alright, i have seen myriad discussions on whether something is a horror film or not here and elsewhere. like someone said in another topic, "psychological thriller" is what they say not to admit they're doing a horror film, and in yet another different topic someone posted something about calling "28 Days" a horror film not weakening it.
is there something...dare i say it-BAD about making a horror film? i'm just wondering, especially since horror movies are my favorite kind. i'm not very "up" on cinematic discourse so if there's some kind of horror-movie-admitting taboo i am sorely lacking knowledge of it.
do directors want to make something horrible but not admit it's horror? is it because horror films get r-ratings when they really want PG-13? is there some group or thought trend that says horror is about slimy monsters and buckets of guts or what?
i have just noticed at this board and elsewhere these sorts of discussions about horror and i want to know what everyone thinks (in one spot).
thanks!
and by the way, in my opinion, horror is pretty broad. i called Audition horror and was rebuffed with "it's not horror. it's a psychological thriller. but it's almost as graphic as a horror film." psychological thriller? a psychological thriller is what happens at my therapist's office every time i visit.
I think there is some prejudice about horror, it conjures up images of schlocky b-movies like The Thing, and no self respecting Hollywood director (or producer or actor) wants to have that on his resume.
But horror can be done well, look at Alien. It's got a group of people, in a location they can't get away from, being stalked & killed by a monster that's almost impossible to kill. And you don't know whether around the corner it will be the monster or kitty-cat.
What, exactly is wrong with schlocky b-movies? Hollywood embarrasses itself enough with the crap it puts out, Ridley Scott should be proud he made a damn fine horror film.
George Romero once said that people gave him the cold shoulder at his daugher's school when they found out he made horror movies. Critically it's about a rung or two higher than making porn (probably because of a heavy reliance on Freudian based interpretation of hidden meaning). Honest. Why this is, I do not know. But horror remains the one genre arena that continually gets the critical shaft. Maybe, someday, it will join the comedy and the western genres in getting respect.
And no, I don't buy the 'it's an outlaw genre for the daring and insane' line. That is notihing but genre apologists saying in defense what the detractors say in offense.
You know, Chad, in some cases, it may be a few rungs below porn. So much of that crap that Follywood puts out deserves the title of porn (Wild Things, for instance).
I just think horror should be left to the people who have the balls to do it well, be it gore or just all-out scaring, you can't pull punches or it comes out weak, ala Darkness Falls.
Brother R
You´re really Hillary Duff,aren´t you?
Yes, I confess. I really am Hilary Duff.
Love,
H
No,not you!
spikesangel,I mean.
no i am not Hillary Duff.
i'm too old, too brown, and not that cute.
but i WAS in a movie once, so at least we have that and anatomy in common.
Horror is traditionally a second class status in the movie world. Very rarely if eve does a horror film get nominated for anything. So avoiding the title of "horror" in favor of Thriller or even SciFi sometimes is prefered. Fantasy is also generally never regarded well. The LOTR being one of the few to breech that line.
that's just odd.
nothing gets me going faster than a horror film.
well...and fast cars and gratuitous movie violence.
I´m starting to think you´re female,spikesangel.
i AM female!
i am a girl!
okay...
so now that we have established my gender...
do you guys think that films that call themselves other than horror try to add elements to make their "genre" more credible?
such as, psychological thrillers with their endless (and yet somehow cheezy) explanations of the killer's motives and past?
would it be better and somehow, more honest, to just let a crazed killer be a crazed killer without explaining his motives?
i'm just trying to figure this all out because i'm having intense discussions with friends about horror vs. suspense, etc.