Notice I wrote "set off" not "piss off". Most of the horror fans I know can rant and argue passionately for hours, but it's all in fun, not anger. No matter how snarky things get, at the end of the day we're all still friends and members of an affectionate and enthusiastic community. Please notice also that I'm not claiming these are the best ways, they're just the first ten ways that sprang to my mind.
1. Compile a superlative list. "Ten Best Horror Movies of the 80s"! "Top 25 Horror Films Ever Made"! It doesn't matter what the parameters are, everybody is going to disagree with your choices and let you know exactly why in a very detailed and vehement fashion.
2. Refer to 28 Days Later as a "zombie" movie. Oh. My. God. This has been one of the most hotly debated concepts in horror in the past ten years. When 28 Days Later came out, people started describing it as a zombie movie, and since then there has been this new wave of movies which feature "zombies" which are similar to those in 28DL: fast, acrobatic, frenetically violent, and not necessarily undead. Why is this a problem? Because for decades now the Romero zombie (dead, clumsy, slow) has been the classic standard.
2. Refer to 28 Days Later as a "zombie" movie. Oh. My. God. This has been one of the most hotly debated concepts in horror in the past ten years. When 28 Days Later came out, people started describing it as a zombie movie, and since then there has been this new wave of movies which feature "zombies" which are similar to those in 28DL: fast, acrobatic, frenetically violent, and not necessarily undead. Why is this a problem? Because for decades now the Romero zombie (dead, clumsy, slow) has been the classic standard.
This is one I personally don't get bunged up about. I do understand the argument, but until another word is invented for people who are so profoundly altered by a pathogen that they lose all traces of humanity and are driven solely by their desire to violently kill and eat non-infected persons, what should we call them? Infecteds? Besides, Romero did not invent zombies, nor did he make the first zombie film! He inarguably founded the zombie genre of films that flourished and became what we know today, but zombies existed way before movies were even invented. Look! I made a little chart to elucidate some of the differences:
See? They're all over the place. The only thing they have in common is the loss of humanity. Not to get all book learnin'y on you, but I think it's because zombies are a cultural archetype which exists to express a particular collective fear. As cultures change so do their fears, and hence do their zombies. You know?
3. Mention PG-13 horror movies. This is another bonkers one, but it's mostly the fans railing against Hollywood and very little debate actually occurs within the community. The sentiment is that PG-13 horror movies are inherently bad. They are produced by greedy studios who want to cash in on the current popularity of horror films without knowing or caring anything about the genre or it's history.
For the most part I think this is true and correct. However, I am not opposed to PG-13 movies in theory. I don't think that a horror movie is going to be necessarily good or bad based on which side of the stupid, arbitrary MPAA standards it happens to fall. In fact, I think the basis of great horror is not what is seen and graphically depicted, it's what is feared and left unseen. The horror which impacts me the most and lingers the longest is that which lets my own brain do the work for it - suggesting, flickering, peripheral glances. That's the stuff that really gets inside you and makes you afraid to be home alone at night. Great storytelling neither needs nor excludes gore and nudity.
4. Classic vs. modern. This conflict probably exists in every genre of not just film but also music, literature, art, fashion, etc.. "There hasn't been a good horror movie made in the past ____ years!". Fans can go back and forth endlessly naming quality contemporary films and crappy old ones.
3. Mention PG-13 horror movies. This is another bonkers one, but it's mostly the fans railing against Hollywood and very little debate actually occurs within the community. The sentiment is that PG-13 horror movies are inherently bad. They are produced by greedy studios who want to cash in on the current popularity of horror films without knowing or caring anything about the genre or it's history.
For the most part I think this is true and correct. However, I am not opposed to PG-13 movies in theory. I don't think that a horror movie is going to be necessarily good or bad based on which side of the stupid, arbitrary MPAA standards it happens to fall. In fact, I think the basis of great horror is not what is seen and graphically depicted, it's what is feared and left unseen. The horror which impacts me the most and lingers the longest is that which lets my own brain do the work for it - suggesting, flickering, peripheral glances. That's the stuff that really gets inside you and makes you afraid to be home alone at night. Great storytelling neither needs nor excludes gore and nudity.
4. Classic vs. modern. This conflict probably exists in every genre of not just film but also music, literature, art, fashion, etc.. "There hasn't been a good horror movie made in the past ____ years!". Fans can go back and forth endlessly naming quality contemporary films and crappy old ones.
5. Mention remakes. Another fan vs.The Man struggle. Why does Hollywood keep desecrating classics, remaking them into shitty, watered down versions of the original? Why? Because they don't care about standards, they care about money. No amount of message board wailing is ever going to alter that.
6. Fangoria vs. Rue Morgue. Fangoria and Rue Morgue are the two major magazines covering the horror industry. Fangoria has been around for decades and lovingly covers the film industry, focusing on mainstream releases but also devoting some attention to indie and foreign flicks, video games, literature, and horror cinema history. Rue Morgue's focus is somewhat opposite - foreign/indie first, mythology, history, literature, trivia, with new releases and mainstream efforts coming in last. Sounds like they compliment each other perfectly, right? Not quite. Each magazine has fans and detractors of their primary raison d'être (Fango is all Hollywood sell-out, Rue Morgue is out of touch, etc.), but my beef is more practical than philosophical. I trust Fangoria, I do not trust RM. I have found so many errors in every issue of the latter over the years that I will no longer spend money on it. And while I wish Fangoria would devote a little more space to indie efforts, at least I know it's been written and edited by loving, dedicated professionals. Tony Timpone is my co-pilot.
7. Uwe Boll. Uwe Boll is a director of admirable moxie and brilliant business acumen but disastrously poor movie making sense. He has made some of the most terrible mainstream horror films of the past decade which pissed off not only horror fans but gamers, too, as they were based on video games. There are anti-fan clubs, petitions, websites, newsgroups, etc. all devoted to ending his career.
While I can't stand his movies, I like what I know of him as a person. He is a feisty German vegan weirdo with an adorably fiendish gap-toothed grin.
8. Ask if they liked Twilight. Why would that set off a horror fan? Because it's not a horror movie. The inclusion of vampires does not a horror movie make. It's tweenybopper fangbanger pr0n.
9. Question the greatness of a revered classic. Don't tell anyone you didn't like Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nosferatu, Night of the Living Dead, Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Suspiria, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, or any other of the sacred canon.
10. Suggest that horror movies cause violent crime. This is just stupid. People have been claiming this ever since horror movies first began and there is no evidence to support it. Violence isn't cause by a single, simple trigger like a movie or a video game or metal music. It's easy to see the appeal of such simplistic beliefs, they identify an easy scapegoat that saves the speaker from critical thought and having to address the real causes of violence. Complex and pervasive socio-cultural factors you can't fix with a simple ban or increased censorship. Just ask the West Memphis Three what that kind of thinking (or circumvention thereof) gets you.
While I can't stand his movies, I like what I know of him as a person. He is a feisty German vegan weirdo with an adorably fiendish gap-toothed grin.
8. Ask if they liked Twilight. Why would that set off a horror fan? Because it's not a horror movie. The inclusion of vampires does not a horror movie make. It's tweenybopper fangbanger pr0n.
9. Question the greatness of a revered classic. Don't tell anyone you didn't like Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nosferatu, Night of the Living Dead, Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Suspiria, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, or any other of the sacred canon.
10. Suggest that horror movies cause violent crime. This is just stupid. People have been claiming this ever since horror movies first began and there is no evidence to support it. Violence isn't cause by a single, simple trigger like a movie or a video game or metal music. It's easy to see the appeal of such simplistic beliefs, they identify an easy scapegoat that saves the speaker from critical thought and having to address the real causes of violence. Complex and pervasive socio-cultural factors you can't fix with a simple ban or increased censorship. Just ask the West Memphis Three what that kind of thinking (or circumvention thereof) gets you.
5 comments:
Don't mean to be "set off" but I believe (And I'd have to rewatch it to be 100% sure here) that the "infected" in 28 Days Later and it's sequel don't actually consume human flesh but just attack with bites, scratches, lunges, whatever... I have no problem with it being categorized as a zombie film though since it fits all the "requirements" that I think.
I'll have to rewatch it though, I just can't recall a scene in my head of any infected eating people... not that I'm griping etc. etc.
Oh, Mr. Vicious. Thank you for commenting unlike all you FUCKING LURKERS.
And it's a good comment, too. I'm going to re-watch 28DL today to confirm or debunk this, but I think the 28DL zombies were eating people. I think they had to have been because since they were not eating or drinking normal food and fluids, that's how they must have been gaining sustenance. If they were not eating anything at all they would have expired within days due to dehydration, not the weeks and weeks it took for them to starve to death. You know? But I'll follow up with a proper answer later.
To continue with the setting off, aside from the plain bitching the remake issue is one I find fascinating. While money is definitely a factor, to some extent I understand the artistic impulse behind it as well. We have an epidemic right now of people remaking the beloved films from their childhoods (70's and 80's)(horror movies but also movies like Heathers, etc.) It only really makes sense to remake something that sucked in the first place, or at least something more than 50 years old. Cameron Crowe once said something about how he thinks that remaking films is comparable to musicians covering songs, a practice no one would question. But in that same vein I think people should just take riffs or ideas from movies (art is all about stealing and reshaping ideas anyway)(look how well, say, Tarantino's doing) and not just try to copy something that worked because it was creative. Also, Mr. Crowe is forgetting that most cover songs don't even touch the originals.
Also, totally agree re: PG-13 that implication is scarier than showing gore anyway. Only care when it's movies like Prom Night that rely on one manner of death (stabbing motion) and lots of blood. Or lots of silly movies PG-13 movies that rely on the fake-scare to make you jump. But both those things probably have more to do with the difference between a bad movie and a good movie, and not the rating. -Adrienne
Mr. Vicious, I re-watched 28DL and still have no answer. You are right, you see them biting at people but never really eating them. I even watched the 'making of' featurettes hoping for someone to explicitly state whether or not the infected eat people. I looked online and found many people declaring that they definitely do and just as many others declaring that they definitely do not.
I guess I my assumption would be that they do because you see them having zero interest in conventional foods, but it takes them about two months to starve to death. Either the virus has done something to them reducing their need for sustenance or they are consuming something. That something does not appear to be food, so it must be... people? Tree bark? Marmite? I don't know. What do you think?
Adrienne, I should have gone into some more detail about remakes, because I agree with your comment and am stimulated by it (not in a sexy way). I think I am so burned out on the whole remake discussion that I couldn't muster up the psychic energy to write about it properly. I guess I believe that there are two kinds of remake, those borne of love and those driven by $$$. I really, really love Zack Snyder's 2004 Dawn of the Dead remake and I think it is a great example of a lovingly made remake. But then there is the Friday the 13th remake which was just... nothing... a hiccup... I just watched it a few months ago and I barely remember it. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake was similar, although I do love me some R. Lee Ermey. Remakes - you just have to take the good with the bad and hope that the bad will be remade again in a few years by someone who gives a hoot, not frickin' Marcus Nispel or Michael Bay.
I think I agree with you that it seems most likely that that's what they do, since they have to survive on something (presumably) but who knows? Maybe when they're not raging uncontrollably at potential victims they're raging uncontrollably to the nearest Tesco's Supermarket. Not likely I suppose since we see a rather pristine grocery store in the film itself...
Additionally to that (and not really anything to do with anything you said about it in your post) I find it interesting that there seems to be an idea that beneath the rage there is some humanity 'trying' to get out - my only evidence of this is in the church scene where firstly we see the first two Infected who don't instantly charge at their target (possibly because they're church-goers and supposedly 'nicer people') and in the same scene the priest, before charging, makes a sort of "get out of here" motion with his arms... anyway, that was a needless point but 28 Days Later is one of my favorite films ever and it's something I always find quite interesting about it.
/end rant
Post a Comment