To think horror films are horrible

Well, Poe, Shelley and Lovecraft are all better than King, Archer and Collins, yes. But actually Lovecraft is generic; and neither Poe nor Shelley are actually among the great novelists. Poe the best of all three; but Pym (not horror) is his best work, not the short stories or poems, which are melodramatic Gothic, fun as they are.

If you really do teach film studies, the education system is in even more trouble than I thought.

Are people not allowed to just enjoy something - why is only something you view (because you teach) as ‘great art’ worthy of consideration?

glad you didn’t teach me fun studies to be honest

I like horror 🤷‍♀️I’m okay with you feeling superior because of that. If it helps you through the day

YANBU. I have never understood why people watch them / can enjoy them. Who the hell finds someone having their eyes gouged out / meeting a horrific ending entertaining?
I never understood the people who write these films too, although I’ve always guessed they’re slightly demented themselves.

SotL is known as the only horror to have ever won a best picture Oscar. It would fall within psychological horror but is definitely horror

Agree: it’s not a good novel at all.

If Casablanca is shlocky, I'm a rube.

Honestly, in practice if you stick a popular/cult movie next to a great novel or play, they find it fun to see the movie but perfectly well appreciate its limitations. Lots of them love to study bits of popular culture (and I enjoy teaching it), but tellingly, when you mark their papers and exams they find it hard to make these films do much beyond very basic points. One of the key things about generic art is that even when it’s fun and interesting, it’s also very limited in what you can say about it beyond a few more obvious points. Whereas great artworks might not be fun as such, but they keep generating more and more interesting approaches and readings in ways that generic art - even good generic art - just doesn’t. Enjoyment isn’t the same as greatness. I might enjoy Lady Gaga and think her very inventive in her field, but I’m never going to think that she’s as great a composer as Bach or Steve Reich.

Ah, but are you a lofty and esteemed... film studies teacher? Or just one of us dumb lowbrow rubes who don't have the first clue what is Great Art and what's "tropey" and "schlocky"? 😉

Its interesting because I often see 'I don't like gore' or 'I don't like torture porn' when horror genres are discussed but such movies are incredibly successful so there is definitely a market for them. The Saw franchise made over $1bn and Terrifier 3 got to no 1 in the US box office which was amazing for an unrated film

Such films aren't my favourite to watch but I can appreciate the amazing practical effects and they can be alot of fun in a packed cinema

You don't think a film about a cannibal serial killer is horror?

The best (and maybe the original) jump scare ever is in Exorcist 3. It's a really solid film too, I recommend it.

I enjoy films that are usually categorised as "horror", but I prefer ones that would be classed more as chillers, ones that are brooding and atmospheric rather than all blood and guts. I hate gore and will immediately turn off anything particularly gruesome.

I like scary stuff, but not stomach churning gore. Absolutely love American Horror Story. Weirdly, I don't mind reading about some of the more extreme stuff, but won't watch it!

Whether I like them or not they are all critically acclaimed films though people who are actually experts might consider them art.

I mean I don't personally might not like Picasso I still can acknowledge it's art.

It's almost comical too, when he shouts 'I shall report this!'

Duplicate post

I like well made more physiological unexpected 'horror' films or TV not the cheap obvious gory stuff

I agree; watch Dracula, don't read it.

Now you’re talking! Some of these are obviously markedly better than the others: Moby Dick isn’t exactly in the same category as The Great God Pan, for example (and also, not actually “horror”). Northanger Abbey is actually a satire of the horror genre, as are several of the others. Some of these are also contemporary popular sentimental or Gothic novels or short stories. And quite a few are actually not horror at all but allegorical fiction or folk tale - completely different kinds of writing.

Actually vanishingly few of these are actually “horror” in the modern sense. But honestly, most of these probably do have more artistic merit than any Stephen King (though not all of them).

It’s clear you don’t like horror films @pleasedonotfeedme but that does not mean some are not great art. Just not to your taste. This thread has many many examples mentioned. I think you are doing your students a disservice.

Haha I can literally hear that exchange

I’m a big horror movie fan (not gore porn like Saw, though) and hold an English Lit degree. Dracula is terribly written, imo!

I usually much prefer original books to film adaptations but Dracula is a bloody boring read at times and most of the film adaptations do the story far more justice.

The Shining and Psycho are indeed critically acclaimed, I wouldn't call Psycho kitschy?

Well, none of them are great art, are they? They are all kitschy and schlocky. People get pretentious about Kubrick, but all his work is flawed and tropey. The Exorcist and Psycho are both very self-consciously exaggerating and troping popular/B-movie kitsch, too, and often in a deliberately “bad” way. They’re iconic cult popular films; but do you really think they’re “great art”? There are plenty of better Hitchcocks if you like Hitchcock, for example.