What is Horror? pt 3

True horror establishes its hopelessness on the foundation of intelligence.    

No one really feels for the C-cup sorority girl investigating creepy noises in her family's Civil War farmhouse basement... with a candle... in her underwear... by herself... in a storm... when the power's out.   

That's the entertaining side, the 'tails' side of the Horror Genre coin: scary - but stupid - fun. Suspense & shock - but with stupidity.  We roll our eyes & chuckle at what happens - hideous though it may be.  

Now consider Ridley Scott's Alien. That crew didn't make any stupid decisions - and still they suffered horribly. Even at the end, after all that loss of life & their ship, all they resolved was one pod of the many that Kane saw. 

That is both unsettling and not forgotten by the subconscious.   

Solid horror movies end their narrative with resolution, but not with hope.   

So, Ripley escapes & we have resolution, but where's the silver lining? The whole movie was about a crew’s inability to deal with one hatched pod. By extension, is the viewer not being told humanity is helpless & will be lucky to escape with their lives?

Some more examples: The Exorcist. Regan's problem was resolved, but the unstated component - that the demon was never killed & roams about freely still - follows long after the stop button.   

Halloween. Michael Myers was shot - resolution. But he wasn't dead. The threat of hopelessness begins to emerge. Why was he not dead? Where did he go? Is he coming back? Can I stop him if he does? 

Despite Laurie’s intelligence, all she did was buy herself some time. Time that would be plagued with doubt, dread & fear of shadows.  

Such questions are the extra step true horror takes. It gives resolution, but undermines it with lingering doubt, unanswered questions, threat, dread and menace.    

Alien, Exorcist, Halloween, Texas Chainsaw Massacre - are these stories really over? 

No, not the is-there-a-sequel-coming kind of 'over'; Is the tale of this Horror really done? Does this resolution have finality - true Horror forces us to contemplate the answer: "No, it isn't." 

Genre Talk

What is Horror? pt 2

In a word, horror is hopelessness. True horror takes away hope. This hopeless will produce fear, but that fear is only the scent of true horror.

Fear, regret, anger, despair, dread, menace; they're just the masks that the horror hides behind when it enters into your subconscious.

True horror, like a leek, seeps into us. It never knocks on the door but rather comes in through the vents & lets us breathe it in for a while.

Horror movies, then, should be taking away the viewer's sense of hope. Good horror movies will indelibly succeed at it.

Consider The Exorcist:

Chris MacNeil is the mother of a girl possessed by an ancient demon. Think of the comfort she will receive from the following Q&A:

• Can the doctors help? No, they can't.
• Any special reason the demon picked my child? No.
• Can the Priests fix this, keep it from happening again? They're both gonna die.
• But the Demon will be killed, right? No, it'll be just fine, alive & out there.
• Well, it can't come back here - can it? It might. We don't know.
• Can I do anything to prevent it from targeting my daughter again? Not really.

Is this bleak or what? Sure The Exorcist appears to end on a happy note, but consider those questions & you'll begin to see how the horror never left but only sunk deeper into the subconscious.

There is evil out there Ms MacNeil. It hates you and there's nothing you can do to stop it, reason with it or change its mind... and no one is coming to help you... or your daughter.

One horror fan said that Horror comes from great sadness or anger. This is not true. They may both be involved, but neither produce horror. Both are side effects of it.

• Sadness is a direct reaction to hopelessness and

• Anger is an indirect reaction to helplessness - what hopelessness clothes itself in.  

Many things frighten us, but the real horror comes when you realize there's no hope of escape, no hope of any kind.

Find any horror movie that got under your skin or into your soul & you'll find somewhere it stung the nerves of being helpless in this life, alone & hopeless to change or stop anything.

Now that's horror.

Genre Talk

Invading Aliens [Tetractys]

If
Aura
doesn’t get
a guy’s mind on
invading aliens, nothing’s gonna.

Short Poetry

Is Friday the 13th Cloning Death Wish?

Jason Voorhees. Undying killing machine, icon of the slasher genre, household name known to horror fans and newbs alike.

Is he, though, really his own man?

Might he really be a recycled version of this man?

Paul Kersey from the Death Wish franchise.

Let's take a look:

• Both men began their killing career after the loss of a significant female. Jason saw his mom killed & Paul lost his wife to a home invasion.

• Both men are bent on revenge. Jason uses the attraction of the camp to score his victims & Kersey uses the allure of bling to nail his.

• Neither man would know if they ever did get their revenge, so both just keep killing to be sure.

• Both men develop a taste & skill for their murder-craft and just keep doing it,

• Neither have any remorse, People cross them and they die - painfully.

• Both men survive movie after movie & just keep coming back.

Coincidence? or franchise cloning?

Movie Q's

Selene [Haiku]

Third hottest vampire:

Selene and her tight rubber

suit of eye candy.

Short Poetry

What is Horror? pt 1

Most people define the Horror Genre as scary films. Horror is what scares you.

Fear is synonymous with Horror in the minds of most movie-goers. To be sure, if horror's effective, there should be Fear.

So is that the end of the discussion? The presence of Fear means it's Horror? We should check it out and see.

One horror fan defined Horror is "extreme drama." Such a statement, though, more rightly belongs to other genres.

Romeo & Juliet is "extreme drama" - Tragedy to be specific. The defining quality of Drama is conflict.  As playwright George Bernard Shaw put it:

“No conflict, no drama."

Horror is not extreme conflict - the Action Genre is a better fit for that description.

A traffic collision is conflict. Whatever’s happening in that above image above is extreme conflict. Would anyone's first assumption be to think that image came from a horror movie? 

The problem with using Fear to single-handedly define Horror is that Fear is a key component for most of the  other genres.   

Imagine you found your life suddenly being the central plot of any of the following: 

Heat (1995) - Thriller

Titanic (1997) - Tragedy

Prisoners (2013) - Crime

Goodfellas (1990) - Gangster

Reign of Fire (2002) - Fantasy

Schindler’s List (1993) - History

Fast & Furious 6 (2013) - Action

Saving Private Ryan (1998) - War

Kramer vs Kramer (1979) - Drama

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) - Adventure

Independence Day (1996) - Science Fiction

Would you not be fearful? Every one of those films would either be your life ending or it being irrevocably turned upside down.

To be sure, each of those films are fun to watch, but to live through? Why would anyone want to voluntarily choose it? These films all have Fear-generating components and yet none of them are regarded as Horror.   

So what makes all of the above different from say... The Exorcist?

A true Horror if ever there was one. Love it or hate it, it’s doubtful anyone will argue its genre.

So why is Pazuzu above so clearly Horror but Indiana Jones' moment below is not - despite being no less life threatening? He went through more fearful moments in Raiders than Regan did in The Exorcist, so what's going on?

We'll find out when this discussion of What is Horror? continues.

Genre Talk

Salma [Haiku]

Santanico from

From Dusk Till Dawn - second most

sexiest vampire.

Short Poetry

Clara [Haiku]

Sexiest vampire:

Clara from Byzantium.

She's all kinds of hot.

Short Poetry

Terror vs Horror

Basically, Horror & Terror are the same thing; an intense, fearful reaction. The only real difference between these two words is when this reaction occurs.   

Horror is all after the fact: something one encounters whereas Terror is all before the fact: the dread of what may - or may not - happen: something one might encounter.  

Consider the following:    

Marcia hears unsettling noises in the basement. Terror grips her…

 ...what might she find? Since she doesn't know yet, she can't be horrified. Simply being frightened at what may be is why Marcia's state is described as Terrified.

What Marcia does find in the basement is Greg chopped into pieces, blood everywhere. Marcia, now knowing what she's dealing with...

...is appropriately horrified at the sight of him.

Had it only been her cat, Marcia could only relate she was terrified to check but not horrified at finding her cat rummaging about.

Terror is always in the unknown. Marcia had no clue what she'd find. Might only have been a loose window. Let's say it was.

From here, the writers have to determine if the dread is over with Marcia locking the window and returning upstairs seeing nothing unusual.

Or if the terror continues because Marcia knows she just locked that very window moments earlier. If this is the case Marcia can still only rely on Terror because she has nothing to be horrified at yet. Is the window loose because the lock is broken or has someone broken in?

Marcia remains in the unknown and so can only remain terrified.

Now what if, while checking on the noise, Marcia sees this:

Again, Marcia still does not know what she's dealing with and it's this not-knowing-what's-coming-next that terrorizes her.  

Still could be her cat looking at her, and so on.

Returning to Greg & the premise that Horror follows experience, Marcia can see Greg dead and so has something to react to. Once these conditions are met, Terror all but disappears and Horror guides her next choice. 

Were it just killer standing by himself, Marcia could only anticipate and so Terror would remain her primary motivator.    

Were it the killer standing next to Greg's dismembered body, Marcia would experience both. She'd be horrified at what the killer had done to Greg and terrified at what the killer might want to do to Marcia.

In the end, aftermath is what makes it Horror and THIS is why there is no Terror Genre. 

What makes a movie terrifying then? Lots of frightening suspense. All the viscera, blood, & gore is the horror. I like 'em both and that's their difference.   

I'd also like to thank Marcia and her now ex-boyfriend for their assistance.    

Genre Talk

Gary Numan [Haiku]

You know I hate to 

ask, but are `friends' electric? 

Only mine's broke down...

Short Poetry

Steak & Potatoes [Haiku]

Has there ever been

a bad time for a steak &

potatoes dinner?

Short Poetry

Les Claypool [Haiku]

Underrated for

the innovative genius

on bass that he is.

Short Poetry 

Brad Wesley [Haiku]

"This isn't working

out Dalton." Really? That's what

you want to say here?


Short Poetry

Monsters pt 4: What's the Point?

Why Does It Matter?

So a Monster is man-made & a Creature is formed by nature alone. Why should we care?  

Because it makes a difference when interpreting a film. All film is story and all these stories have some kind of message under their imagery. The really slick ones have more than one. Even the no-budget schlock-fests have themes. 

Not all themes are worth finding, but listen to some commentaries & you’ll see something’s almost always there.

So the bottom line is: When it’s a Monster (something man-made) the underlying message will be some issue, concern or problem that mankind is creating.

That giant guy up there was formed when given atomic isotopes in an effort to produce super food nutrients. See? Monster = Man-made. The problem = Man-made. The science went wrong wrong and created a new apex mutant predator.

What's the message? 1950’s culture is concerned about side-effects from experimenting with chemically untested & unnatural food enhancements. Not necessarily a giant spider, but definitely a negative consequence to a wider population of people.

Now since a Creature is a product of Nature, it follows that Creature Features explore Man’s nature and not their doings. A test of character or hypothetical societal scenario. The scale can range from the very personal to the very global.

Often, the messages of Creature Features are more timeless. Here, for example, is a Creature not made by man…

…a contaminated satellite had this effect. Romero's Night of the Living Dead came out less than 10 months before man went to the Moon. And we landed on the Moon with less than 6 months to go on Kennedy's pledge to land before the end of the decade.

The problem? Is mankind ignoring potential infections our efforts could return to Earth for the sake of political pressures? If a downed Satellite can have such effects on the dead, what can a manned mission bring back to the rest of us?

Should we be more cautious?...

...wonders Apollo 18 meeting a Lunar Creature.  

A character flaw in Man’s Nature: America being impatient to beat the Russians to the Moon is the concern. Our reckless, over-competitive nature is under scrutiny as well as how man will behave if society collapses when the dead start attacking.

Might the hordes of zombies symbolize the citizens who find themselves unadapted to a rushed, space-faring society? without the potential to contribute to such alien demands? Will they just feed of those that can? Are we investing in the wrong programs for everyone in society?

Does cultural implosion occur if man doesn’t consider it?

Bear in mind, not all zombies are Creature. Even if they were, the messages in zombie films would still vary.

Let's look at a Monster.

Meet Nemesis from the Resident Evil franchise. He and other zombies are created by scientists giving no thought to experimenting on humans. Monster = Man-made. Message? Unlegislated research and undisclosed consumer testing and potentially dangerous side-effects.

Sound silly? Have you watched Resident Evil and thought the portrayal of global corporations as corrupt, greedy & heartless was exaggerated, unfounded or implausible? If not, you’re getting their message and the first clue is the use of a Monster, not a Creature.

Well Tim,  you said the Wolf Man was a Creature. What nature-of-man issue is he examining?  

The psychological components of a Mass Murderer. Such a deviant is blunt, violent, sporadic, and reckless giving little to no forethought of where he erupts or who his victims will be.

Infrequently active, the destruction tends to be concentrated into short bouts of time. The killer's normal state is usually never indicative of the violence they can suddenly erupt into.

It’s as though he’s driven mad by some dark – for all we know celestial or lunar – event. Hence the term luna•tic.

And Vampires?

Serial Killers. They are habitual, systematic, ritualized, often working at night just like their night-walking, neck-biting, blood-drinking cinema-metaphors. 

It all has meaning and they never deviate from their routine. They move freely within society and only the learned in scientific disciplines can detect what manner of Creature they really are – like Van Helsing with his medical expertise.

Van Helsing might easily have been the first criminal profiler.

"See thyself”... 

...says the field of Psychiatry to the criminally-minded.  Admit it, that picture is the perfect image for a Doctor and Patient. It’s like a psychiatrist giving a Rorschach test.

Serial Killing is a problem in human nature, not something mankind manufactured. Hence, the topic is explored with a Creature and not a Monster.

Again, this being stated of Dracula (1931) does not imply every Dracula film is about serial killers, nor will any vampire film in general.

Monster is a device for delivering a message, not the message itself.

Well, now you know the 00tim difference between Monster & Creature and why such distinctions are made. This has been the most briefest of summaries so many points weren’t even mentioned. I hope you have fun testing out these definitions!

Genre Talk

Joan Crawford [Haiku]

Personally, Joan,

I believe every word that

Christina's said.

Short Poetry

Roger Moore [Haiku]

Why wouldn't you stop

making Bond films?!?  Your makeup

didn't hide a thing!

Short Poetry

Monsters pt 3: Are There Exceptions?

Are There Exceptions?

There really aren’t exceptions to the rule of Monster vs Creature, just more confusing and less confusing examples. If a scenario is unclear, it’s usually due to lack of information. In almost all cases a clear “leaning towards” will always emerge with some scrutiny.  

For example:   

Jurassic Park (1993)

Those dinosaurs were engineered by an understanding of genetics. Yet, they did exist like that in nature even with the added frog DNA. The key issue is the frog DNA may have actually been a correct replacement as the T-Rex never came out unnatural as far as anyone knew.

The genetic issue in Jurassic Park was that the dinosaur populations, composed of only females, began breeding. From here, one could argue the T-Rex has been altered into a form that nature would not produce so: Monster?

The counter is that nature did produce that quality in the frogs. Furthermore, we don’t know that T-Rex, in its unaltered form, couldn’t change genders at need for the sake of procreation.  

It rides the fence but still leans towards Creature simply because the intention was to re-create what nature had already produced. And, as far as anyone knows, the T-Rex came out as expected. That the T-Rex escaped was the problem, never what it was or that it was breeding.  

On the other hand…

Jurassic World (2015)

Indominus Rex is definitely Monster since it’s outright stated this predator was assembled from many other species. It had never existed before man’s deliberate intervention. And that's the key, the T-Rex above - at worst - is a variant of what nature made, but Indominus was never made by Nature.

Nor were there any clues Nature had been thinking about making Indominus Rex either. Often, even within a film, it ends up being a case-by-case call. 

What about extending the definitions of Monsters & Creatures. What if extraterrestrials engineered an organism. Would that organism be a monster or creature?

Prometheus (2012)

To save on suspense, it would still be Monster. The issue in distinguishing these terms is that between What-Nature-Makes versus What-the-Things-Nature-Makes-Makes.

The species that uses its understanding & harnesses elements or energy to produce something nature wouldn’t does not matter. Monster is as Monster’s made - no matter who or what does the making.

Interestingly, if the premise of Prometheus is correct, then possibly all humanity is Monster; if humanity is a thing Nature would not have made. We simply don’t know if we ever existed before. Earth could be the Engineers’ Jurassic Park. More information is needed.  

Thanks Ridley,

Now why spend all these posts belaboring such a distinction?

Genre Talk

Harley Quinn [Haiku]

How come every time 

you come around, my London

Bridge wanna go down?

Short Poetry

Monsters pt 2: What Are Creatures?

What Are Creatures?

There are non-human things in movies that destroy property, kill people and terrify humanity which do not qualify for Monster. If it's in a movie bringing fear and isn't man-made, then that thing is just a creature - hence Creature Feature.   

Often a creature is something that's been around, usually undiscovered, when some type of eco-clash happens between the creature and mankind.  The key distinguishing feature is that no human is responsible for the creature being in its form.

Let’s explore:

Dracula (1931)

Creature. From here, it's totally reasonable to go one more step & further classify the Count as an Undead Creature.

There are many various origins, as well as definitions, for the Vampire. Regardless, however vague or explicit the explanation, however outright stated or subtly hinted at, not one origin credits humanity as the reason Vampires exist in the form they do.

One author, Whitley Strieber, writes his Vampires as an evolutionary primate co-evolving alongside mankind preying on them for sustenance. As he states:

"The perfect predator would be indistinguishable from his prey." 

Whereas Anne Rice cites an ancient Egyptian exorcism gone wrong as the origin of the first vampires: Akasha & Enkil. 

So in the case of a demonic entity hybridizing with man to form a new species, would these resulting vampires not rightly be classified as Monster?

The short answer is No. 

The reason for distinguishing between Monster & Creature will be covered in a later post. For now, if humans are not responsible for it existing, then it's a Creature: the result of nature doing what nature does.

The Wolf Man (1941)

As is, he's Creature. The 1941 film cites a psychological reference and nothing else. Since it seems to be a mysterious - but natural  - phenomenon: Creature. With more information, the werewolf - like the Mummy - could easily be a monster.  

For example, in Underworld Awakening (2012), an Über Lycan is engineered deliberately by scientists. That lycan - Quint - would definitely be Monster. His lycan state has been scientifically altered into a form that the lycan virus would never produce on its own. 

Remember, natural only means that nature - by itself - orchestrated the creature. At the very least, “natural” means humans did not play a role.   

Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)

Creature, obviously. It's in the movie's name, isn't it? It was never altered by humanity's presence. Just simply living in his lagoon when humans trounced into his crib.

And that is a critical key to most Creature Features; natural ones like Jaws (1975), The Edge (1997) or The Grey (2011) - even unnatural ones like The Descent (2005), Exists (2014) or The Hallow (2015). Humans went into the creature's habitat and paid some serious penalties for doing so.  

Cloverfield (2008)

Creature. New York's Godzilla perhaps. but it's still a sea creature and not an experiment gone wrong. All natural, just never encountered before.

This could possibly be an example of a creature feature where humans did not instigate the movie's conflict by intruding into the Clover's domain. That is, if one is to accept that the origin of the Clover as being from another dimension.

Otherwise, the initial explanation of the Clover being awakened by a satellite crashing into the Atlantic Ocean would technically mean mankind did intrude first. 

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

Creature. Radioactive contamination from a space probe. An improbable interaction, gruesome consequences, but natural nonetheless.  

This one’s tricky because technically it was our understanding of space travel that exposed the probe to the radioactive contamination. However, humans weren't trying to harness that particular energy which caused the zombie-effect.   

Whether the result is intentional or not, the effort on our part to use scientific understanding and to harness a natural element or energy both have to be present to warrant the term Monster.

So are there ever any exceptions to these rules? Find out in the next dangerously informative installment!

Genre Talk