Horror as an artform

[C-Desecration-]

There has got to've been at least half a dozen threads that started on some topic and strayed into this because, hey, people have conflicting opinions here.

So, horror as an artform.
What qualifies as "trash"? Does anything? Can we overstep boundaries even nowadays? Are we forgetting that movies in general are made to express something, and that that has, maybe, been bogged down by dimensinal character, intricate plots, twists, and so on? Just because a movie doesn't have these things, does that mean it's "trash"? Has horror forgotten to horrify?
Basically, when does "art" and "expression" become tasteless and vile? Seeing a ten minute movie about a realistic murder could send you and a few others into a whirlwind of talk, so is that really a bad thing? I think we might be assuming that discussion is something horror films should provoke, BUT only by layered ideas and new takes on things, when in actuality sometimes all it takes is a brutal image to get us thinking. Is this lazy? Something to be avoided?

Since I really don't think I fit onto one side here, I'll wait to make some muddled, confusing opinion on the matter. In other words it'd be great if someone ELSE could start with an opinion because I'm honestly pretty neutral on the subject.

[Mog]

Originally posted by C-Desecration-
There has got to've been at least half a dozen threads that started on some topic and strayed into this because, hey, people have conflicting opinions here.

So, horror as an artform.
What qualifies as "trash"? Does anything? Can we overstep boundaries even nowadays? Are we forgetting that movies in general are made to express something, and that that has, maybe, been bogged down by dimensinal character, intricate plots, twists, and so on? Just because a movie doesn't have these things, does that mean it's "trash"? Has horror forgotten to horrify?
Basically, when does "art" and "expression" become tasteless and vile? Seeing a ten minute movie about a realistic murder could send you and a few others into a whirlwind of talk, so is that really a bad thing? I think we might be assuming that discussion is something horror films should provoke, BUT only by layered ideas and new takes on things, when in actuality sometimes all it takes is a brutal image to get us thinking. Is this lazy? Something to be avoided?

Since I really don't think I fit onto one side here, I'll wait to make some muddled, confusing opinion on the matter. In other words it'd be great if someone ELSE could start with an opinion because I'm honestly pretty neutral on the subject.

Most definitley the best topic on this board I've seen, and I'd love to be the first to reply.

What I've come to learn and accept is that there really is no "high-art" or "low-art." I feel that some people go this route, saying that this movie had no artistic merit while the other does. Like how some people say pop music "isn't really music" as opposed to rock. Not true in the slightest. What I don't understand is how some people can be so judgemental, especially toward horror films. Just because a film doesn't appeal to you (sorry for using 2nd person POV), you automatically dismiss this film as "trash."
But what about Joe Schmoe who really liked this film? Does that mean you have a way better sense of art than he does?

One day my friend and I went to see a flick, and there was a trailer for Paycheck.

Me: Oh sweet! John Woo! I love that guy, he's one of my favorite directors.
Friend: Who?
Me: He directed Face/Off
Friend: Oh. I don't see the big deal. He's not that great.
Me: Okay we don't need viewers like you.
Friend: Viewers with taste?

Now it may just seem like he was coming up with a quirky comeback to my quirky comeback, but he was serious. I know this because my friend really is like that. He tries SO hard to be "cultured" but that's a different rant.

Anywho. Whether critics and non-horror fans like it or not, horror is still art because it GIVES people an emotion, a feeling. And that's what I think seperates art from something that isn't artful. If you see it, and it doesn't give you some sort of lasting emotion, or even aesthetic emotion...which if you ask me, would be pretty hard. People on these boards will say how much they hate this movie and how much this movie disgusted them because it was bad blah blah blah...huzzah! Art does that! Whether the director/writer's intentions were good or bad, if there's some kind of emotion that's brought out of you...it's art, baby.

Oh. Hey. I'm a Senior Schmoe now. Do I get a hat or a jacket or something?

[X-Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by Mog
Oh. Hey. I'm a Senior Schmoe now. Do I get a hat or a jacket or something? Well . . . there was that rule like a year or so ago but some schmoes got too drunk . . .

But you can have this if you want . . . *gives him X's autograph*

:D

[pig farmer]

I'm sick of everyone trying to make everything into 'art.'

I make music. I am not an artist. I don't consider what I do "art," I consider it music. Whether people like it or not is really irrelevant to me, I make it for myself.

I see movies as something to entertain, to escape, whatever.

Art to me is painting, sculpture, etc. Not writing, not filming, not taking photos, not writing music.

People have problems discussing what is 'art' because when you use it in a broad sense it has no more definition left.

[C-Desecration-]

I agree with you mog, but everytime I see a "See, this is inspiring debate! That's how great it is", I kind of shake my head a little. I mean, I could see footage of a real murder and you can bet that'd inspire debate, but is it "great"? Art? Hell no. For instance, if there's a bunch of people around, and the TV happens on some news channel that shows burnt bodies or (just an example, would never happen) some videotape of a real raping, THAT would jump-start a LOT of discussion. But again, NOT art.

And pig, I remember listening to the commentary on IT, and one of the actors (the one who played the adult Eddie), mentioned how he thought actors/directors/whatever's egos wouldn't really be a factor if they realized all they were doing was basically just playing make-believe. And I agree. But movies can actually get people through a lot of difficult things in life, and anything that can do that is pretty damned important. Now I don't think you're saying making movies, writing stories, etc. doesn't take skill, but more that it just isn't "art" (literally). But that's not a bad thing if we take it literally (not that you were saying it was). I mean, a painting is just some brush-strokes. They can effect people, and so can movies and novels.

[Mog]

Well, films, music, paintings, etc are all means of entertainment. It isn't a necessity of life, it's something one divulges in to pass the time, or even escape by filling the time. Could humanity live without art? Sure. Everyone would most likely be miserable, but life would still go on and we'd have to deal with our own little dramas instead of watching someone else. Now, when it comes to showing a murder...although this may sound harsh, it depends on how said murder is presented. If it's presented as entertainment value, and some sick fuck gets off on it...it appeals to him and gives him that emotion he wants, which makes it artistic, in a very sick way.

The Joker, for example. He murders people, but it's considered to him as an art-form. Or take Man on Fire for example. Christopher Walken's character states "A man can be an artist in anything. Food... wine... it depends on how good he is at it. Creasey's art is death, and he's about to paint his masterpiece."

And that's my further addition.

[C-Desecration-]

The Joker, for example. He murders people, but it's considered to him as an art-form. Or take Man on Fire for example. Christopher Walken's character states "A man can be an artist in anything. Food... wine... it depends on how good he is at it. Creasey's art is death, and he's about to paint his masterpiece."


I think you're getting into art as a word, not a thing. Or maybe it's the other way around. If anything someone excels at is art, then this thread is kind of pointless isn't it? A serial killer is an artist. A writer is an artist. A good fucker is an artist. Some dude with a scalpel that can cut off your lips and sew them back on in five seconds is an artist.
I mean the good kind of 'art' the kind people go "Now THAT'S art!" and then applaud. I don't want to get into the definition of art, because that could takes years. But this "good art" (what a vocabulary I got, huh?), not necessarily 'high-art' or 'low-art', but things people think took time, patience, effort, and such, that people created with care . . .
Wait. That last thing I said? If someone does all that with something else then it's the best they can do . . . and since what's better than something else is subjective, who's to really say Mordum isn't better than Se7en? Both took effort, patience, time--both parties put their all into it. So isn't that what should be the decider on this art thing? So then if someone just throws something out like House of the Dead, it obviously isn't art.

[C-Desecration-]

sorry, double post

[Mog]

"but things people think took time, patience, effort, and such, that people created with care . . ."

That raises another point. What about all this contemporary art outside of film (and maybe even in film) where all a man does is draw a squigly line down a blank canvas, puts a red dot on one side and a yellow dot on the other. This painting will most likely be sold for thousands of dollars because people consider it art. Perhaps the fact that he DIDN'T try to do anything (I'm not referring to anyone, just the hypothetical artist), and went against the norm of time, patience, effort, etc. makes it art?

My head's hurting,
Mog

[countchocula]

Art isn't so complex. It's a form of expression. It usually applies to works of fiction, so the daily news doesn't count as art (although some documentaries could be viewed as artistic). Film is art, music is art, and literature is art. I've yet to read a compelling argument in opposition to the notion that these mediums are artistic outlets.

[the dead one]

Is horror an art form? Is it nothing more than vile and tasteless garbage, being consumed by the mindless depraved portion of society…because a majority or minority says it is?

Lets take a look at some of the differences between horror films and horror comics. Example: Back in the 50’s Publisher William Gaines, was the head of E.C. Comics. Creator of such comics as “Tales from the Crypt”, The Vault of Horror and various books, which featured stories of Death and Betrayal, people being maimed and killed in some of the most gruesome acts imaginable…
even the dead coming back from the grave.

There was a crop of memorable artists to come out of that era like Reed Crandall, Jack Davis, and Johnny Craig. There are many artists whose legacy lives on, through the timeless pages of these books. Inspiring generations of comic book creators to come…are comics an art form? I say yes…and yet even today because of the snobbish mentality of a few, the medium of comics is yet to be recognized as a literary art form.

The audiences back in the 50’s, were mainly young males with barely hair one between their legs. Which horrified parents back then fearing that their poor little Johnny's sense of right and wrong would be tragically altered. Because of this attitude coming from so-called responsible adults, Mr. Gaines (May he rest in peace) was brought before a committee to determine whether it was pornography of the mind or art…Talk about your Witch-hunts!! They even use to have these educational films for “Children” showing the “dangers” of comics and their effects on the coruptable young. They show some kids sitting by a tree reading horror comics…suddenly one of them gets up and begins to stab at the tree with his pocket knife!! Blaming comics for his wild behavior…if you don’t believe this check out the film “Comic Book Confidential”. What I question is what in the hell is this 50’s kid doing with a pocketknife, if comics are so dangerous?? The logic of some people in this world never ceases to amaze me.

Now I have always made the connection between comics and film because their ultimate goal is to tell a story through series of images. Of course comics differ in presentation, in comics you have to be able to breakdown a story into a series of images called panels. Which occupy the space on the printed page, film on the other hand is not as limited in means to tell a story. Utilizing frames per second to create movement and action, that is projected on to the screen. Film is not just visual but auditory, therefore it appeals to our senses. Not to mention the heart…Film can evoke a wide range of emotion like happiness, sadness, anger even fear. But comics can do the same thing…so are they art forms? I would have to say yes, because they are visual in style and interpretation.

One could make the argument that they are not art, but I would have to disagree with that. Because the fact of the matter is filmmakers and artists can create not just to entertain, but enlighten as well. I could make the argument that many directors are visual stylists, like Brian De Palma, Hitchcock, and Kubrick. George Romero is considered to be a master of the two dimensional design within the film frame. It shows in his cutting and camera angles, use of great spacious movement from shot to shot. In Romero’s NOTLD the technical aspects of Romero’s style makes itself apparent. His films have always touched upon the ugliness of society, kind of like holding a mirror up for us to look into like it or not. He works mainly in the genre of horror, yet he like so many filmmakers shows a sense of style through their creative efforts. So if it is deemed being creative, is it not art??

On the other hand people can find a myriad number of reasons to distinguish between what they consider art and gratuitous violence. If the violence within the film doesn’t serve a purpose other than to be shocking, then you could say its just violence for the sake of Violence. The Drive-ins has had more than its share of schlock, splashed across the big screen. Distributors knew what sold; you could be sure that if you saw a movie at the drive-In back in its heyday. That there were always 5 films with the word “Blood” in the title!!! Was it art or artlessness? That could always depend on the viewer’s interpretation or point of view. I could never take them too seriously, only because in looking back they weren’t as graphic as they were made out to be. If you look at what’s been done today, one could argue that some horror films are much more graphic. In terms of subject matter, the realistic brutality of Henry Portrait of a serial killer has put some people off…is it art? Again that is based solely the opinion of the individual. It definitely evoked a response, so if it provoked such …does that make it artless?

After all if art can evoke emotion, film is no different.
So who’s to say??

Count you state that art isn’t so complex…I disagree. Its not that cut and dry my friend…I only wish! To cut to the chase, I work as an inker…now, in the film Chasing Amy. An inker is referred to as a tracer. (If I ever get a hold of that Kevin Smith…) What you may not realize is, in order for anyone to be good inker or embellisher. You must be able to master several complexities such as 1,2,3 and 4 point Perspective. Understanding basic anatomy, mastering the wide variety of the tools of the trade, knowing your light sources and being able to spot black areas well. In order to be involved in this particular field of art, you must over come many of the complex aspects involved. That is fact…I don’t make up these rules! And let me tell you Desecration, painting is more than a series of brush strokes!!! It takes relentless concentration, control, understanding the principles of color and it’s usage. Just like inking a comic it is a thought process. Any a-hole can lay down some brush strokes, but it takes dedication, perseverance and hard work in order to hone and master your skills. To define what is art and what isn’t…well that is and argument not easily won…I have had similar intelligent arguments like this in a diner, with fellow artists that can turn into an all niter…but I do so enjoy scaring the straights with such conversations!

So I say I agree to disagree…until the next.

[Mog]

Man. There's no way I'm gonna listen to a tracer :D

But seriously, I agree with EVERYTHING you just said. Rock on, Dead. Rock on indeed.



I wish I was a tra--..err inker,
Mog

[the dead one]

Hey Mog, thanks man...I appriciate your comments...
You wouldnt happen to know Kevins address? :p LOL!

[Xipe Totec]

Well, Ok. I consider myself an artist, but that doesn`t have anything to do with me thinking I`m good at drawing. It doesn`t have anything to do with other people calling it art or garbage. It`s art simply because I express myself with it. OK, I draw mainly just maimed corpses and mutants and am not trying to have a deeper meaning, but I still classify that as art, because it`s my way of creating something and expressing myself.

If you ask me what`s the difference between art and entertainment, then I`d say it`s that art is something where the creator puts something of himself into, a part of his soul, if you want. Something that comes from him. Entertainment on the other hand is when the creation (painting, film, song, whatever) depends more on the audience than the creator (director, composer, singer, painter). Entertainment is something where you just want to please the audience and/or make money and you don`t put anything of yourself into it.

Do I think pop music is art?
No, I don`t think it`s art. At least most of it is not, because it`s just an product, something you can sell and rarely there`s something more to it than that.

Do I think rock music is art?
Yes, I do think it`s art, mostly. If to look only the lyrics. Look at Marilyn Manson`s lyrics and say he doesn`t put part of himself into it, that it isn`t a way of expression to him, that he`s not trying to say something with it. Same is with Alice Cooper, Rammstein, Motorhead, Iron Maiden, Metallica and even many of today`s rock groups. Read Korn`s song`s "Ya all want a single" (or what it`s name was?) lyrics for example. Now to compare them with pop songs. Pop lyrics are mostly in the vein of "baby, I see you in my dreams", "Shake that ass", "Put your hands in the air", etc.

Do I think horror movies are art?
Unfortunately mostly they`re not. At least most of the mainstream horror is not. Again they`re a product. But some of them deffinitely are. David Lynch`s (if to call him a horror director), Tim Burton`s movies and even Rob Zombie`s "House of 1000 corpses" I consider art. Blair Witch Project is without a doubt art. Though often horror is not art, it has more potential then other genres I think.

Anywho, gotta go now.
To be continued... (hopefully)

[C-Desecration-]

That is fact…I don’t make up these rules! And let me tell you Desecration, painting is more than a series of brush strokes!!!



Okay, so what's up with the infamous "dude who throws a bucket of paint on a board and sells it for thousands of dollars" (oh man that was a bad example)? And I just realized that comment is actually a little misleading, but I'm not atall saying painting doesn't take talent, far from it, what you got from me was taken out of context quite a bit.
I think xipe nailed it, yet again--art is something you put yourself into, entertainment is something that has more to do with the people viewing the product rather than the artist. But these things CAN mix. A screenwriter or novelist, or instance, could start something specifically because it hasn't been done before, so in a way this person is thinking of the audience . . . but he/she still puts himself into the product.

[countchocula]

Originally posted by the dead one
Count you state that art isn’t so complex…I disagree.

I wasn't referring to what goes into art. The definition of art is simplistic. Film is an artistic medium. Some use it to entertain and others use it to express themselves, but it's all art to me. This is a good topic, but C-Des has a knack for asking questions that have no answer. Art can be defined in many ways, just as it can be interpreted in many ways. It depends on who you are and what work of "art" you're perlustrating.

[C-Desecration-]

Wait just a goddamned minute count-- I don't have a knack for anything.

Now that that's straightened out, the topic isn't really "what is art", but the problem is we have to at least specify a 'term' to use in order to work at this topic (how can we say what qualifies in horror as art or not if we have no idea what the definition is?). Of course 'art' just so happened to be a subjective term, at least in everyday use, so basically I just paved a round track with this thread, and everyone keeps looking for the finish line . . . but there isn't one. We keep going 'round and 'round.
. . . which happens a lot whenever I create a thread.

Wait. I think xipe passed the finish line, actually. So the bottom line is that if someone puts a lot of their effort into a project it's 'art', whereas if they decide to pump it out without any personal touch/care then it's more 'entertainment'. Therefore, Modum is art. So is se7en. House of the dead I'd say no.
. . . but then again, many times, especially with something as complex as a film, there's different artists at work. Actors, directors, screenwriters, etc. What if the screenwriter makes a schlocky product but the director and cast try their damndest, but the finished product is still just awful? Is that art? Or a loophole?

. . .
. . . I think I might just be a really, really pretentious person with my threads.

[Homicidal4Life]

Horror, and cinema as a whole, is so rarely great art that one has to learn to appreciate great trash. You have to be able to have fun with both Bride of Frankenstein (a masterpiece) and Blood Feast (a terribly funny bad movie)

[Juice]

I don't believe in art.

Nowadays, the word 'art' has lost all meaning, everybody calls everything art. It's art when you paint a white piece of paper blue. It's art when you throw a bottle of lemonade in the sea. It's art when you get some dogs on a stage and let them shit all over the place. Everything is art as long as you call it art.

So, to me, art is a word of no value. It doesn't exist it my world. There's entertainment.

[countchocula]

Some people may abuse art, but genuine art does exist. You mean to tell me that Jacob's Ladder, Videodrome, and May aren't works of art (regardless of whether or not you hold them in high esteem)?

[IamNoOne666]

This is a great thread and I think everyone has posted some great points. The one that I agree with the most is Xipe Totec. Well said.

[Horror]

I actually wrote a research paper about this very subject for my English Class. If anyones intrested I'll post it in a few parts. See below-

[Horror]

Horror: High Art or Utter Trash?

Nick Schwab

I am a horror fan, I live and breath everything horror. Sometimes when I bring my love for the genre up it makes people uncomfortable. People sometimes feel that horror fans are unintelligent, antisocial and downright weird. They also believe that the horror genre is a trashy B-grade genre that only appeals to people that get “entertainment” in blood, gore and nudity. I am taken-aback by this claim and left defending the merits of the horror genre, and my reasons why I think it’s an important form of art.

First, lets start from the beginning. I still remember the very day that I fell in love with horror movies. It was in winter break of my eighth-grade year. My friend Kevin and I were in our hangout of Blockbuster looking for a movie to watch that night, which was something we often did. Problem is, on this particular day many of the movies didn’t seem that appealing to us.

We found ourselves standing by the “ for sale ” section of the store and as we were rummaging through the videos, I came across a copy of Friday the 13th. I had heard things about the movie before. In my elementary school it was one of those forbidden movies that meant if you viewed it that you were “cool”. Which was actually quite ironic, in retrospect, because many of the kids who had proudly declared viewing it really hadn’t, I would later find after viewing the entire series for myself. Well anyway after hearing more good things from Kevin, somebody who really had seen it, I then decided to buy it.

That day we watched it and for some reason I loved it. Why, I can’t really say, maybe I was just less negative back then, because looking back the movie had terrible acting, awkward dialogue and flat direction. But as sick as it sounds I think I liked it because of the boundaries it crossed in the violence department. It was in fact a “taboo” videotape like my pals in elementary school said it was, but unlike them I actually saw it. Being a boy of only thirteen, the first words out of my mouth was, “that is sooooo cool.”

I bring this memorable moment of my life up for a number of reasons. Mainly because, looking back, I now realize that it gave me a whole new respect for the art of filmmaking. This was really the first time I took an interest in something apart from the film title. After this film I began surfing the Internet to learn about this movie as well as others, which is something that I still continue to do everyday. I also started to remember directors, actors, production companies and other notable aspects about specific films. So the horror genre in a way had started my interest in an activity that I would continue to do with much of my free time and that is watch movies. Later, I took an interest in horror literature and realized that many of the works in this genre were more then just a “guilty pleasure,” and would show the horror genre as an art form to be reckoned with.

Encyclopedia Britannica defines the horror film (which is a definition that can be used for the horror genre in any of its forms) as something that causes “…intense repugnance, fear or dread … that may incorporate incidents of physical violence, and psychological terror; they may be studies of deformed, disturbed psychotic, or evil character, stories of terrifying monsters, or mystery thrillers that use atmosphere to build suspense…( that) often overlaps science fiction films and film noir.” This definition shows the basic guidelines for qualifying as a horror work. This definition also shows that the horror genre can be represented in many more genre avenues that are different then horror. I believe that elements of the horror film can sometimes be seen in every genre then just science fiction and film noir, such as genres as distinctively opposite in the emotions their supposed to convey, which includes the genres of drama, action and comedy. (15th edition, Vol. 6, pg. 67)

The horror genre is one of the oldest forms of entertainment. Horror literature dates back to 458 BC with The Oresteia by Aeshylus and started growing in popularity by works including folktales with devil characters, witchcraft, fables, myths, ghost stories and gothic novels from Europe written by such authors as Mary Shelley and Bram Stoker. The works in literature later lead to form of enteirtainment being represented in other forms of art including movies.

The first horror movie was Le Manoir du diable (English title The Devil’s Castle) a 2-minute short made in 1896 by French filmmaker Georges Melies that paved the way for the horror genre as a prominent form of film culture. This film brought many other landmark films such as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1919), Nosferatu: A Symphony of Terror (1922) and The Phantom of the Opera (1925).

Horror increased in popularity during the second half of the 20th century and peaked in the early 1970’s to the late 80’s. In this time period, horror literature and horror films went hand and hand and many of the greatest works in the genre were translated from the book to film. Literature-to-film works like The Shining, Rosemary’s Baby and The Exorcist carved their place in modern culture.

Horror died off for a few years in the early part of the 1990’s but quickly regained its footing with the success of Scream and the independent film The Blair Witch Project. Even in the downtime years horror will always remains a important part of artistic culture because people will flock to watch/read them in droves hoping to get a good scare out them and get that great feeling of adrenaline pumping through the bloodstream. This scare affect is achieved in number of ways in what makes a truly seminal work of horror.

These two most important components in a horror work are what sets the horror film apart from the other genres. In order to be successful, the horror film needs a great abundance of suspense and atmosphere. This is what makes the film scary, the audience being right there with the character in their shoes not knowing what's around the next corner. This relies heavily on the director or writer who creates this using effective techniques. For writers this would be prose that draws you right into the page characters you care about, and surprises. For filmmaking the scares are generated through this and through the use of effective lighting, editing, sound, music, cinematography and set design.

Now that you know a little background history of the genre its time to argue the horrors genres merits as being “an artistic genre.” Since people believe that horror is a b-grade trashy genre with no artistic value, because the think that a horror film only concerns itself with showing an abundant amount of blood, nudity and gore with providing horrible acting, script and directing. This assumption is generally false.

While this may be true with some horror works this doesn’t include many of them. Renowned horror writer Ramsey Campbell attempts to defend the genre in the introduction to Horror 100 best books in which he writes that horror is “… most often concerned with going to far. (Though) despite it’s name, it is often most concerned to produce awe and terror in its audience, but it is not unusual for a horror story to encompass a wider emotional range.” Though the above quote is written having to do with horror literature it can also be used to apply to other forms of the horror genre as well, including movies. Campbell adds that not just some know-nothing critics of the genre think that the field has nothing to do with art but also some of the people involved with the books/films think this as well. (pg 3-4, 1988)

This shows the horror genres struggle to be accepted as an expressionistic medium and not just as a “popcorn movie” genre. Campbell points out that though horror is a genre that’s primary intention is to scare people it can represent a greater canvas of emotional feelings and use underlying messages such as for social commentary. Take the films of the Night of the Living Dead trilogy, which are used, as social commentary about racism, consumer cultures and the humans undesirable instincts of lust and power. The film, which concerns a living-dead nighttime assault of the inhabitants of a farmhouse, is an unrelenting and bleak horror picture that’s final shot is absolutely heart wrenching. Another prime example is the dark and disturbing horror picture The Brood, which contains societal messages about child abuse.

[Horror]

That’s not to say that every horror work is full of contexts and worth your time, but many works in the horror genre do deserve a second glance to find the underlying messages therein and possibly at times the humane philosophies of life.

The question that’s many times asked is violence art? Many times when somebody sees a particularly gory scene their first response is to cringe or look away. So violence in many ways provides a visually and emotionally response on the viewer. But is this art? Or is it just a cheap scare technique?

I believe that violence and gore is usually not the case of lazy filmmaking. Gore and violence drive your point’s home and give the narrative a sense of realism. It’s hard to have a film or book about a serial killer and make it absolutely bloodless and without violence. It is simply not realistic and does not do anything to add to the work whose violence should be used in a context that makes the killings seem very brutal and realistic, like they are in real life. So violence can be used to acheive a emotionally devasting impact on the viewer

However, gore and violence if used over the top enough can also be used as a comedic punchline. The film Dead-Alive is one of the most gruesome horror films of all time. The violence presented would be believed to make the film disturbing, but the excessive violence is used in such a way that it’s not realistic at all and actually quite funny to look at, because the viewer knows that the gore’s so over the top that its not real. This is not to say that the goriest films are simply there just to be funny. Gore can also be used as the narrative, such as in as like in the Italian gore-filled yet visually poetic assault- on-the-senses The Beyond.

Another hurtle the horror writers/filmmaker have to cross is the fact that horror movies are sometimes not seen as “horror films”. According to Rue Morgue editor Rod Gudino that “the reason the general public doesn’t want to “like” horror movies is because admitting that they like a horror movie is akin to admitting they dig porno, and a lot of people just don’t see themselves making that kind of admission. This is the kind of thing that creates problems for horror artists. Everytime a horror movie makes an important breakthrough into the mainstream it simply then ceases to be a horror movie anymore. Horror director Eli Roth bespeaks of the current publics and movie studios opinion of horror films in an interview on joblo.com/arrow in which he states that “nowadays, they don’t even call them “horror movies” anymore, they call them “psychological thrillers”.” He goes on to later that for the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre that the movie studio New Line put out a press release that said they weren’t aloud to call it a “horror movie” instead it would be called a “psychological thriller.” The same thing happened with The Sixth Sense and 28 Days Later in which the latter's company called it a “viral thriller.” ( May/June, 2003, pg ix)

This “name game” is a big change from the horror genre in the 1970‘s-1980’s in which it seemed that every important film director was making a horror movie. This craze went from Steven (Jaws) Spielberg to Stanley (The Shining) Kubrick to Brian (Carrie) DePalma. This ignorance of making a horror picture will go on unless more current horror directors step up and say they are proud to be making horror films. Directors like Lucky (May) McKee, Guillermo (The Devil’s Backbone) Del Toro, and Eli (Cabin Fever) Roth have been outspokenly psyched to be making a scary picture. If more follow their suit the horror genre would get much more due respect and more “quality” horror films and literature will be made and be profitable.

One of the reason’s that movie studios are driven to play the name game is the fact that they assume that if they call their product a “horror film” that it means less profits for that film. The believe this from the evidence of the top fifty grossing films of all time only six of the films can be considered horror. This would include such titles as Jurassic Park and the sequel Jurassic Park: Lost world, The Sixth Sense, Signs, Jaws and The Exorcist. Some of these films such as The Sixth Sense and Signs are the films as previously mentioned some wouldn’t consider horror. So the studio executives look at a paltry couple of horror films in the top fifty and conclude that horror films aren’t profitable. But that’s where their wrong. horror films are actually very profitable, maybe not in terms of highest grossing films but in terms of making their budget many times over.

Take for example The Blair Witch Project, a film which upon release in 1999 was the #1 independent film of all time. How much The Blair Witch Project made was truly remarkable for a film that was independent but that’s not the only amazing aspect of its gross recipts. The most remarkable thing about The Blair Witch Project was how much it multiplied its budget. The film which cost only $35,000 made a whopping $140,530,114.00 which is about 4,015 times it budget (you read that right.) once again, that’s 4,015 times its budget, now how’s that for profit. The huge profit margin of this film showed filmmakers that its possible to make a movie for very little money and then turn in the box office receipts to garner a huge amount of money. All it takes is confidence in your film and a marketing campaign that catches audience’s attention.

Studios such as Dimension Films need to be aware of this. Dimension for example had a potentially successful film on its hands, called Below. Below was a subtle- submarine-chiller that Dimension released in the 2002 season. However, the marketing push Dimension films gave was very weak which caused the film to gross not much more then $500,000. This underperformance was due to the fact that the film didn’t even have a trailer until a week before the release and Dimension didn’t even provide the movie a website to help promote the film. This later caused Below’s director David Twohy to take money from his own pocket and put one out online. When the film was finally released after many release date shuffles the film was shown in a febble 168 screens. This is quite sad considering Below’s one of the companies few smart horror genre offerings. Below was original, well done, popular (with those who actually saw it) and above all scary. This film could have certainly made its money back and then some had Dimension decided to do a better job marketing it.

In the end horror movies to non-fans will always be the loser. If audiences and executives don’t come to the realization that horror films is indeed an art form and are just as important as other genres the horror genre will always be the underdog. Though horror fans will continue to argue the positives of their favorite genre. the unrespect of the horror genre matters little to horror-genre fans and myself. Honestely, we could care less about what outsiders thought of our beloved genre so long as more quality horror products are made and so long as we still get good kicks out of being scared.

Well so long, reader and remember to at least check out the horror section next time you’re at your local entertainment venue. Because being knowledgeable rather then passive of the horror genre gives you the right to either praise the genre as an art form or dismiss it entirely as an invaluable form of entertainment.






Bibliography Not Found In Text

1. Dirks, Tim Horror Films, retreived from www.filmsite.org/horrorfilms.html on March 14th, 2004. Created 1996-2004

2. www.geocities.com/hollywood/palace/2462/history.html

[Juice]

Originally posted by countchocula
Some people may abuse art, but genuine art does exist. You mean to tell me that Jacob's Ladder, Videodrome, and May aren't works of art (regardless of whether or not you hold them in high esteem)?

I can't say because I don't know what art is. Do you?

[jagged halo]

I agree with you on this, it is impossible to define what art is, everybody will come to their own conclusions, there isn't a right or wrong answer. I tend to look at so called works of art as nothing more than creations, here in England we have a celebrated artist by the name of Damien Hurst who considers encapsulating half a cow as a piece of art, nonsense I say!! but that's just my opinion. I strongly disagree it is a work of art it's simply an ecapsulated cow which doesn't invite any kind of thought or feeling apart from an intial reaction of "what on earth possessed this person to create such a thing?".
Damien Hurst has a certain type of skill with imagery and alike but that doesn't make him an artist. IMHO :D

[Thurisaz]

Originally posted by Horror
I am a horror fan, I live and breath everything horror.
same here...

[Xipe Totec]

Originally posted by Thurisaz
same here...
Well, I think most of us here feel that way :)
Welcome to the boards by the way.

[countchocula]

Originally posted by Juice
I can't say because I don't know what art is. Do you?

I settled on a general definition a few posts back, and it applies to a film such as Jacob's Ladder. It's just a form of expression. Everyone is overthinking it. If you tell a story through visual metaphors, I'd classify it as art. Granted, art is personal to the artist, but most filmmakers refer to filmmaking as art. Who are we to say that their perception of art is skewed?

[jagged halo]

Surely art is whatever you perceive it to be?, there is no absolute definition.

[the dead one]

Originally posted by jagged halo
Surely art is whatever you perceive it to be?, there is no absolute definition.

Halo, that was beautiful man...you have my respect as always!

[jagged halo]

Why thank you Deadone!!;)