Horror Films: Then and Now
One of the tragedies of film in the modern day is that it will never be experienced the way it was when it first appeared. Today, most people are so inured to the image of motion pictures that it takes something shocking or grotesque to terrify or amaze an audience. For the people who first witnessed a moving picture in Melies’ theatre, the simple image of a train coming towards the camera was enough to cause amazement and wonder. Modern horror films require a narrative, suspense, and usually, a large dose of jump-scares in order to get a reaction from audiences. Before narrative, when film was first emerging, simply presenting a moving image could invoke the same reaction a jump-scare accomplishes today. In that sense, I believe the horror genre is one of the few genres that still stays true to the original intention of film.
However, that is not to say that narrative in modern horror films is not without its merits. Ghost films, when done well, are a great metaphor for inner human turmoil. Main characters in most ghost movies are experiencing some kind of anxiety within their life right at the time that the ghosts start making an appearance. Sinister is a well done example of this. Ethan Hawk plays a writer who has just moved into a new home with his family. While having been well renowned in the past for his writing, in recent years he has lost a lot of his credibility and fame. The house he has moved into is the subject for his “next big hit”. He is also an alcoholic who stays up late into the night obsessing over his fall from fame. With this as the setting, his character begins to experience ghostly encounters and he starts to question his own sanity. In the movie, the culmination of all this stress and anxiety comes when he gets into a fight with his wife. In the scene, he passionately expresses a need to both provide for his family while also being famous for his writing again. This movie has two primary attributes to which it can be credited. The first is a very real reflection on human character. The second is its ability to pay tribute to early films original intent to shock and amaze the audience through its use of suspense and horror.
Another horror film which deserves mention is It Follows. This movie has one of the most original concepts for a story line that the horror genre has not seen in years. There is an undefined “it” which can take the form of any human being. “It” follows, or walks toward an individual forever and always until it catches them and kills them. “It” only begins following a person after they have had sex with the person it was following previously. This gives the movie strong “loss of innocence” theme because the main characters are all teenagers. It seems to imply that sex at a young age is a significant event that may haunt, or “follow” you, for the rest of your life. Like Sinister this movie has two worthy attributes. The first is its analysis of sex among teenagers and how it can negatively affect them. The second is its ability to be horrifying, not only by its use of jump-scares and images, but also by its concept alone. That something would never stop coming after you, no matter how far you ran, is beautifully terrifying.
So while film can never be experienced the way they were when they first appeared in the late 19th century, at least through horror some of the same effects can still be reproduced. A lot of film theory seems to be critical of the introduction of narrative within film. While the arguments have their merits, I believe the introduction of narrative into film was a wholly positive thing. Through story, and especially a horror story, aspects of humanity can be presented and analyzed, while still being terrifying.
Your two examples each have psychological motivations for the appearance of the supernatural (mental/physical strain on the one hand, a curse presented as a kind of STD, on the other)--something that turn-of-the-century film shorts rarely provided. So I might say that Sinister and It Follows are related more to the Gothic literary tradition that to the Edison/Porter period of filmmaking. However, there are no doubt particular scenes from each film that exploit the classic "thrill-for-thrill's sake" shot. Maybe you have one in mind? I've seen both films, but it's been a while....
ReplyDeleteThanks, Anders!
MH