Readings: Week IV

Noel Carroll, “The Nature of Horror”

Summary:

Carroll attempts to establish the criteria for “art horror”, a genre crystallized after the publication of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. In particular, Carroll focuses on these specifications:
1. Art-horror is differentiated from both “tales of terror” (e.g. the tales of Poe), which focus on psychological aberrations that are, nevertheless, very human, and fantasy films, in which monsters are not presented as disturbances in the natural order. Horror, then, must deal not only with aberrations from reality but must be differentiated from the average monster movie by the affective responses of the characters present.
2. The emotional responses of the audience are guided by that of the character. Our responses to what occurs on the screen are intended to mirror, or mimic, the emotions expressed of the characters themselves. These feelings include not only fear, but “revulsion, nausea, and disgust.” The monster must not just be viewed as terrifying, but also as unwholesome. This sense of impurity may occur when
3. The existence of a physical dimension alongside an emotional one. This means that a physical agitation (e.g. tension, cringing, shuddering) must occur alongside emotional responses of fear and disgust.

Carroll also explores why art-horror has the ability to horrify, when the viewer knows all too well that what they are seeing is fictional. The Illusion Theory – in which the viewer becomes literally convinced that what they are seeing is real – and the Pretend Theory – in which the viewer recognized that what they are seeing is fictional but pretend to feel horror anyways – are both rejected. Instead, Carroll settles on the Thought Theory: the thought of the possibility of the things we are seeing existing, although we do not commit to this belief.

Finally, Carroll distinguishes between two sorts or plot lines. The Discovery Plot, whereby the protagonist(s) discover the presence of a monster and must prove its existence, and the Overreacher plot, whereby the protagonist(s) unleash some monstrous force by seeking forbidden knowledge.

Sigmund Freud, “The Uncanny”

Summary:

Freud refers to the uncanny as, “that class of the frightening which leads back to what is known of old and long familiar.” For the remainder of the article he explores how the familiar can become uncanny and frightening, exploring such instances as symbolic representations of castration, the figure of the “double”, involuntary repetition, the effacement of the distinction between imagination and reality, and the confrontation of certain repressed beliefs or desires. Like Carroll, Freud believes that our horror can be explained when we are confronted with the idea of the things we believe to be fictional being real.

Thoughts:

I buy the idea that much of what frightens us in horror stems from our own repressed desires or the desires that society seeks to suppress in it. In fact, most of the works we’ve read this week deal with that particular theme. However, I don’t buy Freud’s contentions about the castration complex or “the phantasy (sic) of intra-uterine existence.” The basic premise of Freud’s article is interesting and insightful but I found most of the finer points applied to films such as “Jaws” only if I really pushed the interpretation of the film.

Warren Buckland, Directed by Steven Spielberg:

Summary:

1-29: Buckland begins by tracking the evolution of film, from the Classical Hollywood period (1916-1960), which saw the rise and fall of vertically-integrated studios, to the post 1981-period of MTV and TV ad directors, where directors get their start directing music videos or TV ads and, like the TV generation of directors, carry these aesthetics into their filmmaking. He then goes on to explore how, in this new era of filmmaking, where the demise or the studio has redefined the way movies are made, a director must also be “a power broker, a talent worker, and must also create a brand image.” Along with this evolution of the role of the director, Buckland maintains, came the evolution of the blockbuster: with fewer films being made, there was a much greater need for each film made by studios to be profitable. As a result, they began to invest more money into fewer films and delve into franchises which relied on brand identity. Essentially, a blockbuster can be defined as a film which costs a bundle in production and marketing but is capable of also bringing in huge revenues. This type of filmmaking also changed how films were distributed, moving from platform (releasing films in stages) to saturation releases (releasing films everywhere all at once). This cut down on the importance of critical opinion in drawing viewers to a film, helping to explain the often negative attitude of critics towards blockbusters.

86-109: This section contains Buckland’s person analysis of the film, focusing on individual scenes. He looks at these shots holistically: their aesthetics from blocking to camera angles, what they say about the characters in them, how they guide and/or manipulate our emotions, and how they reinforce larger themes in the movie. Most of the scenes Buckland references we also looked at fairly extensively in class.

Thoughts:

I thought Buckland unfortunately focused more on technical considerations and jargon in his analyses than on what Spielberg’s aesthetic decisions said about his characters and filmic themes. I tended to prefer Friedman’s analyses instead. I did find his history of the film industry consistently interesting and often enlightening, especially the portion where he discusses how the change in marketing and release that accompanied the blockbuster took a lot of power out of the hands of critics, starting some of the critical stigma attached to them. This was especially interesting in light of the many criticisms of Spielberg's films at emotionally manipulative and intellectually vacant that we ave read or heard referenced.

Lester Friedman, Citizen Spielberg:

Summary:

Friedman starts by making the distinction between fantasy, science-fiction, and horror films. Monster films are separated from fantasy films by character attitudes towards the monsters in them: “the monster in the horror film is an extraordinary creature in an ordinary world, whereas in fairy tales and the like a monster is an ordinary creature in an extraordinary world.” Science fiction films are also separated from fantasy films because they originate from a “potentially possible, or at least speculatively imaginable, premise.” Science fiction films, additionally, applaud the impulse to explore the unknown where horror films generally condemn it. Friedman notes that horror movies, especially monster movies, stem from repressed desires that are buried under accepted social norms, exploring the darker side of human nature.

Friedman goes on to argue that Spielberg’s monster movies, though exhibiting skillful craftsmanship and storytelling, lack the intellectual complexity that is possible with such an exploration. He contends that Spielberg makes no efforts to create any sort of audience involvement or empathy with his monsters. Instead, they are “motiveless and mindless” and must be defeated in order for civilization to prosper; his monsters all present external threats which are eventually destroyed by human intervention. Friedman often comments in his analyses of Spielberg’s films that they tend to reaffirm traditional values: the protagonist of “Duel” must rediscover his masculinity in order to face his threat, “Jurassic Park” serves as both a critique of rampant technology and capitalist greed and an argument in support of the nuclear family, and “Jaws” both lauds male bonding, castigates its protagonist for his failure to protect the community and celebrates his transition from boyhood to manhood via the hunt.

Thoughts:

I thought Friedman’s analyses were the most rewarding, both in regards to what they inferred about the films and what they said about the influence Spielberg’s own life and ideology has on them. I found it interesting that, in opposition to what Carroll argues about the element of revulsion and disgust that is necessary for a film to truly be “art-horror”, Friedman’s major criticism of Spielberg’s horror movies is his refusal to give his monsters sympathetic elements, instead using them to uphold societal values and their inevitable triumph over chaos. If both authors are right – and both do have valid points – then either making a film more effective in the genre of horror comes at the expense of its intellectual worth and visa versa or our empathy with the monster furthers our disgust with it.