Iggy Horror Thread, Pt2: GND vs. Hostel, et al.

[IggytheBorg]

There's that tendency in everything these days to make everything realistic that I wish would fuck off and die in a diarrhea and moonshine-fueled fire.

I'm not sure I get what you mean by this; do you mean the realism of the effects themselves, or the tendency of movies to be dramatic & "slice of life"-y rather than funny & over the top?

If the latter, I think I agree w/ you. Jason or Michael Myers having a supernatural element to them (rather than just an abused pair of kids) was way cooler, IMO. Overdone realism served those films badly.

But if you're talking about the believability of the effects themselves? I'd disagree with that. I imagine this isn't what you mean, because most of us praise a well done kill for its artistry as well as its tendency to amuse/thrill/gross out.

I've seen autopsy photos as part of some of the cases I've worked - criminal & civil - and I gotta say Savini & some of his contemporaries get it right. Amazingly so. I used to wonder if what we were seeing was at all realistic, or just some FX guy's idea of what gory shit looked like. I was most pleased to see it was the indeed close to the real thing. To tell you the truth, nerat as a kill may be, if it's too unrealistic or badly done, so obviously an effect, it takes me right out of a film. And it loses serious points for that. "Dark Ride", from the 1st Horrorfest is a good case in point. Skull splitting w/ a big knife? Neat idea. The way it was executed? Piss poor It wouldn't have been a good film by any stretch if this scene had been done well, but was WORSE IMO than it might have been based on just the unbelievability of that one scene.

[Captain Russ]

I meant the latter. Rooting everything in reality or a close approximation to it saps the fun and usually the creativity as well.

[IggytheBorg]

So if I'm getting the general consensus, we're all more or less in agreement that if you're invested in a character, they don't generate sympathy when they're tortured or killed, which is why the torture in torture porn is more about discomfort from the visuals than anythig else. And why deaths in slashers can be "fun"; we don't care too much about the obvious fodder characters on an emotional level.

So now I'm wondering why it is that horror movies don't get us more invested in their characters? Wouldn't a true, genuine horror reaction be more likely to come from the death (or torture) of a character we've come to know & (hopefully) like on some level? Coupled with horrific visuals, I should think this would disturb much more deeply, thereby accomplishing the mission of the film (i.e. to scare/horrify) that much more effectively. Is it because this is harder to do well, & directors & cast don't have the chops? Or due to budgetary concerns (don't have the time to waste on location/set filming "superfluous" scenes? Or fear of boring/losing the audience - which consists largely of teens - out for a quick date thrill?)?

[Captain Russ]

I believe for the most part it is due to the fact that it is such a difficult task.

But when it is done well (a very rare thing), it can allow for characters to shine through, for new layers of subtext to unfold, and even lead to a more meaningful confrontation between protagonist and antagonist.

It may not be a horror movie per se, more of a subgenre (the psychological-horror thriller multi-hyphenate), but Hard Candy has an incredibly well done scene between the principal characters where the act of torture becomes more than just the procedure found in torture pr0n. The choice of tight shots and angles that purposely obscure the audience's view, the reversal of gender roles, and the play on genre conventions make it infinitely more engrossing and indelible than any torture porn.

It also helps that there has been an investment up to that point in the story and developed characters are involved. This might be the hardest part, as it is one hell of a balancing act that Dave Slade has yet to top.

[IggytheBorg]

Only instance I can think of off the top of my head where we see a heavily invested character bite the dust in a scream-at-the-screen-that-it-ain't-fair kind of way is NOTLD. I mean, 1st time you saw that, how angry were you when he bought it in that ironic, stupid way? But you rarely, if ever see someone you care about get the axe (or the knife, claw or whatever) in the end. Sometimes the madding crowd's need for a happy ending to every story really pisses me off. I'm sure there are lots of writers with great ideas along this line that get squelched for the sake of the studios' wanting to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

[IggytheBorg]

So if I'm getting the general consensus, we're all more or less in agreement that if you're NOT invested in a character, they don't generate sympathy when they're tortured or killed,

This is what I meant to write. Fixed. Sorry for the confusion.

[Captain Russ]

I undermeant what you stood. And yes, the status quo can suck Howard the Duck's duckdick.

[Timothy225]

It's pandering to the audience, really. Granted, and in full agreement, if the victims are properly developed as characters, we as the audience will either root for their survival if we like them, cheer the killer(s) if we don't, and react with appropriate shock if anything other than what we ultimately expect for the character's fate doesn't work out as planned. Case in point (not a horror movie per se, but it sort of works here): Newt, Hicks, and Ripley in Alien 3.

In Aliens, we had the whole movie to see all three characters develop and bond into a sort of family unit. We reacted with gasps when Newt got captured by the aliens (I remember lots of folks in the audience were going "they're not going to kill HER, are they? They wouldn't kill a kid!!!" - kid deaths in flicks, folks! Guaranteed gutshot, shock-wise and on an emotional level!). We also remember seeing what a nice dude Hicks was, showing Ripley how to use his weapon, and giving her a personal tracker.

We would react to him getting injured in the last quarter of the flick, Ripley risking her life to save Newt, the confrontation with the Queen before Bishop flies in and saves them ("Close your eyes, baby!"), the final battle 'twixt Ripley and Queen in the hangar ("Get away from her, YOU BITCH!") and so on. We were rooting for these characters, especially to stick together in the next film.

Ah,, but Hicks and Newt are killed offscreen in the first few minutes of Aliens 3 - a simple computer readout telling us both were killed in hypersleep, and horrifically. Hicks had shrapnel piercing him and his chamber, Newt's face frozen in a silent scream in hers - again, folks reacted appropriately: shock (even when the doctor cracked Newt's chest to make sure she wasn't carrying an Alien embryo), sadness during their funeral and cremation, etc. Even when Ripley sacrifices herself to destroy the Queen embryo inside her, we figure "That's it. Her story is done, she went out like a hero, and took the bad guy with her". This last one got cheapened, however, when her super-alien-hybrid-clone popped up in Alien 4 - a clear case of character integrity out the window in exchange for putting more seats in the theatre because Ripley was coming back.

The above is a perfect example of caring for the characters - but, sadly, you really don't see that too often in horror. There are exceptions, sure, but horror pics are usually less about the victims and more about the monsters/killers, especially if part of a franchise. Disregarding the slasher genre, this holds true for the classic monsters as well - anyone really give a shit about who Dracula was biting or who the Wolfman was going to strangle in any of their movies, outside of the original pics?

Horror movies latched on to the slasher model when that genre proved popular - you can spend more time playing Ten Little Indians and not have the audience mind a bit, than spend time building up decent characters who are only going to wind up falling into set stereotypes the audience is going to expect anyway (the virginal heroine who'll get the monster at the end of the film, her heroic boyfriend, the asshole character, the sidekick, the stoner, the chick with the big tits, the slut, the geek, etc.). A lot of times, even honest attempts at character development fall by the wayside to the general audience. A lot of times we, as horror fans, are the only ones who try to feel for the characters, and are the first to cry "Bullshit!" if we feel the characters aren't developed properly. Joe Blow in seat 5, row 11 only knows he saw some guy get his head squooshed by a wicked awesome monster.

Films like Black Swan are more for us discerning types - the fact that it's being released after the summer is proof of this (end of blockbuster season, beginning of "drama and Oscar considered" film season. The focus is on Natalie Portman's character - we're going to root for her to make it through the film (like we did for Bridget Fonda's character in Single White Female, a spiritual cinematic sister to this new film). I'll be very amazed if this new film, however, packs in the audience, despite whatever deserved Oscar consideration it gets.

[IggytheBorg]

We reacted with gasps when Newt got captured by the aliens (I remember lots of folks in the audience were going "they're not going to kill HER, are they? They wouldn't kill a kid!!!" - kid deaths in flicks, folks! Guaranteed gutshot, shock-wise and on an emotional level!).

I've been advcating the more widespread use of this device for YEARS.

And the post from which this quote is drawn is brilliant! I am, sadly unable to rep Tim for it at the moment; can someone (several someones. actually) take care of that for me?

[V]

Or fear of boring/losing the audience - which consists largely of teens - out for a quick date thrill?)?

You've tapped the vein right there, so to speak. Death and sex are inexorably linked in our psyches. Anyone ever get laid after a funeral... besides me? It's 'one in the eye' to death.

So Billy Ray Sixpack takes Mary-Lou Screenporch to the local theater to see "Driller Killer" Mary-Lou can't explain why her pants are tingling... she does not have the knowledge. Billy Ray does not know why he has a boner that can cut diamonds... he just does.

After the film, they pitch woo... and create another burden for the taxpayer.

Dirt simple.

[IggytheBorg]

We had a whole thread going on the death/sex connection. DM8 & I expounded at great length. Some of our best stuff. Worth digging up from DERP, if one were so inclined.

[Timothy225]

I remember that thread - good stuff from the pair of ya!