Siskel And Ebert At The Horror Movies

[TheWickerFan]

They've been playing vintage episodes of Sneak Previews recently, and this episode ran this week. It caused a great deal of discussion around the household.

http://siskelandebert.org/video/N5SU...-Danger-SP1980

If you have half an hour, let me know what you think.

[leezuki]

do u think woman were used in horror movies to be like the dumb blonde with breasts and made to be the weaker of the species, because all the old slasher movies was based around woman. but if you did not have the woman as lead roll the movies may not have did well as they did, i dont know. imo i dont think it was sexist to woman, most of the time the woman came out on top in the horror movies, the men were the beasts and the woman was the one who went through the pain and torture then came through at the end like texas massacre and halloween. most of the time it was the more timid girl who comes through at the end, while her friends are up to outher things ;)

[ManchestrMorgue]

Interesting show - very biased and sensationalist reviewing (ironic that sensationalism is part of what they are criticising these movies for).

I think they are off the mark when they describe viewers of these movies primarily identifying with the killer and revelling in the killer's actions. After all, these films are primarily effective for the scares and discomfort they produce. Most people describe them as "horror" movies, not as "excitement", "pornography", or "pleasure" films. They are watched for a few reasons, including to he scared, to be "grossed out" etc - at least that is what I believe the majority of people who watch these films would expect. And when you look at the predominant demographic for these films - teenagers and young adults - you can imagine that these would be likely primary motives for viewing.

Not to say that there aren't some people who view for vicarious/pornographic reasons - who want to identify with the killer and have no empathy for the victims - but I don't think this is the majority.

I do agree with a few points that they make. There is a pretty obvious subtext in the slasher genre of the dangers of sexual promiscuity for women (and to a lesser extent, men - remember young men also get killed after having sex in some of these films e.g. Friday the 13th). The reviewers link this to a backlash against women's liberation. I don't think this is the whole answer.

I think there are aspects of a remonstration against the sexual liberation movement of the late 60's and 70's. Young people who have sex (mainly women) are often the victim of the slasher. This can be viewed as a metaphor for a number of things - the dangers of sexual promiscuity including teenage pregnancy, the rise in STI rates in the late 60's and 70's; the loss of innocence and the premature cessation of childhood - "murdered" by early sexual activity.

The "winners" in the slasher films are often the women who remain pure and wholesome. By resisting the lures of sexual temptation, the boogeyman is powerless against them and they ultimately destroy him by resisting the temptations that he embodies.

Of the movies mentioned on this program, most were low budget films that were quickly forgotten by all but the most ardent fans anyway. Halloween and Friday the 13th are the exceptions, and to a lesser extent When A Stranger Calls. I Spit On Your Grave is known amongst horror fans mainly because of its extreme content but I can't imagine many of the general public would have any recollection of it. The other films mentioned would now only be remembered by the die-hard fans. This is simply because they were not great films - and there are films from all genres that are soon forgotten by the general populace for exactly the same reason. So the episode was making a big deal about films that would soon be forgotten anyway (and probably weren't all that successful at the time with the exceptions above noted). So the films that told a story and handled their subtexts well lived on, and those that were merely exploitative were soon forgotten. This would have happened without the doomsday warnings.

It is interesting to note though, that nothing that gets widespread cinema release these days is any scarier/nastier than the films portrayed here. I Spit On Your Grave is every bit as cruel as any of the so called "torture-porn" films that get cinema release these days. And Halloween and When A Stranger Calls are as scary and suspenseful as anything else since.

[neverending]

You make a lot of great points, but I want to touch on just one of them. I believe that a large per centage of younger horror fans these days DO just watch horror films for the vicarious thrills they get from seeing violence on screen. They measure the merit of a horror film on how good "the kills" are, how much explicit gore there is, and how many "jumps." there are.

Characters? They barely know what the word means, let alone being able to emphasize with them. It's all about body count, action sequences, and predictable plots. After all, when you're busy texting on your iphone, it takes something extreme to get your attention. This is why they dismiss horror films older than 20 years as "boring" and "slow."

[ManchestrMorgue]

Originally Posted by neverending

I believe that a large per centage of younger horror fans these days DO just watch horror films for the vicarious thrills they get from seeing violence on screen. They measure the merit of a horror film on how good "the kills" are, how much explicit gore there is, and how many "jumps." there are.

Yeah you are probably right there, unfortunately.

But do you think it is more aimed at "frights", "gross out", etc; or do you think it is more to vicariously experience what it might be like to kill someone?

In my post, I thought it was the former, but the latter is far more worrying. Is that where you think they are coming from?

[neverending]

I don't know really.... but, haven't you ever wondered yourself?

[ManchestrMorgue]

Yes definitely.

I wonder if it isn't a bit of both - a continuum if you like. A fight between the id and the superego - primitive drives can be experienced vicariously, whilst simultaneously one can be horrified and disgusted by the effects of these acts. Also, mostly, people can be comfortable in the fact that good will triumph over evil and primitive drives can be vicariously experienced with the relative safety of the knowledge that it will be alright in the end.

Of course, good doesn't triumph in all movies, but for the most part it does. And there is the added comfort that the morally pure are the ones that triumph over evil, and the impure are vanquished (like a Christian judgment day on a smaller scale).

[neverending]

I think the late 60s and 70s saw a shift in that message- where good didn't so much triumph as survive- and the evil survived to torment again. Films like The Exorcist, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and other like that are examples of that.

[TheWickerFan]

It's refreshing to hear a well thought out debate after watching that episode.:)

What bothered me most was the blatant hypocrisy; their argument that films like Friday The 13th and I Spit On Your Grave were somehow more morally bankrupt than Halloween and Last House On The Left (the latter two were given favorable reviews). If they wanted to complain about inferior filmmaking or gripe about the same, tired slasher formula being used too often, that would have been reasonable; but their suggestion that these films can have a corrupting effect on the people that watch them is utter rubbish and something I would not have expected from film critics (particularly Roger Ebert).

[ManchestrMorgue]

Originally Posted by neverending

I think the late 60s and 70s saw a shift in that message- where good didn't so much triumph as survive- and the evil survived to torment again. Films like The Exorcist, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and other like that are examples of that.

I don't know - the monsters have been coming back since the 1930's/40's. Frankenstein/Dracula/The Mummy etc were all "destroyed" only to be resurrected in remakes. Universal's Frankenstein was only ever really dormant, and Hammer's Dracula was easily resurrected on countless occasions.

The two films that you mention - certainly the Texas Chainsaw Massacre only provided triumph in escape. Leatherface was swinging his chainsaw even as our surviving hero escaped.

However I think The Exorcist was different. Father Karras was an imperfect hero - and an imperfect priest, who had periods of doubt/weakness in his faith. The story is as much about his struggle with his faith as it is about Regan's possession. However he saves Regan by sacrificing himself for her. Quite a Christ-like act really, where he dies to redeem others. Of course the devil is not killed - the devil can't be destroyed - in a Christian dichotomy, the devil is necessary for the existence of good. You can't choose the right path if there is only one path. But the point is that the innocent child is saved - a child who we can assume (not coming from a religious family) was not baptised, so therefore still tainted by original sin. But Fr Karras cleanses her from this original sin by sacrificing himself (as Christ did for the human race). So I don't feel that The Exorcist really demonstrated any more of a pessimistic view of good over evil than the monster movies of the 40's and 50's - any more than the notion that evil will always exist but good can be victorious in those that remain pure or are redeemed.