I think it's probably worthwhile for me to state my case as to why Natural Born Killers is "horror" enough to make a horror list. Again, I'm not lobbying for it to stay. I personally think it should, but I don't have a problem with it dropping off. I just want to put on record how I come to my conclusion.
First, I'll just pick at a couple of Sculpt's points, not to call him out because I know he's not trying to start a debate, but because I think his points exemplify why it's less common to see NBK as a horror (or horror-related) film. First, the Bonnie and Clyde thing... Just because a film is loosely a remake of an earlier film, doesn't put it in the same genre. A Fistful of Dollars is basically a remake of Yojimbo, but it's not a samurai film. NBK is a standalone film, and much different tonally and thematically than Bonnie and Clyde. Secondly, just because a film makes a social statement doesn't disqualify it from being horror, but it can distract from the horror when giving a broad-stroke analysis of the film.
Also, side note: The "immoral media," and pop-consumers-as-sheep themes, although they are the most clearly-outlined, they're far from the only themes explored in the film, which also touched on the power of sex (Mallory on the car hood), nurture vs. nature (Mallory's abusive family and psychological reprocussions), the risk when good people help bad people (the Indians), and the media becoming complicit in the crime story (Downey Jr.'s killing of prison guards). I'm sure there are plenty more... the film is complex, which contributes to it being not considered "horror."
Anyway, on to why I think it's horror. A while back I stated
my definition of horror. I'll continue to reference it because that's how I draw the lines, and, although I know it's not everyone's definition, I don't think it's outlandish, and suspect it's actually pretty close to a lot of other people's definition.
So basically:
- Are characters that we care about under pursuit by something harmful or scary (real or perceived, supernatural or natural)?
- Are we as viewers supposed to be scared or shocked in the process?
There are two groups of victims in NBK: 1) All the people that get killed (obviously), and 2) Mickey and Mallory themselves, victims of their own degrading psychological conditions.
First, the obvious, random victims. Do we care about them, and are we as viewers supposed to be scared or shocked when they are pursued? I'll just use one scene as an example, but there are plenty of others to choose from: The scene in the cafe, where Mickey and Mallory go on a killing rampage. The feeling I got while watching that scene was almost identical to the billards bar scene in Near Dark, and in both cases, I found it scary. Why? It's not just because people got violently killed. It's due to Oliver Stone's (and Kathryn Bigelow's) direction -- we learn just enough about these characters to relate to them and care for their well being. We've all been those people -- the waitress putting up with snotty customers, the guy playing pool wanting to protect his girlfriend. Watching those scenes, we know that each one of those people is doomed, and we can only hope that someone can get away or be spared. It doesn't hurt the case that each was killed in such violent fashion.
Secondly, Mickey and Mallory as victims of their own minds. Do we care about them? Yes, because they're the protagonists. This movie happens to have villain protagonists, but they're protagonists nonetheless.
So then are we supposed to be scared? Let me start by saying, psychological horror, I believe, is perhaps the most misunderstood of the horror genres. ("If there's no blood, it's not horror.") Case in point,
the thread where that new chick MaskOfPersona came to our forum asking specifically for minimal-blood, psychological horror. Most people greeted her with "you don't like blood, what's your problem?" or recommended she watch Frankenstein 1931 or a film where a child is beaten to death in a gunnysack. I'm not mentioning this be critical, but simply to point out that even most horror fans don't appreciate psychological horror, and often miscategorize it.
By my definition, a film is psychological horror if the "deadly force" is the characters' own minds, and the film is scary because we fear for the well-being of either the psychologically-affected characters themselves (like in Bug) or for those around them (like in Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (the sister)). In NBK, it's a bit of both. In the Indian ritual scene, we see the horrors inside Mickey's mind. Forget what does and does not scare you, personally; this scene is clearly intended to be scary. At multiple points, we see Mallory's flashbacks to her abusive family and the continuing deterioration of her mental state. At the same time, we fear for those around them -- the Indians, who are there to help, but we fear are at risk in doing so. Also, the guy who is seduced by Mallory on the car hood while she experiences her flashbacks, causing her to lose control. In my book, this is psychological horror at its best. The tension is built, not due to something creeping around in the dark, but due to the building chaos in the mind of someone capable of inflicting harm.
Bottom line, I think there are a lot of reasons why it's easy to miss the horror in Natural Born Killers -- either due to the wide variety of styles, including black humor, action and drama, or because of the non-horror social themes, both overt and subtle. But if you peel away some of the complexity and diversion, IMO the film is horror, even at its core.