Iggy's Horror Questions: Thread 1

[IggytheBorg]

I asked Rerb's advise as to where to put these when I get inspired to write one, since BDR doesn't (as yet) have a dedicated horror thread. he suggested Random Shit, so here it is. The first of what I hope will be many more horror discussion threads. Enjoy.

The question is this: I was reading the intro to the "Best New Horror Vol. 20", the book I'm currently reading. In the intro, Stephen Jones, the editor of the series' entire run, waxes nostalgic for a bit about the series. It started in 1989, and accordingly he notes that at that time "[W]e were coming off the horror boom of the 1980's". I know what he's talking about, as that was when I got into it. More to the point, I was working in a bookstore at the time. And it certainly was a Golden Age of sorts. Horror films (mainly slashers, for good or ill) and books were all over the place, and much of it good. I fear we'll never see the like again.

So of course that got me wonderin': why? Why was the 1980's such a Golden Age for horror? I can think of two reasons right off the bat: Stephen King and Clive Barker.

King made horror more accessible to more people than anyone before or since ever has. And while I know he has his detractors (several of whom @ DERP were very vocal in their distaste), I think most hard core horror fans, and many casual ones, and a large segment of the mainstream that only occasionally read horror books or see horror films would agree he was writing GOOD SHIT. Arguably, most of his better work had already been written (Carrie, The Shining, The Stand, 'Salem's Lot) before that decade even started. But the 80's did spawn Pet Sematary, Firestarter, Skeleton Crew, The first volumes of the Dark Tower Series, It, Thinner and the Bachmann Books (IIRC), and many more. Which of course sparked renewed interest in the older stuff, and led to some wonderful film adaptations (notably Kubrick's "The Shining" and the 'Salem's Lot TV miniseries). He had his share of turkeys, too (The Tommyknockers, for instance), but by and large his output was pretty solid & was enjoyed by many who developed a taste for horror in general (myself among them; I've mentioned before how my 1st actual horror novel was Cujo, which served as a gateway drug for me, sparking a lifelong love of horror), after reading his stuff, leading them to seek out other authors.

Which led many to Clive Barker. Nowhere near as accessible as King, he was no less talented. I'll admit: I didn't get a lot of his stuff. I don't think I'll ever understand Pig Blood Blues. I never finished The Damnation Game; Never even tried reading Weaveworld, and finished Everville just because I wanted to see where he took that train wreck that he made of the far superior first novel in that saga, The Great & Secret Show. But much of that was probably my problem, not Barker's. When he was on, he was ON. The large majority of the Books of Blood was incredible: things like the Yammering & Jack, In the Hills the Cities, Skins of the Fathers, the Midnight Meat Train. . . mind blowingly good. And of course, let's not forget Cabal (the excellent book, not the abominable movie), the Harry D'Amour tales (and the underrated Lord of Illusions adaptation) and The Hellbound Heart, masterfully adapted into "Hellraiser". I find it amazing, as off the wall as his fiction was, that he struck such a chord with the general reading public. My guess as to why would be that his work was laden with sex, and sex always sells. Of course, there was always death associated with the sex. . . no one understood, on an intuitive level, how these two things intertwine in the human psyche. But whatever the reason, in the 1980's he was a major figure in what had, up to that time, been a backwater genre.

Their success of course made it possible for others to follow in their footsteps: Peter Straub, F. Paul Wilson, Dean Koontz (admit it! his 80's output was GOOD!), Robert McCammon, Anne Rice (admit it! Interview & Lestat were GOOD!). . . to name a few.* Having so many to choose from was paradise of a kind.

In the celluloid sphere, we saw the slasher genre come into its own. That was good, in that we got some classic films and a venerated formula for writers & directors to play with for going on 3 decades now, to varying degrees of success (Hatchet: tribute or tripe? You be the judge). It was also good in that the success of these "splatter" films made it possible for other horror films in different categories to be made, as it became apparent they could make money, and some of them were pure gold (the above noted King & Barker adaptations, The Thing, the Blob, and the Fly, Scanners, Q, A Nightmare on Elm Street, etc.). To this we owe respect in the same measure we lavish it on King & Barker to John Carpenter's Halloween (which was actually released in 79, but laid out the formula as we know it) and Friday the 13th (which ushered in the decade in 1980). If those films hadn't garnered critical & commercial success, many of our faves may never have been made. It was bad in that for every good movie made, there was plenty of tripe released as well, and that tripe became the image many non-horror fans held - and continue to hold - in their minds as to what horror cinema is.

If Death Surge were here, he'd probably point out that we owe even more to the editors at the publishing houses that were willing to take a gamble on guys like King & Barker, and then, when that gamble paid off, to glut the market with their worthy (and not so worthy) successors. And to the execs at the film companies that eked every last bit out of the slasher/horror cash cow after seeing the success of Halloween & F13. Regardless of how talented King and Carpenter may be, if no one backed them financially, they'd have languished forever in anonymity. And the 80's horror boom may never have happened.

So, if you're old enough to remember the 80's first hand, or if you're an erudite enough a student of horror history to form an opinion based on your own research, share it here. Let's discuss!

* Jack ketchum was publishing awesome stuff as well, and deserves to be in this clique at least as much as anyone I mentioned. It's nothing short of a crime his books saw such spotty distribution until recently. Say what you will about King, but he got people talking about Jack ketchum on a more widespread scale than they might ever otherwise have done. We owe him for that as well.

[Ari]

For me, when it comes to 80's horror films, I owe it to Fangoria and the great old mom & pop VHS stores. Seeing those images in the magazines or wandering around the horror section of Desert Video really made a huge difference to me as a kid. Horror films were like forbidden fruit; I wasn't allowed to see them, so I wanted to all that much more. Seeing body parts in Fangoria or some dude with a machete through his head on the back of a VHS box not only scared me, but fascinated me as well.

I am sad thinking about how the next generation of kids won't have that. The internet has proven that if you're looking for graphic material, it's only a mouse click away, and magazines are all but extinct. But it is up to all of us loyal horror lovers to show our kids what is out there. Ari Jr may never take a peek at the back of a VHS cover, but I can promise you that he'll have at least one nightmare of Freddy Krueger before he's 10!

[IggytheBorg]

As alluring as the forbidden fruit element is, I consider myself incredibly fortunate to have had parents that didn't really censor my reading or viewing material. I was allowed to read or see any bloody horror movie I wanted to from a fairly early age (books maybe age 9, movies age 12 or so, more by my own choice). I hope to do the same for my son (and the seedsa lready seem to have taken root; he's very curious and eager to impress Dad by liking what I like). My wife is gonna fight me tooth and nail on this, though. The next decade will be mighty interesting.

[Ari]

My wife was allowed to see horror films as a kid; my parents watched Terminator 2 with me and fast forwarded through all the violent scenes.

My plan is once I have a kid, and once that kid turns 5, it's time for some Requiem for a Dream (to keep him off drugs), Thriller-A Cruel Picture (to keep him off hookers) and I Spit on Your Grave (to keep him from gang raping cute girls).

[BillyG]

The was more to the 80s horror boom than just King and Clive though Iggy. Iconic, lasting art typically stems from cultural shifts. I can remember the 80s pretty well, but I won't claim to being the massive horror fan you are. Don't you think the huge changes in the world laid the path to a lot of the 80s horror? Energy crisis, Cold War, economic shifts, technology, lots of things were changing in the 80s. Is there a lot of correlation between the horror films/books and the 70/80s world events?

[IggytheBorg]

I have to give that question more thought; I pondered it a bit, but not enough to come up w/ anything. The odd thing, to me, is that horror of that time seemed a lot more "fun". Sure, it scared you in all the right places if it was done well, but the mean-spiritedness we see in later decades (such as the rise of torture porn) was absent. Maybe it was because of the economic prosperity we were experiencing at the time, and while the Cold War was an ever-present source of background dread, the fact that we weren't involved in any major shooting wars that entire decade. More later as it comes to me.

[Martin]

Looks like Ari will follow Martin's Education Program in some way.

As for King, my main beef with him is pacing. All his novels seems overly long for me.

[V]

King's always had verbal diarrhea... but when he's focused, there's no one better.

[Timothy225]

Horror was a hell of a lot more accessible to in the 80's, too. I'd argue the advent of the VCR was a HUGE factor in the horror boom as well, as fans were transferring rare for the US (at the time) films into a format that were somewhat affordable and can be watched whenever you wanted. The 80's were when Fulci, Argento, etc. became much more available to fans, and with taboo films like Faces of Death and Snuff pushing the envelope and easy to get at your local video store, it certainly didn't hinder things. Plus, fans were able to shoot and edit their own films on the cheap by using video cameras instead of film (I used to watch a metric ton of cheapies - NJ's own Wave Productions springs to mind), and these were available for fanbase consumption as well. Yes, many sucked, but it was something to watch and absorb, regardless of how bad it was. It became a badge of honor if you could rattle off how many horror flicks you saw.

We also started getting horror conventions in the 80's, too. Fans were coming together, exchanging tapes and ideas, all of which made the fanbase swell.

Billy does have a point, too. Horror was a release of tension and stress as the 80's were a tense time politically and socially. The Cold War was peaking at the time, economically things were for shit for folks like me, etc. and people needed to get the jolt you could only get from horror to shock the bad stuff out of you for awhile.

ETA: as to King, great writer, but I always had an issue with how he'd wrap up a story on occasion. Thinner kind of pissed me off after I finished it.

[Lisa]

King's always had verbal diarrhea... but when he's focused, there's no one better.

I'll just quickly stick my nose in here to say the one thing I've always said, over and over about King. His early work (books) are amazing - when he's focused (Yes, Vin!) no one can touch him verbally. He went through a period, I feel, in the late 80s, early '90s where he was cranking out several books a year, and it showed. He just got sloppy. His early stuff where he was only doing a book or so a year? Great great stuff. Read "Salem's Lot" and then read "Desperation", and you'll see a difference as wide as the Grand Canyon.

That being said - I'm notoriously picky about how his movies are brought to life on screen. There are some that are amazing - "Carrie", "Stand By Me", "Misery", "Shawshank" - that can't be beat. Then there are others that are just horrible - "Needful Things", "Desperation", "The Tommyknockers", to name a few.

I think the reason a lot of King's written stuff is so difficult to bring to film IS because verbally he goes on and on, whether for the good or for the bad. "Salem's Lot" is a perfect example - a beautifully written book, no argument there. But part of the greatness of that book is King's descriptiveness of what's going on. Here's the example I always use - go read the scene in the book where Ben and Jimmy are in Maury Greene's mortuary, waiting to see if Marjorie Glick rises once the sun sets. Then go watch that same scene in either version of the movie. There's no comparison. The descriptiveness of that scene in the book is probably one of the best pieces of writing I've ever read in my life. The reason it fails in the movie is because you can't bring the author's own narration to film, if that makes any sense - it's not character dialogue.

I think King also has a talent, to a certain extent, in screenplays. Not so much for that crappy version of "The Shining" (Kubrick's is far superior), but did you ever read AND see "Storm of the Century"? It was written as a screenplay, and published that way too - with enough of King's own flavor in the narrative parts that it still felt like you were reading one of his novels. But because he wrote it as a screenplay, it also translated beautifully into the movie version.

[IggytheBorg]

King's always had verbal diarrhea... but when he's focused, there's no one better.

You're just saying that because that program says you write like him.

[V]

You're just saying that because that program says you write like him.

Guilty!

[IggytheBorg]

So I thought about the historical background of the 80's as Billy suggested. I recall them (as I think you all know) as a grand time, for the most part. The economy was good; yuppies and wall street moguls abounded; Trump made a name for himself. Movies in other genres were fun: the teenage sex comedy (Porky's, Last American Virgin, Can't Buy Me Love, 16 Candles, etc.) was invented. Brat pack movies ensured the right couples (almost) always ended up together (Ducky got done wrong in Pretty in Pink, yo!). Ah-nuld & Sly were kickin' ass and takin' names in some of the best, most enduring action flicks of our time. And America ALWAYS came out on top of all opponents. The fun, excess-flaunting Hair Metal scene ruled the airwaves & MTV. The Cold War was still present, but didn't have the same in-your-face, everpresent quality I imagine it did in the 50's & 60's when the Reds first acquired The Bomb. No one was building missle bases in Cuba, or threatening to bury us at UN meetings. And Afghanistan was so very far away. . .

So into this milieu creeps the horror movie. Some decade inspired comparisons were easy to make, as DM8 & I did back at yon Otro Situ. The 50's: fears of communist takeover spawning films about being assimilated, like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, or The Blob. And the fear of The Bomb inspired a legion of giant monster flicks, for example. Post 9/11 saw a proliferation of torture porn, as we all felt helpless in the face of home based terror, as another easy one.

But what was going on in the 80's? I submit the fun atomsphere that pervaded everything, as the coke fueled disco scene of the 70's gave way to the coke & Perrier fueled yuppie excesses of the 80's, the message in the slasher flick - perfected in that decade, and to become, IMO, that decade's signature sub-genre - seemed to be: enjoy it while it lasts, suckas. 'Cuz you'll pay for your excesses eventually. The moral code of the films, wherein it was always the kids having "illicit" sex or drinking or doing drugs that got killed by the stalking maniac. The vestal virgin types always survived. And the inevitable economic downturn that was the early to mid 90's was the piper come a callin'.

Was the success of the 80's remakes of The Blob and The Thing due to lingering assimilation/Cold War fears? Perhaps. But I rather think the resonant chord The Fly remake struck with everyone was based on Brundle's malady resembling a progressive, wasting disease. I recall the 80's being inordinately preoccupied with cancer, but I can't recall why; were new causal lnks being discovered? New cures found, or at least being tried? I remeber news bits on Interferon, which some claimed was going to be the savior of as all - and turned out not to be. AIDS also burst on to the scene; anyone old enough to recall the early part of the decade will remember AIDS was very poorly understood at the time, and scared a lot of people of ALL Sexual persuasions. No one knew how it spread, and there was no cure. Fear of disease beng so prevalent IRL, the movies naturally took that tack as well.

And as Tim suggested, the advent of the VCR & video rental joints started to make another kind of movie a lot more accessible - and acceptable - for mainstream Americans: hard core porn. I'm sure this shaped the "party" atmosphere that pervaded the decade, as well, and inspired some of the fantasies so cruelly ended in most of the slashers by a well placed garden tool. Sure, porn always existed. But it was, before the 80's started to make it somewhat presentable, dirty & seedy, & never discussed. You'd NEVER have admitted to fapping back then, lest ye get abused like Judge Reinhold. But the 80's paved the way for the multibillion dollar porn industry and the acceptability of self "abuse". Sex and death always having a primal connection (exploited well on a sophisticated level by Mr. Barker, as noted in the opening post, and in a heavy handed, far less subtle but perhaps equally effective way by the moralistic slashers). As was noted in the DERP thread on THAT specific subject, perhaps the vulnerability of being naked in a phsyical AND emotional sense is one of the main components of this sex/death symbiosis. Constantly being turned on, physiologically, is kind of like being constantly scared, as well, according to some scientific studies. Even the Whitesnake videos featured nearly nude Tawny Kitean writhing on an unobtainable sports car. What man (or boy with funstioning hormones at the time) didn't want her, & what that video symbolized? Did getting a few jump scares & gross outs at the latest Tom Savini masterwork provide (inadvertantly) the same thrill?

My two cents, anyway. Agree? Disagree? Post why here.

[Lisa]

(Ducky got done wrong in Pretty in Pink, yo!).

Oh, get outta town! He did not. It was Blane, it was always Blane. Besides, Ducky proved himself to be her friend and he did the right thing at the end - and wound up with Kristy Swanson, need I remind you!

But I rather think the resonant chord The Fly remake struck with everyone was based on Brundle's malady resembling a progressive, wasting disease. I recall the 80's being inordinately preoccupied with cancer, but I can't recall why; were new causal lnks being discovered? New cures found, or at least being tried? I remeber news bits on Interferon, which some claimed was going to be the savior of as all - and turned out not to be. AIDS also burst on to the scene; anyone old enough to recall the early part of the decade will remember AIDS was very poorly understood at the time, and scared a lot of people of ALL Sexual persuasions. No one knew how it spread, and there was no cure. Fear of disease beng so prevalent IRL, the movies naturally took that tack as well.

I never heard the cancer comparison with "The Fly", but I remember reading several articles making the AIDS comparison, because everyone was so scared back then. Regarding the experimental cancer treatments, remember Laetrile? Supposedly some good tests were being run with it, but the FDA didn't approve it - by 1982, you could only get it in Mexico. I remember reading about two parents being arrested at the Mexican border because they were heading there to get Laetrile for their six year old son who had cancer.

[Timothy225]

But what was going on in the 80's? I submit the fun atomsphere that pervaded everything, as the coke fueled disco scene of the 70's gave way to the coke & Perrier fueled yuppie excesses of the 80's, the message in the slasher flick - perfected in that decade, and to become, IMO, that decade's signature sub-genre - seemed to be: enjoy it while it lasts, suckas. 'Cuz you'll pay for your excesses eventually. The moral code of the films, wherein it was always the kids having "illicit" sex or drinking or doing drugs that got killed by the stalking maniac. The vestal virgin types always survived. And the inevitable economic downturn that was the early to mid 90's was the piper come a callin'.

Was the success of the 80's remakes of The Blob and The Thing due to lingering assimilation/Cold War fears? Perhaps. But I rather think the resonant chord The Fly remake struck with everyone was based on Brundle's malady resembling a progressive, wasting disease. I recall the 80's being inordinately preoccupied with cancer, but I can't recall why; were new causal lnks being discovered? New cures found, or at least being tried? I remeber news bits on Interferon, which some claimed was going to be the savior of as all - and turned out not to be. AIDS also burst on to the scene; anyone old enough to recall the early part of the decade will remember AIDS was very poorly understood at the time, and scared a lot of people of ALL Sexual persuasions. No one knew how it spread, and there was no cure. Fear of disease beng so prevalent IRL, the movies naturally took that tack as well.

Agree wholeheartedly on this, especially the part I bolded for emphasis. The 80's were a time of excess, with a ton of materialism thrown in. The AIDS and cancer issues were sort of the death knell for the decade, much like the Manson murders were, arguably, symbolic of the end of the 60's, and the current financial slump could be considered the end of the 00's. Always seems that we start and end a decade in some terrifying manner, and that almost always winds up in the horror films.

I'd also suggest that, based on the AIDS and cancer scares, we also saw the start of the "body horror" subgenre of horror. Oh, sure, we had mutilated and mutated bodies on screen before (Shivers, Eraserhead), but with films like The Fly, Videodrome, Scanners, The Thing remake, and the Tetsuo series (which closed out the decade), we really got "exposed" to some serious nastiness as our bodies betraying us became the source of a new phase of horror. Plus, we can include one's own mind creating horror (see the Nightmare on Elm Street films). Horror assaulted us on all fronts - if a zombie wasn't going to eat you, your own body would destroy itself instead.