Freeland makes some great remarks about the appeal of graphic horror films. Most notably, she links it towards three main characteristics, each a development of the idea that graphic scenes of gore/violence function like "numbers" (heightened sequences of spectacle and emotion that appear to interrupt the plot and produce pure visual experiences of stunning power and capacity - a perverse sublime if you will): (1) they can further the plot and narrative, (2) produce emotional/cognitive effects, and (3) provide general aesthetic pleasures that have to do with audience knowledge and appreciation of the genre.
Function 3 is what interests me the most. This type of aesthetic pleasure is what the typical horror cinephile gets attracted to once they've become enveloped by the genre. For example, I'm a diehard fan of John Carpenter's remake of The Thing. One of the main reasons I prefer this film is its sheer ingenious mechanical effects - I know what type of blood, sweat and labor went into the making of them (and the fact that Rob Bottin, the lead makeup FX guy, had a breakdown after the film says something of how much effort he put into it). The gory visual spectacles are gross, obviously, but they aren't just artifacts of violence for violence' sake. Which leads into the second idea, that graphic horror is sometimes appreciated due to intertextuality and a meta-level aesthetic appreciation of specialized knowledge and interest. Freeland writes (especially concerning horror sequels), "Sequels have a special appeal to the fans of a genre. They often prompt a switch from involvement in a film's plot to a metalevel sort of aesthetic appreciation based on special knowledge and interests. Graphic horror sequels enable fans to study and comment upon cinematic techniques: plot variations, allusions, style, effects, wizardry, parody, and 'in jokes'" (p. 262).
This is the pure artistic appreciation of what the filmmakers can create, as for example in The Thing. Concerning the types of monsters in these films, Freeland writes, "Despite their individual differences, monsters like Pinhead, Freddy, Leatherface, and Jason function alike in one key way - they take graphic visual spectacle to new extremes. They figure in films whose numbers are given over to what I called function 3, display for its own sake. Their presence is inked to frightening displays of forces of destruction that can simultaneously be disgusting yet enjoyable" (p. 268).
So, there we have it, perhaps. Spectators can be attracted to these slasher monsters because of the cinematic creativity that they embody, the spectacular nature of their deeds, and the specific knowledge that comes with knowing them. Specific knowledge here of course representing that a fan of Jason will know and recognize the many different ways that he and his methods have been portrayed throughout the series (intertextual references begin to come into the fray in later sequels which reference Frankenstein and the idea of resurrection through lightening).
Furthermore, Freeland argues that the very extreme nature of the violence depicted in these films renders them more comedic and cartoony than anything. The violence becomes sublimated and stripped of its negative aspects. Unlike the realism of other films, graphic horror focuses on the spectacle entirely and becomes so utterly unrealistic that it borders on camp. Of which I would agree.
I had specified that I thought horror slashers were popular among fans because they tend to develop a cult like status through subsequent films. All of these observations, be it the cinematic creativity, cartoonish violence, or references to other works (and in-jokes or more esoteric knowledge) can be developed in that framework.
So, back to the paradox of horror and Mr. Carroll. Why horror? Why do we enjoy it? If graphic horror offers any insight, then certainly we like it for its spectacular visual display and creativity. Of course, not all horror functions in this manner. The advancement of plot and eliciting of emotions and cognitive interests (functions 1 and 2 of numbers) also play much larger roles in a work such as Stoker's Dracula, in which the violence or moodiness is clearly meant to support the narrative and upset the reader (the blood transfusions are still unsettling to me for some reason).
Thus, it would seem that part of Freeland's account is once again in line with Carroll's in that horror ties into narrative expectations. Carroll believed that horror was the price we paid for a disclosure of the plot and the nature of the monster. Similarly, Freeland is arguing that graphic horror can be a vehicle for plot and narrative, enhancing it or just taking it to the extreme in a visual excess.
---------------------------------------------
What about non-cinephile horror viewers? Perhaps they won't enjoy graphic horror as much as fans would. I'm not entirely sure what to make of a "fresh" viewer - someone who isn't acquainted with the background and/or localized knowledge of a specific monster or movie series. Perhaps they can enjoy graphic horror through its advancement of the plot and the interplay with cognitive emotions.
Personally, I know that as a fan of horror cinema, many of the works I went into fresh were those that helped me develop my sensibilities and acquire a taste for these types of films. It's difficult to pin down this evolution and development because we're dealing with a heavily phenomenological process which is much too complicated to boil down into a few telling criteria. The more I think about it, the more I think Deleuze was right: cinema and life are one and the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment