The Evolution of Horror Films

It could just be me, and it might be a critical eye too fervently trained to pick apart the most basic miscues in Hollywood and the surrounding industries, but the horror film industry has hit something of a boon of late. It seems to come in waves. In the 1970s, it was exploitation, slasher flicks like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and going into the ’80s, it was the uber long franchise exploitation of that slasher formula in Friday The 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street. Then there was a lull for a few years, as audiences got bored with the same old movies.

Much like its oft resurrected villains, the horror genre always comes back though, and in the 1990s, it found its stride in the teen slasher genre, this time exploiting the exploding high school, college age teen drama, with films like Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer.

Fast forward a few years, and once again the genre faltered. When you’ve seen one psychopathic, inhuman killer, you’ve seen them all. And so, the next step was something much different, and much more disturbing, born of the proliferation of stylized violence in the films of Tarantino and the psychological mind screws of Asian horror. Hollywood loves its psychopathic killers though, and so after a few years of remaking Japanese films and rewriting classic genres, the horror industry discovered something new―the torture subgenre.

It’s not new though. Films featuring sadistic violence and torture have been around for a while, but with nowhere near the following or financial backing of today’s Eli Roths. If you head back to the hey day of the 1970s exploitation films though and dig through those Cannibal and sexualized vampire films, you’ll find a huge array of scenes in which horrific, disturbing things are done to poor unsuspecting girls and young travelers. What’s different about the Cannibal Holocaust’s of the film industry is that they were incredibly censored, buried and hardly watched by anyone, for foreseeable reasons. If one were to look up the top 10 torture scenes in films (and yes, there are a few lists if you look for them) you’ll find that almost all of them are in films made after 1994, with Pulp Fiction preceding most of them.

Tarantino’s famous leather-clad gimp scene started the whole flood, and when filmmakers saw that they could make a movie with that kind of scene and make money, and win awards for it, the torture started popping up a lot more often. It’s a powerful storytelling device, if done properly. The kind of tension created by tying up the hero of a film and doing unspeakable things to him is two fold. It creates immediate drama, a situation that may or may not end in tragedy. Second, it creates the opportunity for revenge and exacting pain upon the perpetrators of previous torturous scenes.

It makes for good film. But, when the horror industry started drifting away from slasher flicks, a formula that’s fairly straight forward―psychopathic killer stalks and kills teen girls―and started introducing protracted, sadistic killers, with ridiculous methods and disturbing, exploitative plots, things changed in horror. You can take the effort and trace it to the Japanese roots from which it directly arrived, or you can look to childhood inspiration of the Tarantinos and Rob Zombies out there and the exploitation flicks of the 70s. Neither direction is entirely right, as the roots of the genre are a mix of just about everything. Today’s horror films are direct relations to the 70s exploitation flicks in style. Teens wandering a desert road on spring break, attacked and chased down by sadistic killers to commence in a painfully long, ever-tense sequence of events.

However, today’s victims are often not as innocent as they once were. The killers are still insane, and their motives skewed by that insanity, but filmmakers are finding more and more ways to imbue their motives with a sense of urgency and the exploitation of commonly ill-considered traits. Eli Roth’s Hostel, the most disturbing and gory horror film released in the past decade or so, prey’s upon the hedonistic expectations of European backpackers.

Many might disregard the torture films of today as disturbing, self ingratiating visions from disturbed filmmakers, but they are something more entirely. Instead though, I think it’s a natural progression and exploration of genre methods that we’ve visited before, but never quite accepted. In a society that finds itself inundated with constant fear of bodily harm, ideological warfare, and an enemy intangible in almost every way, these films offer a very real, very physical release. Looking at exactly how the torture is portrayed within the film is equally important. It isn’t merely a matter of capturing a few backpackers and removing fingers. These films are about figuring out why someone could be so disturbed and how anyone could survive such brutality. With that kind of terror and pain, what could possibly occur that could be any worse?

It’s the same argument that horror film popularity has been using for decades, and like it or not, war time and mass fear breeds artistic angst and disregard for decency. Horror films are a great example of that.

Movie Critics Copping Out – The Cheap Politcal Allegory

Politically, this country has been a tad on the divided side the last few years. Ever since a certain Supreme Court intervention and four years of national tragedy and national travesty, mentioning your political affiliation is akin to announcing to the world which side of the ceasefire you belong on.

Appropriately, the world of the arts has reacted in kind, producing works of derision and political cynicism that capture the national energy of the moment. Rather than pretend that everything is okay, or that it is absolutely horrible, the world of popular entertainment has taken to declaring that everything is political, and their films and television series have been critiqued in kind.

Were one to flip through a newspaper’s film review section, it’s nearly impossible not to find at least one film that has a ‘political message’ meant to jab at the heart of the Iraq issue or to undermine the ‘Stability of the American Troops’ as the opposition will say it. Either side is enmeshed in a high stakes game of who is more observant of things that don’t exist.

The answer is neither side. While wishful movie critics conjure up dozens of possible scenarios in the films they are watching, in which a director (who often specifically denies doing so) has instilled some political message or another, pundits and the like do the same thing, trying to counteract the effects. There isn’t a single year since the start of the Iraq War that at least one major Hollywood Blockbuster hasn’t undergone the scrutiny of which faction represents George W. Bush and which represents whatever subsection of people he’s destroying.

It’s a natural progression though, to project political angst and anger from the immitigable presence of the President and his administration onto the very accessible films that millions of viewers absorb every day. Star Wars Episode III, while a film that surely had many parallels to the situation in Iraq and here at home is clearly not a political allegory, if only because that storyline was set nearly 10 years ago, before anyone knew who George W. Bush even was, other than a failed baseball team owner and new state governor.

And yet the critics started a buzz, mentioning that the situation was very similar to our own and that Lucas was very harsh on the “evil side”. Of course he was harsh on the evil side. It’s Star Wars. I’m not by any means saying that I wish to support the administration or contradict the message that these critics took away from Revenge of the Sith (believe me I’m not). I am, however, slightly annoyed that every time a major blockbuster is released, meaning a film with lots of explosions and often times a war of some sorts, the immediate conclusion of every major film critic is that it is a political allegory of some sort.

It’s a lazy way to categorize a film to automatically compare it to something so prescient in everyone’s minds that they have no choice but to agree. The ability to look at something and make broad comparisons to a real life counterpart is not movie criticism, it is basic observation. I can do it too. I recently saw Bridge on the River Kwai. Recently, Seattle has been arguing over a particular stretch of highway and how to rebuild it. And voila, I’ve compared a 50-year old war film chronicling the plight of POWs in World War II to the infighting of a few council members and entirely too vocal citizens of Seattle. I’m a movie critic now.

Of course, saying that relying on the easy parallels is an easy out is not the same as saying that films are not actually tackling these subjects head on. As I mentioned early in, there is a rapidly growing political awareness in film these days. However, in films that attempt to make such statements, the allegory is slightly less subtle (and denied by its directors). Films like Syriana or Good Night, and Good Luck targeted specific political actions that have not worked well for this nation. Even children’s films, such as Happy Feet, the otherwise happy tale of a penguin who only wants to dance, is under the surface an environmental call to action.

Film is one of those mediums that can reach every human being on the planet when done properly. Films are made with specific intent, and most of the time that intent is to make money. However, those moneymaking machines are projected with dozens of interpretations, hoping to create a public awareness for a message that isn’t necessarily there.

Other films, those that are specifically created to portray a particular message, are not nearly as popular, regardless of how good they are. However, it is in these important message-laden films that I find the most poignant displays of free speech and derision, not in 300, a film that relays a specific, age-old legend, and absolutely does not support the failing doctrine of a president without the nation’s trust.