Once Again, What Is Cynema?
Cynema is not about film reviews. I woke up to this HitFix article on the release of the anticipated horror, The Witch.
An interviewer recently asked me what my thoughts were on the state of horror. What I think doesn’t matter. This morning’s article by Chris Eggertsen made me rethink my response. Is The Witch a horror movie? It reinforced my belief that The Shining isn’t a horror movie. I don’t think torture porn films are horror either. They are two ends of a spectrum, maybe an apples and oranges kinda thing.
I caught shit a year ago for this article on the zombie film: https://leglesscorpse.us/made-zombie-movie-open-letter-filmmaker-harrison-smith/
I argued that zombie films are simple and for the most part, that’s the reason for their popularity. Indie filmmakers love making them because they are cheap to make and simple to write. The plot for almost every zombie film is: survival. I feel they attract a base audience and don’t require a lot of thought. There’s nothing wrong with that. It works. I have a problem when zombie films are elevated to a worship level. The Walking Dead is wonderfully written, produced, acted. There is nothing “bad” about it.
I can sum up each episode of The Walking Dead in a single sentence: People argue then some zombies attack. No matter what season, no matter what episode, that’s it. It never changes.
Horror or Not?
Is The Walking Dead horror? Yes and no. I hear fans call it a “soap opera with zombies” and as a result, it depends on your definition of horror. I think there is some deceptive practice going on. Twilight attracted the love of mothers who bragged of being Team Edward, Team Jacob. They stood in line to moon over shirtless, teen vampires and werewolves with their teenage daughters. Don’t get me started on the hypocrisy of grown men doing this for some female driven teen franchise.
I didn’t want my mother on Team Strode or Team Michael when I saw Halloween back in ’78. I’m not so sure I like seeing “Walking Dead Family” on Twitter and such. It dilutes the genre. I sound like a horror snob or maybe just a horror curmudgeon, but this kind of behavior is akin to people who claim to be horror fans because they saw and “loved” Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein.
Horror is a bitch to define. What scares one, is fodder for another. Is horror blood and guts, torture and mutilation, ghosts, psychopaths or monsters? Could Godzilla (1954) be a horror film? Technically it could qualify.
Eggertsen makes a solid point about horror fans and their expectations. A film like Rosemary’s Baby would be an art house film today. The Exorcist would also be classified as such. For me, it comes down to an informed audience knowing what to look for and most of all…demanding more of their entertainment. I think this is where we are losing the war against senseless remakes.
Attention spans have dropped. It has a lot to do with the meteoric rise of technology and the fact that movies are now seen as consumable product and are no longer events. Films are now made to hit certain algorithms and succeed in the first weekend or be pushed to the discount bin.
See my Consuming Cynema pieces here: https://horrorfuel.com/horror/events/consuming-cynema-part-i
Most movies are not meant to be watched on a phone or tablet. Movies are not to be squeezed in between train rides or while shopping. The horror genre in this case, was meant to be experienced, not just watched. Most people forget that the original 1984 A Nightmare on Elm Street under performed at the boxoffice. It got a second lease from home video. Why?
NOES was pure, creamy horror butter, but were the sequels margarine?
The original film’s release was damaged by “slasher fatigue” by 1984. Friday the 13th and a number of knockoff films, as well as a failed Halloween III, gave horror audiences their fill. Spielberg was hijacking the industry. Case in point: ET schmaltz beat the shit out of Carpenter’s terrifying The Thing.
Home video allowed NOES a chance to reach the audience that overlooked it. The horror behind the film was allowed to unfold and seep out to its audiences. That jump started revenue and the sequel came forward. From there it becomes questionable: are the NOES sequels really horror? Or are they a kind of horror byproduct? NOES was pure, creamy horror butter, but were the sequels margarine?
The Shining
I have argued for years that Kubrick’s The Shining is a triumph of style over substance. See my definitive explanation here: https://horrorfuel.com/2019/04/09/all-work-and-no-play-makes-the-shining-a-dull-film/
It is beautifully shot and consequently crafted with the highest production values. The film is not a translation of King’s book which was horror. Instead, Kubrick’s “masterpiece of horror” is a showcase for Jack Nicholson to be Jack…and without Jack, The Shining’s got jack. It’s a psychological piece. The original backlash to the film came from fans of the novel. I am not talking about angry fans who are upset whether James Bond has blonde hair or is black. I am talking about readers who felt a bait and switch after seeing the film. King has recently come out against the film yet again to describe it as a “Cadillac without an engine.” He’s right.
My point is The Shining would be ravaged by horror fans today. It’s too slow. Nothing happens. Too talky. Not enough blood. Not enough nudity…all the things the base element believes defines the genre. Without Jack Nicholson mugging it up, the film is a beautifully prepared meal with little taste.
Scream, Scream Again
Wes Craven gave us A Nightmare on Elm Street. For better or worse he also gave us Scream. While the film is effective and lives to this day as a TV series; it did a lot to downgrade the genre and dilute it by giving cache to the cliches and stereotypes that were its fuel. Scream was a kind of horror cheater’s movie. It allowed many, who know nothing of the genre, to feel like they did. They embraces the Cliff’s Notes of horror and got to pretend that they understood it.
The Scream films taught a young, and ignorant generation, that THIS is really what horror is. The virgin lives to the end and the killer sits up. It’s like saying you know all about comedy by watching Airplane!
The Scream films taught a young, and ignorant generation, that THIS is what horror is.
Because a horror film didn’t contain the paint by number tropes and cliches as outlined by Scream, many deem it a “fail.” This meta approach paved the way for the indulgent, vapid remakes of 70s and 80s horror. Just dust off the film titles, shine up the cliches and package them slickly. Hence the term Lazy Hollywood. Scream laid out a playbook for audiences who didn’t know better (and didn’t want to) that if horror doesn’t have these points, then it isn’t horror.
Eggertesen is on to something. Audiences know they are being served the same meal over and over. They clamor for something different. They post in forums and social media that they are tired of the cliches and the same formulas recycled. Yet, when something new or at least something that deviates from the norm, they get upset. Eli Roth said it best:
Does The Witch offer up anything new? Even if it doesn’t, it’s nice to see something out of the norm and not another remake or assembly line supernatural offering. While Salem offers us glossy, soap opera witches, it’s nice to see the horror world get something like The Witch. One of the most overrated and over-hyped films of 2014 was The Babadook. When a film trots out William Friedkin of The Exorcist fame, proclaiming it’s the most terrifying film he’s ever seen, then it damned well better live up to it. It didn’t.
The Hype Machine
The Babadook is not a bad film. It’s well shot, well written and well acted. The film is under cooked and really doesn’t know what it wants to be. Is it a psychological thriller? Is it a weird, modern day fable? Just what is it? It has some creepy moments and imagery (like The Shining) but is it horror? I’d have to say no.
But many WANTED it to be horror. Many of these are people who admittedly say they can’t stomach the genre, but they could take The Babadook. So maybe The Babadook is “Horror Light?” Great taste, less filling? Frankly I found Australia’s better offering, Lake Mungo to be more of a real horror film than this. The Babadook allows those who stay away from the harder horror a chance to participate and feel included. They can say they found it scary and be part of the horror community without getting roughed up. The film is often intense, but there is nothing really horrific about it.
I found Australia’s other offering, Lake Mungo to be more of a real horror film than The Babadook.
I did a piece on “Designer Horror” and have to ask if films like Scream, I Know What You Did Last Summer and Halloween H20 really horror? Are they more akin to product that rides off the real horror that preceded it? If that is the case, then the audience has a real problem. A real horror fan is well versed in horror history. Scream is more than understanding the tropes, cliches or lines lifted from other films. It’s about appreciating the genre and knowing WHY things work and how we got here.
How many in the audience understood what Scream was satirizing? Did they see any or all of the films referenced? Scream reduces the source films to parodies. The Scream series dilutes their impact and their standing in the horror world.
Scream allows people to claim fandom without seeing the source material, thus skirting the real horror. Horror is always easier when coupled with comedy or satire for the casual fan. For die hard fans, films like Scream can be an abomination. In conclusion, Scream was marketed as horror since it came from a renowned horror filmmaker. The stars are top shelf but none of them have anything to do with the genre. That’s not a crime. What did Jamie Lee Curtis have to do with horror when she took on Halloween? Therefore, the old saying, “horror doesn’t need names, it makes them” applies.
Mediocrity Is The Monster
Good, bad or mediocre, The Witch has done well and it has created debate, however the issue for me is fandom. I previously wrote that there is not one good Amityville Horror film. Not one. I have no hope for the new about to come with Jennifer Jason Leigh. The films get a free pass from fans who should know better but sadly, do not. Here is why: https://horrorfuel.com/horror/horror-reviews/amityville-horrible
The same standard applies to the Halloween series. The only good one is the original 1978. The remakes were excuses to make a buck, however the original series (excluding Halloween III) were inferior sequels. Danielle Harris is the only thing that made the post Part III sequels palatable. Halloween II is a retread, a sequel for sequel’s sake. However, fans love it and defend it even as John Carpenter has dismissed it. Read here: https://horrorfuel.com/horror/halloween-iii-a-second-look-and-why-part-ii-is-cynema
Fans need to step up their game and as a result the industry will follow. We often hear “we get the government we deserve.” The same applies to our entertainment. So if you have zero expectations for what you consume and watch, then don’t be surprised when the standards are lowered, because the people making it have absolutely no expectations from you except to fork over your money.
This is where are.
Listen to my Cynema podcast found on iTunes, YouTube, Stitcher, Spotify and iHeart Radio.
