Reverence, respect, horror, astonishment, sublimity: all of these things are best realized in an image. Take any piece of art that inspires feelings of sublimity (I like to think of Memling’s “The Last Judgment”). This sort of awe and horror can be achieved also in the horror genre of fiction, particularly with images of the art-horror monster.
For example, take the massive, 500 foot tall, thunder-emitting three headed dragon beast King Ghidorah, of Toho fame.
The mere sight of this monstrous, horror and awe inspiring creature generates art-horror, and any deaf man can appreciate that! At some point, the methods of Cat People and The Haunting, though their subtle hints at the supernatural are indeed frightful, must play second fiddle to the medium of sight. Seeing the monster does not categorically make it less scary (is the monster in Alien LESS scary when it shows its acid blood/three layers of razor sharp teeth/unstoppable killer instinct? Any reasoned analysis would say no. Also, if I were to hear a creeping King Ghidorah around a dark alley corner, I would not be as art-horrified as if I saw him thrashing through the air over a major metropolitan area.
In conclusion, sound can never be what sight is to the horror genre, or to notions of sublimity. Actions speak louder than words, and sights horrify more than sounds.
Robert
4 comments:
While I agree with your assessment of the horror that comes with the sight of a terrifying object, I would argue that the two cannot be accurately judged as mutually exclusive elements when we're talking about horror films. An inconsistency between sight and sound in film causes the experience to lose legitimacy. For instance, the corny pan pipe music in Nosferatu makes the film seem at times more like a comedy routine than a horror.
Like Will, I also agree with your assessment of sight as a vital component of art horror. I feel that the importance of sound, however, simply cannot be undermined. I think the argument can be made that visual perceptions are almost always preceded by auditory perceptions in horror; clues that let you know something truly horrifying is about to happen. One could even argue that the art horror generated in films such as The Haunting are based almost on sound alone; other than the writing on the wall and the scene in which the doors bulge, the real feelings of horror that viewers experience come from the countless uses of eerie sounds. For the most part, however, I think that a true horror film cannot be great without a good use of sound and visuals. The two working together are what create the most effective examples of art horror.
I would actally beg to differ, unless you consider the lack of sight a sight in itself. I find that it is possible to be horrified by sound alone, especially when in the presence of darkness. Think back to the assesment of sounds and things that go bump in the night. You are ot seeing any of these things and yet they can still terrify a person. I do think the to be truly horrififes by the collaboartion of sound and sight requires a mastery of the constitency between the two. Like Will stated, legitmacy is lost when the two don't match correctly and I do think that something is more art-horrific if it has componets of both, but I think a person can be fearful of one or the other just the same.
I agree with Will on this subject. While the horror associated with sight is almost entirely more powerful that those associated with sound, I don't think it is fair to necessarily compare the two head to head. It is the comparison of apples and oranges. However, just like a meal can contain elements of both apples and oranges, I believe that the two can definitely work cooperatively with one another to deliver a horrific emotion upon audiences. For instance, what if the movie Jaws never had the "approaching shark" music? I think if they would merely have broken away from the scene to show a shark swimming it would have greatly taken away from the suspense and fear that audiences felt in those moments.
Post a Comment