Image by GraphicMama-team from Pixabay Growing up, I was the kind of kid who enjoyed a space adventure with Luke Skywalker and crew or a fun superhero flick from the mid-2000s. (lookin’ at you, Tobey Maguire!) As I have grown up, I tend to enjoy anything from mainstream blockbusters to compelling indie flicks. But there is one genre I have never been attracted to.
I do not like horror films. Let me explain why. First, however, to address my short-term plans. I have decided to kick off the month of October by examining the film genre synonymous with one of the most celebrated holidays in the United States. For the next several weeks, I will be offering my thoughts on several famous horror films throughout history. But, I digress… There were many horror franchises on the rise during my childhood and adolescence that I became tangentially familiar with via seeing them advertised on television. From more traditional horror of gore and ghosts (“Saw” and “Paranormal Activity”) to the “Scary Movie” parody films, I was well-versed in how horror films these days tend to present themselves. Simply put, as high-tension, jump-scare spectacles that play on people’s most base instincts for kicks. And honestly, I was never intrigued by the proposition of watching a 90-minute film just to be looking away 90% of the time. As Halloween approaches, however, I am inclined to re-examine my general distaste for the genre. So, for the first blog post this month, I have chosen four horror films to discuss as a baseline for the exact reasons why I tend to avoid the genre altogether. And hopefully, as the month goes on, I will come to appreciate horror filmmaking. Or at least some of it. So, without further ado…BOO!! (Man, I’m hilarious. 😊) The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) Regarded as one of the first slasher films, Tobe Hooper’s second feature film was released on October 11, 1974 on a modest budget of $140,000 (approximately $700,000 today). It was marketed as being inspired by true events in the hopes of attracting a large audience, and tells the story of a group of college-aged friends who are subjected to the murderous theatrics of a family of cannibals led by the now-infamous chainsaw killer Leatherface. I have watched several other horror films from the 1970s (some of which may be discussed in the near future 😊), so I feel like I have at least a rudimentary grasp on the style that horror embraced at that time. And I must say, when compared to some of the other horror classics of that era, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre does not hold up. And I think I have figured out why. This movie is under 90 minutes, but accomplishes very little in that time while simultaneously failing to justify why its cringe-inducing episodes of hysterical violence should last that long in the first place. For me, this film is an example of a particular type of horror movie that I have come to despise; that which sets out not to entertain, horrify, or engross (pun intended! 😊). But instead, that which has the one and only goal in mind of giving the audience an utterly displeasing experience. I gained nothing from watching this movie on an emotional level, primitive or otherwise. Instead, I simply became familiar with the type of ridiculous antics that 1970s horror films often employed to make the audience squeal and squirm rather than mesmerize and awe them. I have little else to say; The Texas Chain Saw Massacre gives me no reason by its conclusion to desire more or return to it in the future. The Hills Have Eyes (1977) Wes Craven’s horror follow-up to his 1972 directorial debut The Last House on the Left, The Hills Have Eyes was released on July 22, 1977. Peter Locke, the film’s producer, basically looked to Craven to make another horror film in a similar style and flare to his first movie. And it undoubtedly comes off that way. Having watched several of Craven’s horror flicks, these two included, I prefer the 80s flavor injected into A Nightmare on Elm Street or the 90s well-intentioned goofiness of Scream. Unlike Chain Saw Massacre, I am struggling a bit more to hone in on exactly what I do not like about this film. Certainly, the cannibal angle comes off uninspired at this point (The Hills Have Eyes is said to have been partially inspired by Hooper’s film). However, I found this family of cannibals to have far more personality and vigor to them than in Chain Saw Massacre. Furthermore, I found myself sympathizing more with the suburbanite Carters and their predicament than the moronic college kids of Hooper’s film. But, I was still unconvinced that the movie was worth my time. Why? Similar to Chain Saw Massacre, Craven’s The Hills Have Eyes comes off in the 21st century as a misguided attempt to shatter social conventions of what is “acceptable” in cinemas versus telling a compelling horror story. I give it more credit than Hooper’s film, but not much more. An American Werewolf in London (1981) Finally, I thought to myself as I queued by John Landis’s critically acclaimed 1981 horror-comedy film. An older horror film with modern sensibilities. I was genuinely excited for this movie, especially considering that Landis’s 1980 comedy The Blues Brothers is one of my favorite films of all time. Needless to say, I was sorely disappointed. What I expected to be a subversive and laugh-inducing take on an old-school monster movie turned out to be hilarious for all the wrong reasons. Apparently, Landis struggled to get any attention for this script because Hollywood thought it was too frightening to be a comedy film and too funny to be a horror film. I tend to agree to some extent, but largely because Landis struggles―and fails, in my opinion―to strike that balance effectively. The story of An American Werewolf in London lacks anything vaguely interesting. And while the makeup effects are impressive for the time, the actual transformation scene dated the film so much that I laughed out loud watching American nitwit David Kessler fulfill his furry, bloodthirsty destiny. Ultimately, I think Landis should have kept this script on the shelf. While it made me laugh a few times, An American Werewolf in London has been incredibly surpassed by the horror-comedies of more recent decades. The Lighthouse (2019) At this point, you might have decided that I am prejudiced against only older horror movies. But you would be wrong. I have watched my fair share of modern horror movies (and even like some of them!), and appreciate many of them for what they do differently from the last. From the more comedic tones of Zombieland and Ready or Not to the high-tension thrills of Get Out and A Quiet Place, my horror tastes are certainly biased in favor of more recent entries of the genre. So, when I heard about the supposed up-and-coming horror guru Robert Eggers’s newest film The Lighthouse, I was rather intrigued. On the one hand, I tend to enjoy psychological thrillers over straight-up horror movies. Furthermore, I was fascinated by the story concept and rather excited to explore the strenuous lives of two lighthouse keepers and their inability to adapt to the isolating conditions of their profession. And, for most of the movie, I was enthralled. Not only are Robert Pattinson and Willem Dafoe in prime form throughout the film, but the visual composition of every single frame by cinematographer Jarin Blaschke was incredibly. The Lighthouse is an impressive feat of modern indie filmmaking purely based on visuals alone. So, why did I ultimately find myself somewhat unsatisfied by the end? I was incredibly frustrated by the fact that Eggers did not commit to any sort of clear message or theme being explored. To be clear, many great horror movies gracefully employ ambiguity in order to make the audience question everything they just watched to startling effect (The Shining and Eggers’s first film The Witch come to mind). As a storyteller myself, I believe that it is crucial for the creator to at least hint at what they are trying to say if not provide some definitive possibilities. But, by the end of The Lighthouse, I lacked any understanding of what Eggers was saying except for working at a lighthouse with a crazed old drunk would probably suck. Ultimately, I do not know if I have garnered a clear answer to the question of why I tend to dislike horror films. Sometimes, I find the attempts to disgust the audience (morally or gutturally) to be in poor taste. Other times, I find the extreme open-ended nature of the storytelling to be more frustrating than enticing. And, sometimes, I laugh at the outdated effects. While I do not really like any of these films, I have ranked them below if you are interested:
Needless to say, I am very much looking forward to my next several blogs so I can share with you many of the horror movies that I do enjoy. What film genres do you tend to avoid? What horror movies should I, as someone who tends to not like horror, check out? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|