Is horror the most disrespected genre?
bbc.com
bbc.com
I feel like the original “cube” ushered in the realization that you could make a “popular” movie that was not a block buster actually be profitable if you kept the costs close to zero. So we get movies that don’t require well known actors (the star is the fx) with few sets (cube essentially had two).
I thought I had a point but now I don’t know what it was, so I’ll leave this comment half way done, just like my old high school essays :)
The problem for movies like Get Out and the quiet one (blanking on the name), is that they get placed in the “horror” bucket, which is increasingly dominated by the Saw-style torture porn movies.
I’m not entirely sure that I particularly buy the articles arguments, I think it’s more a reflection of which sub-genre is perceived by the general populace as reflecting the genre as a whole. As with many things the dominant sub-genre changes over time. The author seems to want a specific sub-genre to be regarded as the actual definition of the whole genre rather than allowing the overall perception of what a genre should be to change over time.
For instance the article is talking about the horror genre, and the torture vs suspense sub genres. But we can look elsewhere as well - compare what was considered an “action” movie in the 80s, vs 90s, vs 00s, vs today. We can see as the popularity of different genres ebbs over time. For action movies the sub genres /could/ be meaningful plot vs explosions and everywhere in between. Modern action movies (super heroes) try to have character development, 80s and 90s less so (predator, which might also be considered “horror”).
And I’m rambling incoherently so I’ll be off :)
Even the soldiers in The Predator seem more relatable and develop in more interesting and believable ways. Given their backgrounds, they react to the circumstances in plausible ways. The film doesn't hand you their backgrounds by having the first 30 minutes be some sort of genesis story and a montage, but by having the characters do what they do in a way that tells us more and more about them as the film progresses. I wouldn't call The Predator "subtle" but everything is relative.
If you have a shitty action movie, it'll still have action. Some fantasy movie will still have some fantasy and story telling, no matter how shitty. Even the shittiest B-movies manage to tell a story and have some action, which is fine for the genre, you get some of it.
But with horror the problem is that if you fuck it up, you don't get horror, you get torture porn or reflex training (jump scare). If you don't nail the horror, it seizes to be horror.
For example, I tried going through some of the later Steven Seagal flicks lately. The way they're cut and the pacing make them absolutely boring. The stories they tell aren't cohesive, and the action is the closest thing to stills of Seagal's limbs you'll get before you'd have to call them slideshows. Those are bad action movies, and I suspect that what you call bad action movies are actually just campy/shoestring/"so-bad-they're-funny" yet entertaining action movies.
Same for fantasy. If your fantasy film is utterly mundane, unoriginal and uninspiring it'll fail to deliver the fantastic. Not to mention comedy. If your comedy is not funny what's left is often a really thin plot revolving around unrelatable characters under unbelievable circumstances. Drama film has no drama if you don't care about any of the characters.
I'd still call these horror, action, fantasy, comedy and drama films, respectively. As much as I think it's bad, the intent is obvious, and a bad genre film is just one that was really bad at achieving it.
Shoestrings budget films have existed pretty much as long as motion cameras have been generally available.
But these are specifically created because they are cheap (relatively) to make and sell enough tickets to get into mainstream theatres, which produces much higher profits than other genres on shoestring budgets. Note of course that all of this is the general case - there are obviously exceptions in every direction.
I mean, it's not even respectable enough to be considered in the discussion of the most disrespected genre of film.
At least porn has awards shows.
I mean if we go down that totem pole, then 'still image movies' are even further down.
Exploitation is movies like the infamous "Ilse" which mixed Nazi-fetchism, sadism, torture, castration - basically wallows in the most taboo subjects imaginable.
That's really the one example. It's the same situation where horror movies have to be elevated above the genre to be discussed.
As for "Intelligent Horror" demeaning "normal" horror—I'm not sure I've ever heard people complaining about IDM[1] vs EDM[2].
> The term "intelligent dance music" has been widely criticised and rejected by artists associated with the style, including Aphex Twin and µ-Ziq, as elitist and derogatory towards other genres. [...] In 2014, music critic Sasha Frere-Jones observed that the term "is widely reviled but still commonly used".
Half the page is discussing the backlash against the term on the exact same grounds.
In my opinion, the popularity of the late 70s to 80s slasher films (Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm St, Texas Chainsaw Massacre to name a few), combined with studios’ ever-shrinking tolerance for risk, resulted in a particularly bland few decades of mainstream horror, with the well-known Saw franchise and, to a lesser extent, the somewhat satirical Final Destination series as typical examples of the era. Personally, I’m partial to the Evil Dead films, Army of Darkness most of all. Groovy.
Horror can be excellent when done well, and pathetic when done poorly. It is easy to go for cheap scares and bloody massacre scenes. There is a lot to dislike about modern horror films that can turn off audiences looking for more than jump scares and blood splatter. If I hadn’t dated a girl in college who was super into the horror genre, I would have never gotten into it.
Horror is best when it floods you with an emotional high that lasts long after the initial shock. For a most masterful example, try playing Silent Hill 2, if you dare.
This is recognized within the horror fan community as well. There are lots of people on various forums talking about the cornucopia of great horror at the moment, and my guess is a number of fans will spend years catching up on their expanding lists of films to see and rewatch. It's really remarkable.
There's a broader context that I think the author is missing, or at least ignoring: film and visual arts critics don't care about genre, they care about film. Genre tends to create a comparative context that doesn't necessarily exist if your scope is film at large. So, horror films exist to cater to a horror film fan base, romantic comedies exist to cater to that, superhero films cater to that, science fiction, fantasy, and so forth and so on. If it is a backhanded compliment, my guess is the same could be said of any genre to some extent.
That goes from small fiction novels (fan fiction included) on to youtube videos and even multi-media ARG (alternate reality games).
A pretty neat example would be Don't Hug Me I'm Scared, a rather deep exploration of media that I would definitely put into the category of horror.
Another one I recently discovered is the Twitter account @thesunvanished. Twitter as a medium means there cannot be a jump scare. The only way to keep people interested is to keep at the core of horror. Even some of the slenderman ARGs, despite what people might think about the story, are pretty damn good despite using cheap effects (or maybe because they're using cheap effects?).
(Of course, it's all about taste and even the small creators can fail)
JUMP SCARE
Violin screech
Creepy little girl
Research history in library
Running in a house
2. No, it's outdated.
3. Not unless you're making another Ring. This is bad and you should feel bad as an author.
4. It is a common framing device, also used in fantasy.
5. The better horrors take place in a bigger area than just a house. They may have some related scenes like that.
Most importantly, this tells more about the kind of horror movies you're watching.
Common creepy stuff like darkness, contrast and claustrophobia are obviously used. They are generally scary.
Just curious, what horror movies would you recommend?
Responding to the thesis of the article though, I think comedy is at least as disrespected as horror.
And their short-lived tv show Freaky Links was really ahead of its time (it is basically about a youtuber hunting paranormal stuff but it came out in 2000)
But with the blockbuster success of films like It, Get Out, and A Quiet Place we will see something never witnessed before in cinema history: the coming of the big budget horror flick. I think The Conjuring 2 budget was upwards of $40M. And it looked terrific. The upcoming Venom and Shane Black's The Predator are no doubt deeply influenced by classic horror tropes.
But for the real deal. Still nothing compares to the classics. I finally got to screen David Cronenberg's Videodrome the other night. Holy Guacamole. They don't make anything quite like that anymore ;)
Big budget horror movies are nothing new; look at the Alien franchise.
"elevator horror" is a funny term but I definitely meant "elevated horror"; edited.
I want to genuinely watch a $100M Excorcist or Carrie or The Omen. Something original by a master.
Another recommendation for the kids out there is John Landis' An American Werewolf In London from 1981. Still holds up. Maybe its time to return to analog effects!
A film I don't often see mentioned but that I still think is a good watch is Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
Requiem for a Dream falls into that first category as well for me.
Incidentally, I first heard the music when I watched the movie. The whole casting and TV selling and drug buying scene was framed by this music, and it felt very dirge-like. A foreshadowing of what was to come. And my mind associated it very strongly with those kind of tragic scenarios. But later I started seeing videos on Youtube about football or dogs with the same music.
On the other hand, I'm actively avoiding A Clockwork Orange...
The way he introduced movies and in particular the horror ones made me never forget them.
Horror is like the genre where anyone with a video camera fresh out of highschool can produce and somehow get in a bargain bin at any store. The genre has some good stuff, but it's way too flooded with garbage that it's hard to find the good stuff. Some people like the campiness of it, but I just don't have the time to waste on it. In highschool I remember we rented a horror movie because the first name on it was Ron Jeremy and we were like "heh, heh, awesome"! He was in the first 1 minute as a bum, no lines, and died, the rest of the movie was beyond horrible. Those kinds of tactics don't help the genre either.
Yeah, lots of other genres have tons of garbage too, but somehow it doesn't seem like it does to the same extent (just how I've seen things). Maybe it's because Horror has the potential to be awesome, ridiculous or cool, even if it's a shit tier movie, where as a drama just doesn't have the allure without critical acclaim, big names, or notable nudity. There are way more cult followings around horror movies than dramas or others it seems.
I can understand that nobody likes someone else coming into their "scene" and scooping out the best stuff, giving it a respectable note/name, and calling the rest of the baggage, history, and culty stuff garbage.
Naturally! Notable nudity notwithstanding, neutral narratives normally necessitate nixing naivety.
It sometimes seems to fare better as books (Stephen King) or games (Bioshock) rather than movies.
Serious stories happening in a real historical setting are on top. And it goes down as we deviate from this archetype. Fantasy and sci-fi are a step lower, and comedy is rock bottom. Horror is often not serious or realistic, it is meant to entertain, in its own way, so it is right down there with comedy.
Of course, that hierarchy is purely artificial. People enjoy "low tier" movies a lot, and a lot of talent goes into them (to varying degrees of course). But for some reason, you don't want to say it publicly.
I think it dates back to ancient Greece or maybe even earlier. So that's a thing we have to live with I think.
Movies catering to base physical reactions (sexual arousal, fear, laughter) is considered less prestigious. Although intellectual comedy can be pretty prestigious compared to physical comedy. And psychological horror is considered more prestigious than horror based on gore and dismemberment. And suspense is higher than horror I think.
Horror is actually a respected craft, porn not so respected, the other two are no craft and extremely annoying.