Knights & Knaves Alehouse

I know that my mother always talks about how she was scared stiff by "Abbot and Costello Meets Frankenstein" as a little girl. I imagine Frankenstein proper was very scary.

John Stark wrote:However, that is tangential to my point, and I don't want to get too far afield. As I stated at the beginning of the previous paragraph, even though the early horror classics were pushing the envelope in their day, they still had to work within certain constraints; and yet, IMO, this adds to thier brilliance and charm, precisely because these limits forced the producers of these films to hint at many things while leaving much to the imagination of the viewer. Today, everything is forced down our throats, and nothing is left to our imaginations. Violence is very realistically and graphically simulated in film, no subject matter is taboo or verboten, and nudity/sex is obviously often quite real/near-real and used extensively in film today. The classic horror films had to be far more subtle, and frankly I think that makes them much better films than most of the drek today. They "fire the imagination," a phrase that has bandied about quite a bit on this site when it comes to the early and best incarnations of D&D/AD&D. Much like the "modern" incarnations of gaming, the modern horror film forces us to see what it wants us to see, rather than suggesting to us something deeper and darker than what is actually being shown as the classics tended to do. Since they couldn't depict out-and-out scenes of violent brutality, sensuality and sexuality, perversion and evil, the classic horror films had to hint at them, and thus play upon our minds and feelings in ways that modern films fail to. They are disturbing to the audience because they allow us to disturb ourselves, to think about what is not being said or shown, and thus we feed into our own imaginative fears and terrors.

Two things. One: excellent essay John. As a fan of the genre myself (though primarily in the written medium) I agree with most everything you have said. Very well thought out.

Second, just wanted to comment on what I quoted above. Just as the limitations placed upon these early film makers unintentionally made them scarier (as well as better) films, a couple modern day films have also benefited from simular situations. Jaws for example: they couldn't get the shark to work half as much as they wanted to and also had issues with filming on the water, so to augment they used barrels and change in music to show that the shark was there without showing the shark. End result: a movie that 30 years later is still a gripping masterpiece of horror. And then there is The Blair Witch Project: while not IMO a spectacular film (but then again the 90's weren't good for horror) it succeeded solely on its use of suggested danger and paranoid camera angles. Had they access to a larger budget it would have been a real stinker, and in fact I think they did put out a big budget sequel that really stunk.

- Wheggi

Perhaps ironically considering its reputation, another great example of the power of suggestion over graphic depiction is the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Because of both budgetary constraint and a desire to avoid an X rating, there is surprisingly little actual on-screen violence in this movie (per director Tobe Hooper, there's nothing actually shown that couldn't be in a PG-rated movie), and yet the movie is still extraordinarily creepy and disturbing. It's all done through pure cinema-craft: lighting, framing, editing, and sound design -- a person being carried to a meat-hook followed by a jump-cut (accompanied by a 'squishing' sound) to a wall spattered with blood and a shadow of twitching legs in the corner of the frame can be just as horrifying, disturbing, and memorable as actually showing the impalement, and holds up much better to a modern audience than any cheesy low-budget 1970s special effects would (compare TCM's continuing power to upset and disturb audiences to something like a H.G. Lewis gore-fest which is neither shocking nor disturbing from a modern perspective, just laughibly campy and inane). It will probably never get any respect among mainstream critics because of its subject matter, but TCM is an extremely well-made movie in terms of the aforementioned lighting, framing, editing, and sound design. It's a shame that none of Tobe Hooper's subsequent movies have been even close to the same level (though I do enjoy Lifeforce in a guilty-pleasure sort of way, and even saw it on the big screen a couple years back with Tobe Hooper in attendance -- the best part of living in L.A.).

To kind of bolster what T.Foster is mentioning there, and to sort of play in to the John Carpenter thread elsewhere in the General Forum, many people look at Halloween as being the start of the "slasher flick" genre of the '80s (I digress; I think it was Friday the 13th myself). However, there's not a huge amount of gore in Halloween. The "shape" (as Michael Myers is referred to) is more an implication of horror than a mere hack-and-slay maniac. The movie is more subtle than people give it credit for, I think. And more to the point, it's a better movie overall than most of the illbegotten movies of the same genre it gave rise to.

I'd put Halloween in the same category as Psycho, personally.

"Psychological slasher".

I can only agree with you concerning TCM, Foster. And on a simular train of thought, a horror (suspense?) movie that does get the respect it deserves for conveying horror without ever showing the actual violent act is Psycho and its famous shower scene. That scene is possibly one of the best crafted segements in all of film history, conveying horror that resonates to this very day, and never once do you see the knife actually sink into Ms. Leigh.

As for Tobe Hooper, I enjoyed Lifeforce, but also think that Poltergeist was excellent. If this is more a Hooper film or a Spielberg film will always be argued, but I like to think it has more of Hooper's edge with all of the Spielberg special effects thickly smeared over it to make it more attractive to audiences. And to go even further, I think that Poltergeist could have been in the top 10 greatest horror movies of all time had there been less reliance on special effects. Imagine the movie if they had re-tooled it so that it didn't rely so much on the light effects or the cloth "beast". The most terrifying moments in the film don't rely as heavily on effects, but on tension (most notably the "clown in the chair sequence", and when Carol is talking to the dead in the TV). The most effective horror sequence that did rely on special effects was more a matter of make-up than bluescreens and lights shining through a fish tank: the poor bastard ghost chaser who went into the kitchen to grab a bite to eat and ended up tearing his own face off. . . .

If anyone attempted to do a remake of Poltergeist today they would so butcher it.

EDIT: Ha! I didn't see your post until I posted, Dungeondelver. Ironic that we both mention Psycho.

- Wheggi

D'oh! I'd forgotten Tobe Hooper directed Poltergeist. That definitely deserves some props -- the first hour or so really scared the hell out of me as a kid, to the point that the cheesy fx-laden finale actually came as a relief.

I agree DD, but I wouldn't even go w/psycho. I found Myers to be depicted as more of a true "monster" (seperate from man), unstoppable, unrelenting, somehow supernatural. Psycho just seemed like a crazy but human character. But yeah, Halloween is definitely not a mere "slasher film" its way more suspense/plot driven.

Quick off-topic question

Wheggi, is your new icon from a Gwar show? I saw them a couple weeks ago and they had something remarkebly similar to your icon (which was killed, of course) in the act.

So I see "Classic Horror" isn't just limited to the 1950s and before anymore.

Personally I agree that the horror genre went downhill in the 1990s... part of that I blame on how the emphasis switched away from paranormal or sci-fi concepts and more towards just murderous madmen. I tend to find that crazy people aren't as interesting as ghosts.

Fortunately we have all those Japanese horror movies now that are bringing back the paranormal... with varying degrees of success (Ring, if I remember, was okay. Ju-On/The Grudge is good the first time you see it but is boring every viewing thereafter).

Thoth Amon wrote:Quick off-topic question

Wheggi, is your new icon from a Gwar show? I saw them a couple weeks ago and they had something remarkebly similar to your icon (which was killed, of course) in the act.

My new avatar is The Master of the Flying Guillotine, possibly one of the coolest bad guys ever to grace the silver screen! If you haven't seen this movie yet, I strongly suggest you get yourself some take-out and settle in for some serious kung-fu action.

And for some reason, it wouldn't surprise me if Gwar off'd the Master in one of their shows.

- Wheggi