The LA times' Hero Complex blog just did a nice piece on horror that included these bits:
"If horror films reflect the anxieties of a culture, then it makes perfect sense that so many nefarious characters are emerging from the darkness: The collapse of the housing market, the menacing approach of a potential economic depression, an ongoing war and international unrest -- they're the stuff of nightmares. And yet, sitting in dark theaters watching unspeakable acts on screen, we find release -- or at least distraction from the real threats we face."
and
It would be easy to apply some of Andrew Tudor's thoughts on genre (Reader Week II) to these passages. First of all, Tudor dismisses the horror genre's intention to "horrify" as "less important." (Mr. Form [perfect last name for this discussion] would disagree) But the blue quote from the LA Times piece seems to share Tudor's idea that horror is more than just "A Scary Movie." Tudor was very early on advocating that the purpose in studying genre films is partly to understand the culture in which they are made, i.e to understand the "social and psychological context of film." So if we are studying current horror, we are in essence studying current society.
For the full piece, read here: (And it really is worth reading -- from an industry perspective, as well as a critical one.)
4 comments:
The full article here, by Gina McIntyre, is definitely worth a read, but I'm definitely not buying everything that she's selling. The interviews are solid, but I'm hesitant to throw too much support behind Zombie or even Aja as representatives of the horror scene. Even Craven has always played second fiddle in my mind to Carpenter and others. He had a nice debut with "Last House," which is highly overrated in my opinion and "Hills Have Eyes," which might be underrated; but otherwise, his horror cred is based solely on "Nightmare" and "Scream." Both tremendous and even genre defining films to be sure, but in between, and since, he's not done fans many favors. (I did really enjoy "Red Eye," but generically speaking it's not really horror.)
Zombie and Aja similarly made tremendous splashes (with "1000 Corpses," "Devil's Rejects," "High Tension," and "Hills" the remake, respectively), but their work since then has, if anything, revealed them to be less auteurs of horror than shrewd businessmen.
With regards to genre cycles, particularly in horror, I think there's a strong argument to be made. There's also little doubt that horror has been on a nice run in 2009, which is likely to continue with some of the biggest guns yet to come. I do, however, find it interesting that McIntyre chose to lump wide studio releases (like the "Saw" films) in with foreign properties that have been gaining steam with genre fans. Personally, I find it a difficult position to defend that these two branches could exist in any way as part of the same cycle. Instead, what we're seeing today in wide horror (i.e. "Last House," "MBV3D," and especially the J-horror remakes) are simply corporate responses to the transgressive films of yesterday (in this case I'd list things like "Ils," "Hatchet," maybe even "Inside").
The real point that McIntyre should have made (and did to an extent) is that studios have gotten smarter about handling horror in general. They've also become quite savvy at leveraging smaller budget and indie films picked up from festivals into real money. There's still more that they could be doing I think, but I say that as a genre fan and not necessarily as an industry watcher.
2009 will likely be a big year. There's a lot of room for debate though about why, and personally I'm not ready to buy the whole, the "economy is bad, therefore people want horror" argument. Genre theory tells us, in my mind, that things aren't ever that easy. It's also important to note that 2008 was a pretty mediocre year for horror, despite the fact that things weren't exactly peaches and cream for us as a country.
Finally, I actually agree with Craven (and this is another reason that I think Aja is sort of jackass -- see his quote toward the end of the LAT piece) that 3D isn't the future of horror, just like it's not the future of fantasy films or musicals either. I parsed through the opening numbers of "MBV3D" pretty extensively in a blog post, and my conclusion is that 3D is unlikely to succeed today any more than it did in the '80s. For those really interested, we got into this pretty extensively in a podcast episode last week.
Focusing on 3-D, I'm much more a part of Cameron's crew than I'll ever be of Katzenberg's. Mind you, I've never been the biggest fan of 3-D, and am still waiting to see a truly immersive, non-gimmicky experience. Hopefully CORALINE will be that. If not, there's always AVATAR...
Regarding horror, I tried to think about what cycle the genre's in right now, if any. What I got from the article was a large sense of industry hesitance to trust audiences to pay for a brand new idea. H2, LAST HOUSE..., etc., like Zombie correctly said, ease execs fears, knowing people will show up to see good 'ol Jason hack up some people. But I've found this "remake cycle" of sorts disturbing, if only because it's typified by lackluster quality, especially regarding J-horror remakes (THE RING is arguably the one exception, IMO).
It seems as if foreign horror like ILS or THE ORPHANAGE is regarded similarly to art house fare: respected by most, but deemed untouchable or unmarketable by studios, given the lack of a well-established fan base. Perhaps this is why studios are so quick to snatch up foreign properties and revamp/remake/reimagine/re-whatever them into a fashion more palatable to American audiences (read: without subtitles). Hence, Quarantine (from [REC]) and Goddard's upcoming LET THE RIGHT ONE IN remake.
And I'm still iffy on the idea of unsatisfying and troubling times in real life motivating audiences to go see horror. If film is escapism, I find it hard to believe audiences will pay to be visually tormented for 2 hrs in a theater, and then go home and get the same trouble from their sagging paychecks. It's like Iraq movies last year: people were fed up with Iraq, and didn't need movies to remind them (see LIONS FOR LAMBS, REDACTED, RENDITION, etc. etc.). So easily-consumed family fare sells: BLART's doing well, just like BEVERLY HILLS CHIHUAHUA and BOLT.
The problem is, of course, that most horror films now have such low budgets (as the article wisely points out), that it's easy to break even. THE STRANGERS is a great example, and perhaps even an anomaly: released in mid-summer, an original idea from a first time writer-director that was actually well-acted, directed and written, AND made lots of money. I just wonder what the formula is? The stars involved? The story? The trailer? Maybe all of it, or none of it.
I think outside of the iconic horror baddies, audiences aren't too reliably excited by horror. Raimi's HELL is getting lots of positive buzz out of screenings, but I'm hesitant that it'll translate to B.O. success, especially if the film's as much of a throwback to his EVIL DEAD days as it seems, filled with in-jokes and homages that only his true fans will care to understand.
Jon, I definitely agree with your opinion of studios responding to the transgressive foreign indie fare. Personally, I think heady horror is on its way out, sadly. THE STRANGERS is as close as we'll get for a while.
And while THE ORPHANAGE was a great film and well-received, I just don't see that type of film coming out of an American studio yet. It'll take a much larger success. Or maybe they'll just remake THE SHINING. Sigh.
1) On the issue of 3D, slate just did a very good 3D horror history. http://www.slate.com/id/2208977/
2) I'd give Craven points for Serpent and the Rainbow and his TV work on Twilight Zone (80s version). And some of his sequels are pretty strong -- especially a couple of the Elm Streets.
3). Carpenter is one of my favorite directors -- certainly more so than Craven -- but how many really good straight horror films has he done. Obviously, Halloween alone would make him a major influence, but The Thing is borderline SF, and the Fog is only okay. My favorite Carpenter films apart from Halloween are not horror -- Escape from LA, They Live, Assault on Precinct 13 ...
So Jon, while I like Carpenter's films more than Craven's, I would say that Craven is actually more significant to the genre.
4)No mention of Cronenberg -- his genre cross-over must be considered complete -- but I'd say that he is more significant to 80s horror than any of the names under discussion.
5). Is auterism the best way to think about horror? Doesn't that cause Blair Witch, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, the Host, even the Shining, to get left out because they aren't part of horror bodies of work?
6). I thought the LA Times did a pretty good job of isolating recent sub-genre cycles, although missing zombies.
7). What no one discussed in interviews was a new tendency of hybrid horror, in which the syntax is more adventure related -- maybe starting with The Mummy (by way of Indie and Temple of Doom) but look at Van Helsing, the Nightwatch films, etc. And now we have a movie about vampires that isn't a horror film at all. What I think is happening is that classic mythological "monsters" have been dislodged from their horror roots. I think this is significant.
8). I think some kinds of horror may flourish during dark times. Universal cycle during the depression. Very little actual horror during prosperous 50s. Slashers emerge in Vietnam/Watergate era. I'm not sure there's a horror cycle now due to bad times -- I think it's about economics and horror is cheap to make.
9). And Clarence is not treating Devil's Backbone and Pan's Labyrinth as successful foreign horror? And what about The Host? The Others?
Anyway, that's just some random thoughts.
I feel terrible for leaving out The Host. I love that movie. While it didn't do too well in the US, its foreign numbers were great. I guess I'm being the typical American and seeing things based only on how they do in the States.
Regardless, I think foreign horror, including Pan's, is still relegated to its own lane. If a film's lucky enough to get distribution in the States, it often ends up being that well-reviewed film that many people talk about, but not nearly enough see (in the States). Returning to my art house example, maybe CHE is a good comparison: the people who want to see it will make the trek to the out-of-the-way art house to see it, leading to a great PTA, but not necessarily a good overall B.O. [I use Che and The Host only as a comparion of films that require more from American viewers than they typically want to give: reading subtitles, long takes, and not to mention a 4+ hr runtime for CHE]. My concern is that the easily produced, afforadable horror we're being flooded with will continue to spoon-feed audiences to the point where they won't want to think about the horror they're watching. Maybe I'm asking too much of the horror fan. Then again, I'm mortified by anyone that thinks THERE WILL BE BLOOD is slow, or that Monica Vitti shouldn't be running down a hallway.
And how appropriate is it that today the director was confirmed for THE THING reboot/re-whatever. More than a familiar masked villain, it seems like studios keep coming back to the same horror auteurs (using the term loosely): Craven and Carpenter. At least the new THING is a purported prequel, so there's room for a new story that won't infringe on Carpenter's fantastic work, based on the same novel Hawks worked from in his version.
Post a Comment