"There's a climactic moment in Joe D'Amato's splendidly outrà horror romp Anthropophagous
in which the disemboweled cannibal lifts up his spilled intestines and
starts chomping upon his own entrails. This image of the monster
feeding on his own flesh has become iconic amongst horror fans, not only
because
it helped get the video outlawed in the early 80's, but also because
it is the perfect metaphor for the horror genre itself. Since the first
screen vampires crawled out of their dusty celluloid coffins, horror
films have been devouring and regurgitating their own history. And as
every true fan knows, given enough time, horror (like pop) will eat
itself."
Mark Kermode.
So, as if you couldn't guess, I want to talk about horror films. A few different topics have suggested themselves to me of recent months, and what better way of voicing my thoughts than this blog?
Let's get to it.
 |
| What's not to like about clowns? |
"HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A MAN EAT HIS OWN HEAD?"
Spottswoode (team America).
Firstly, and in a rather surprising twist (as I nearly always agree with Mr Kermode) I choose to argue a different case: that horror, real horror, is sadly in decline. Going back to that evocative image of the cannibal eating his own remains, this cannibal will in fact eventually die from his wounds before finishing his fateful meal...
Yes, to some extent Kermode is absolutely correct, but you only have to look at the ever changing face of horror trends to see that the format is not as it once was...
Nixon's Watergate scandal and the failed Vietnam War bathed America in pessimism, unease and paranoia, which in turn birthed horror classics such as The Omen, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the Invasion Of The Body Snatchers. In the 80's we had the dawn of 'plastic reality', which allowed the likes of David Cronenburg and Wes Craven to startle audiences with terrifyingly life-like images in films like The Fly and A Nightmare On Elmstreet. Other films also used advances in physical effects to great use, like An American Werewolf In London (Oscar nominated in 1982) and Society. The birth of CGI in the 90's again bought with it greater possibilities, as seen in Event Horizon, Interview With A Vampire, and The Lawnmower Man, although these lacked the weighty grime of hands-on effects. The 00's (I hate that term), with the advancements in mobile phones and tracking technology, have all but put a stop to the old horror cliche's of isolated cabins (recently played for laughs with Cabin In Woods) and broken down cars. This has instead forced us to look to more realistic bogymen to install fear- giving rise to the explicit 'gore-nos' and 'torture porn' sub genre, dominated by home invasions and serial killers: a decade made infamous by films such as the Saw and Hostel franchises, Funny Games and a slew of supernatural Japanese horror remakes which turned technology into something to be weary of (as in the case of Ring and Shutter).
My point being; despite the endless remakes, the recurring troupes and the valid argument that each decade has thrown up its own precursors to the video nasty and torture porn wave (such as the films of Dario Agento), the genre IS changing- and permanently. It is not the man forever eating himself. My metaphore in place of this would be David Cronenburg's Seth Brundle (from The Fly); mutating deep within, decayed flesh flaking away to reveal greater horrors- ones that have been long-lurking but only now come to the surface. And like Brundle, horror must eventually reach it's end, it's final transformation. Unlike the butterfly, this is unlikely to be a thing of purity and beauty, or of aliens and ghosts, but a more studied observation on the cruelty and evil we commit against our fellow man...
Ladys and gentlemen, I bring you The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence.
"THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS IS TRUE OF EVERYTHING IN LIFE, EXCEPT SEX."
Robert McKee.
 |
| Always was a messy eater. |
It's my opinion that films that focus primarily on the infliction of torment, suffering and humiliation over character and story will eventually bore audiences and die out. At least, that's what I'm hoping. It's films like that which give us horror fans a bad name (more on that in a moment).
Don't get me wrong, I'm really not screamish. I'll watch anything- bamboo under the fingernails, ears sliced off, eyes pulled from sockets, a brutal rape (I never said I'd enjoy it), even dead babies (morbid, I know), anything- so long as it is relevant to the story. Gratuitous violence is boring.
What made The Human Centipede 2 so easy to dismiss was it's complete lack of anything even resembling narrative or character development, it was just 90 minutes of some fat little pervert torturing a bunch of one dimensional cliches. Likewise, what made A Serbian Film more disturbing, aside from the outrageous content, was that it actually developed some likeable characters: the horrid things happened to people you at least empathised with!
"AND IT GREW BOTH DAY AND NIGHT, TILL IT BORE AN APPLE BRIGHT."
William Blake (A Poison Tree)
Backtracking now; I call myself a horror fan, but I'm often embarrassed by this.
Horror fans, as has probably been the case (yet I'm more aware of it these days) have a poor reputation. The good and moral people of this world think we're all drooling maniacs who sit up nightly in our mother's basement (poorly lit by a single hanging bulb), listening to thrash metal while inserting needles into helpless animals. Now, I don't like all horror films, I'm very particular. In fact, a lot of modern horror I absolutely fucking hate. I notice the term 'horror' covers a wide range of different material, and this may be causing my gripes.
What I need, ideally, is a way of clarifying the types of horror I enjoy from the ones that I don't, and then perhaps I can safely tell my friends that I enjoy horror without them mistaking me for a budding rapist or serial killer. And if that statement offends you, because, I dunno, you enjoyed I Spit On Your Grave or A Serbian Film, I'd ask you to think long and hard about the term 'enjoyed' in that sentence...
I bring you "Carlisle's Tree Of Horror".
Each film, by way of 3 simple questions, will categorize it into one of 7 sub genres. Unhelpfully, I haven't listed them on the picture, but I'll come to that.
Think of a horror film. Was it either 'nasty' (Saw), 'thought provoking' (The Exorcist) or 'playful' (The Army Of Darkness)? Were the events of the film passably 'realistic' (Last House On The Left) or complete fantasy (Alien)? Finally, was the object of the film to disgust you (Braindead) or unsettle you (Creep). This will tell you the type of horror you've picked.
Video
Nastys & Torture Porn:
Nasty / Real
/ Sick: Hostel, Human Centipede
Nasty / Real
/ Scary: Saw, My Little Eye
Nasty /
Fantasy / Sick: Martyrs, Creep
Nasty / Fantasy
/ Scary: The Thing, The Decent
Comedy
Horror & Dark Fantasy:
Playful /
Real / Sick: Tucker & Dale Vs Evil, Piranha 3D
Playful /
Real / Scary: Jaws, Arachnophobia
Playful /
Fantasy / Sick: Society, Evil Dead 2
Playful /
Fantasy / Scary: Sleepy Hollow, An American Werewolf In London
Serial
Killers, Urban Horror & Plastic Reality:
Thought
Provoking / Real / Sick: Henry Portrait Of A Serial Killer, Se7en
Thought
Provoking / Real / Scary: We Need To Talk About Kevin, Contagion
Thought
Provoking / Fantasy / Sick: The Fly, A Nightmare On Elmstreet
Thought
Provoking / Fantasy / Scary: Alien, The Exorcist
I myself prefer comedy horrors, dark fantasies and plastic reality (the safe stuff I guess), although I did enjoy Saw (part one) and Se7en.
"WHY WOULD YOU HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT?"
Eva (We Need To Talk About Kevin)
You may have noticed the inclusion of the 'Serial Killer' and 'Urban Horror' section of the tree? I guess that takes a little explaining.
What with the realist approach modern horror seems to be taking, I think the distinction between that and other genres (including thrillers and dramas) is a little more hazy than it once was. Consider Se7en or Silence Of The Lambs in light of Saw; both feature a serial killer protagonist and some memorably unsettling set pieces. If released today, they'd likely attract a similar audience and would be marketed as horrors.
'Urban Horror' is trickier to define, and for this I'd draw attention to We Need To Talk About Kevin and Take Shelter. Both are small scale dramas that tackle the subject of mental illness, one completely realistic while the other has a very minor (possibly) supernatural element. I guess what's important are the films focus on character rather than gore or chills, but both of which do deliver moments of horrific intensity.
"TELEVISION IS REALITY, AND REALITY IS LESS THAN TELEVISION!"
Brian O'Blivion (Videodrome).
 |
| Brundle may have made a slight miscalculation with his experiment... |
I've been known to criticise Hostel, The Human Centipede 2 and A Serbian Film for their graphic content. Does that mean I'm for stronger censorship laws? Yes and no. Again, another typical Carlisle answer, can't ever make a simple point, can I?
I'm not for censorship in most cases, as adults we should be free to make our own choices. My only issue with most of the graphic content I see these days is that it's not supported by any reasoning, it merely severs as a lazy distraction, or to shock and offend, and shocking and offending people is much easier than genuinely scaring them. Instead I'm for better storytelling, not censorship.
However, I do feel that perhaps one film should have come under closer scrutiny by the BBFC (although I'll admit they may well have cut back from the version of the film which I saw), and that is A Serbian Film. Rather than repeat what I've already ranted, I found a lot of the content unjustifiable, even within the pretext which the director often cites in defense of his work.
"Recognising that the film was intended as a political allegory which
intended - and needed - to shock as part of its overall thesis, the BBFC
attempted to construct the cuts carefully so that the message of the
film, as well as the meaning of each individual scene, would be
preserved."
BBFC
Sorry, but not good enough.
I didn't need to 'see' what I saw, I knew full well what was happening without actually seeing it. You could argue that 'not seeing' something is worse, and in many respects I'd agree, but I'd also argue that not showing something like that is also in much better taste and shows a degree of good judgment.
Spoiler ahead: what I'm actually talking about is rape of a newborn baby (I can't even remember if they cut the cord first), and not, as I've mentioned before, the main character (under the influence of drugs) unknowingly graphically sodomising his own traumatized son. Classy, huh?
Actually, I could go on at length about censorship as it's a subject that fascinates me, but I doubt it would make good reading for anybody else (like that's ever stopped me before, right?).
"IF I HAD KNOWN FROM THE START, I'D ONLY HAVE DECLINED SOONER..."
Milos (A Serbian Film)
Well, that's all for now. The subjects of reboots and catharsis will have to wait.
Take it easy, gentle viewers, and remember...
"It's only a movie..."
