both physically impossible and morally repugnant. Throughout history, demons and witchcraft have been viewed through the lens of horror, as they are inherently immoral and malignant. The film draws on this long history of fear and places it within the twentieth century, mixing medieval with modern and illustrating the pervasive nature of horror. In addition, the film displays elements of cosmic fear and dread. Cosmic fear concerns humanity’s fear of the unknown. Undoubtedly, this type of fear plays a large role in the terror of Night of the Demon as the characters are constantly battling that which they do not recognize or understand. This is exemplified in the character of Holden who refuses to accept that there are aspects of existence that cannot be explained rationally. Furthermore, the film utilizes aspects of dread. This is illustrated best in the opening sequence in which Harrington is fleeing in his car from the threat of the demon. The audience is ignorant of what Harrington fears and does not understand why he is running; however, his terror is palpable. Undeniably, this opening sequence sets up the narrative very well, drawing the audience in and creating suspense.

Similarly, Tourneur’s use of narrative complements Carroll’s theory of horror as well. Night of the Demon utilizes both the Complex Discovery Plot and the Overreacher Plot to pose questions concerning the power of belief and the ethics of control. To illustrate, as in the Complex Discovery Plot, the film has definite moments of onset, discovery, confirmation, and confrontation. The onset scene of the film depicts the death of Harrington at the claws of the demon and gives the audience a first glimpse of what Harrington fears and Karswell is attempting to control. In an interesting twist of narrative, all the characters except the protagonist Holden believe in the existence of the supernatural and of the demon. They realize the power of Karswell and fear for Holden’s life. Nevertheless, Holden does not accept Karswell’s interpretation of the world and scoffs at his attempts to convince him of the reality of the supernatural. In this way, the discovery scene is more of a sequence of scenes involving the other characters (such as Karswell and Joanna Harrington) trying to convince Holden of the existence of the demon. As a result, the confirmation scene focuses on Holden’s acceptance of the supernatural and the probability of his death. This confirmation comes during the hypnosis scene in which Holden finally comprehends the all-consuming fear inspired by the demon. Finally, the confrontation scene comes at the end of the film when Holden reveals that he now believes in the supernatural and he gives Karswell the parchment filled with runes. Karswell then confronts the entity he was trying to control and Holden escapes with Joanna. Furthermore, the film exemplifies the Overreacher plot, as the demon itself is not created because of Karswell power. Instead, it exists because something beyond the character of Karswell created it. Karswell simply conjures it and attempts to control it. Clearly, both plot structures are utilized in the film to highlight questions concerning belief and control.

Leading up to the confirmation scene is one of the most suspenseful scenes in the film – Holden’s attempt to steal Karswell’s translation of an ancient book describing the tenants of witchcraft and spells. This scene illustrates Carroll’s concept of suspense in that it presents questions within narrative that the audience attempts to answer. As the imagination takes over, the answers become more elaborate and terrifying and the audience’s fear increases. For instance, throughout the scene, the audience questions whether Holden will be caught by Karswell, whether something is watching Holden (i.e. the mysterious hand on the staircase), and whether he will succeed in stealing the Karswell’s book. The suspense reaches its pinnacle with the closing of the office doors and the transformation of the cat into a leopard. Without doubt, his scene is suspenseful and frightening because many of its elements are unexplained, causing the audience to imagine answers to the questions – each answer more horrific than the last.

Moreover, the scene described above illustrates some of the films main themes. The main theme of Tourneur’s work rests in the tension between belief/knowledge and skepticism/ignorance. Throughout the film, the characters (especially Holden) are wrestling with the possibility that the supernatural can exist. The scene in which Holden enters Karswell home to gain more knowledge of what is pursuing him illustrates this tension. Holden does not believe in the supernatural and is ignorant of its true influence and power. When he is shown irrefutable evidence of the supernatural (i.e. the hand on the staircase, the closing doors, and the cat), Holden begins his journey to belief and knowledge. Furthermore, this theme is exemplified in the film’s final scene when Holden finally accepts the existence of the supernatural and decides that sometimes it is better to believe than to know.

To conclude, Jacques Tourneur’s Night of the Demon embodies many aspects of Carroll’s theory of horror. It inspires in the audience the emotion of “art horror” and utilizes the narrative forms of the Complex Discovery Plot and the Overreacher Plot. Furthermore, through Tourneur’s use of light and music, the film employs suspense to create an atmosphere of mystery and fear. Undeniably, Night of the Demon is a work of horror that speaks to humanity’s inherent questions concerning knowledge and ignorance, skepticism and belief.