The horror... the horror
I've never been a huge fan of horror films. Due to chronic lack of popularity, I didn't spend lots of evenings in darkened rooms full of friends trying to prove how hard and unshockable they were in the face of the latest gore-fest (obtained via dubious means from the Bewdley's sole video store). Still, I understand the attraction of being scared - despite being something of a coward, I enjoy the adreneline rush of rollercoasters, particularly the palpable relief when the ride is over that it didn't get stuck upside-down on that big loop, or collapse, or explode, etc.
In the last few years, the much-discussed Torture Porn genre seems to have become the norm for mainstream horror. My experience of this sort of thing only extends to the first Saw movie, which I actually found fairly clever and tense. Despite this, though, I've had no great desire to see anything else, especially the seemingly endless conveyor belt of Saw-quels . Meanwhile, there are smaller films being made which don't get any sort of mainstream cinema release, catering instead to a small but fanatical audience who are looking for boundaries to be crossed, common decency to be outraged and film-making pushed to - and indeed beyond - what ought to be its acceptable limits.
One of these is Martyrs, a French chiller apparently brutal enough for noted horror buff Mark Kermode to consider walking out of a screening, although he argued that the ending was interesting enough to to justify the gore. Another is A Serbian Film, which I believe is being shown at the Frightfest horror festival in London at the moment. I would seriously advise anybody against even perusing this movie's Wikipedia entry unless they deem themselves to be pretty much unshockable. You can read it here, but you may have to reconsider your definition of "unshockable".
The fact that films like this get made, and therefore an audience for them must exist, is in many ways even more disturbing than their content. The Serbian director of the above has no problems justifying his work, for him the atrocities he presents onscreen are nothing compared to those committed by his country in recent wars. The question of whether hiding behind allegory, of having noble intent, makes it acceptable to create depravity of a different nature is a hard one to answer. I would tend to lean towards the belief that just because it's possible to film something doesn't mean that you necessarily should.
A fine example of this - although clearly not in the same genre - is Kick-Ass, which coincidentally comes out on DVD soon. The Daily Mail's review was utterly ridiculous, basically accusing director Matthew Vaughn of encouraging paedophiles by putting a young actress in a lycra catsuit and having her do violent, adult things. And yet, somewhat worryingly, I do agree with them up to a point. At various points the Hitgirl character gets her head stomped on, kills a plethora of blokes, and notoriously drops the C-bomb. The comic book apparently goes even further by showing her snorting coke (or at least implying it). This taboo-busting attitude of the filmmakers really turned me off the film, as what began as an amusing, post-modern take on the superhero movie ended up descending into mindless violence and silly shock tactics, ie becoming exactly the sort of film it was meant to be sending up.
I'm pretty much alone in my views on Kick-Ass (no, the Mail and its readers don't count), as evidenced by the delighted whooping from the audience when Hitgirl let forth the ultimate cuss word when I saw it. But to me the levels of violence at the end (not to mention the horrible torture scene, "inspired" by beheading videos) were unnecessary and undermined what had gone before. I'm actually fairly broadminded when it comes to taboos being broken, but I think it's crucial that it makes sense artistically to do so, rather than just pandering to the baser instincts of some and pushing the outrage buttons of others.
But what of the folk who not only don't mind the boundary-testing side of cinema, but actively seek it out? I mention Mark Kermode above (as I often do) because, as a wonderfully erudite and movie-literate man, he seems to typify a large segment of the horror fanbase. His friend and colleague Nigel Floyd, currently filling in for him on Five Live's movie show, is very similar. On a recent show, the subject of Frightfest was being discussed, and Floyd painted a delightful picture of the type of fan the event attracts - mild-mannered, unassuming, intelligent and slightly geeky.
On paper this does not compute - sensitive souls who spend much of their free time immersed in blood and gore? But when you think about it, everyone has pent-up emotions and we all need to find ways of releasing them. I watch a lot of football and shout a lot when Wolves lose. Or win. Pretty much every time we play, basically. Meanwhile, lots of perfectly respectable folk get their kicks by scaring the crap out of themselves. This extends to the filmmakers too, horror directors being by all accounts the friendliest and most erudite of their breed. Which certainly explains the whole justification of gore and bloodshed as political/social/moral allegory thing (pretty much every zombie flick is adjudged to be a scathing methaphor for something or other, for example).
Basically, the horror genre and its fans seems like an entirely fascinating subject. And the curious side of me wants to watch all the really depraved stuff, partly to see just how extreme it is, partly with the idea of maybe achieving a better understanding of it. The other side of me, however, is glad I don't.
In the last few years, the much-discussed Torture Porn genre seems to have become the norm for mainstream horror. My experience of this sort of thing only extends to the first Saw movie, which I actually found fairly clever and tense. Despite this, though, I've had no great desire to see anything else, especially the seemingly endless conveyor belt of Saw-quels . Meanwhile, there are smaller films being made which don't get any sort of mainstream cinema release, catering instead to a small but fanatical audience who are looking for boundaries to be crossed, common decency to be outraged and film-making pushed to - and indeed beyond - what ought to be its acceptable limits.
One of these is Martyrs, a French chiller apparently brutal enough for noted horror buff Mark Kermode to consider walking out of a screening, although he argued that the ending was interesting enough to to justify the gore. Another is A Serbian Film, which I believe is being shown at the Frightfest horror festival in London at the moment. I would seriously advise anybody against even perusing this movie's Wikipedia entry unless they deem themselves to be pretty much unshockable. You can read it here, but you may have to reconsider your definition of "unshockable".
The fact that films like this get made, and therefore an audience for them must exist, is in many ways even more disturbing than their content. The Serbian director of the above has no problems justifying his work, for him the atrocities he presents onscreen are nothing compared to those committed by his country in recent wars. The question of whether hiding behind allegory, of having noble intent, makes it acceptable to create depravity of a different nature is a hard one to answer. I would tend to lean towards the belief that just because it's possible to film something doesn't mean that you necessarily should.
A fine example of this - although clearly not in the same genre - is Kick-Ass, which coincidentally comes out on DVD soon. The Daily Mail's review was utterly ridiculous, basically accusing director Matthew Vaughn of encouraging paedophiles by putting a young actress in a lycra catsuit and having her do violent, adult things. And yet, somewhat worryingly, I do agree with them up to a point. At various points the Hitgirl character gets her head stomped on, kills a plethora of blokes, and notoriously drops the C-bomb. The comic book apparently goes even further by showing her snorting coke (or at least implying it). This taboo-busting attitude of the filmmakers really turned me off the film, as what began as an amusing, post-modern take on the superhero movie ended up descending into mindless violence and silly shock tactics, ie becoming exactly the sort of film it was meant to be sending up.
I'm pretty much alone in my views on Kick-Ass (no, the Mail and its readers don't count), as evidenced by the delighted whooping from the audience when Hitgirl let forth the ultimate cuss word when I saw it. But to me the levels of violence at the end (not to mention the horrible torture scene, "inspired" by beheading videos) were unnecessary and undermined what had gone before. I'm actually fairly broadminded when it comes to taboos being broken, but I think it's crucial that it makes sense artistically to do so, rather than just pandering to the baser instincts of some and pushing the outrage buttons of others.
But what of the folk who not only don't mind the boundary-testing side of cinema, but actively seek it out? I mention Mark Kermode above (as I often do) because, as a wonderfully erudite and movie-literate man, he seems to typify a large segment of the horror fanbase. His friend and colleague Nigel Floyd, currently filling in for him on Five Live's movie show, is very similar. On a recent show, the subject of Frightfest was being discussed, and Floyd painted a delightful picture of the type of fan the event attracts - mild-mannered, unassuming, intelligent and slightly geeky.
On paper this does not compute - sensitive souls who spend much of their free time immersed in blood and gore? But when you think about it, everyone has pent-up emotions and we all need to find ways of releasing them. I watch a lot of football and shout a lot when Wolves lose. Or win. Pretty much every time we play, basically. Meanwhile, lots of perfectly respectable folk get their kicks by scaring the crap out of themselves. This extends to the filmmakers too, horror directors being by all accounts the friendliest and most erudite of their breed. Which certainly explains the whole justification of gore and bloodshed as political/social/moral allegory thing (pretty much every zombie flick is adjudged to be a scathing methaphor for something or other, for example).
Basically, the horror genre and its fans seems like an entirely fascinating subject. And the curious side of me wants to watch all the really depraved stuff, partly to see just how extreme it is, partly with the idea of maybe achieving a better understanding of it. The other side of me, however, is glad I don't.
Comments