To think horror films are horrible

[Somethingthecatdraggedin7]

I have never understood why people enjoy horror films.
By that I mean the genuine films of that genre not crime/action whatever which have violence in them.
I watched part of a horror film at a freind's place when I was much younger (late teens) and was completely freaked out and left my friend’s house. The film was so shockingly nasty that it took me years to block out the images.
If you enjoy horror, why do you like them? Is it a thrill akin to a rollercoaster for you?
I honestly don’t understand why people like watching torture etc.
YABU = Horror films are great fun and I can’t get enough
YANBU = Horror films are horrible and I avoid them

I disagree that Eliot could have written The Shining. Also disagree with your premise that horror has no merit and is schlocky and generic. I’m a bit shocked that a film studies teacher would be so limited in their view. I think Bram Stoker, Edgar Alan Poe, Mary Shelley and Dickens would also disagree.

Though neither Poe nor Shelley nor Lovecraft are good writers in your opinion?
I think most critics would disagree.

Is silence of the lambs horror? Maybe a fw scenes like when Hannibal kills the guard to switch places but I'd say it's more psychological thriller. Love the second genre not a fan of the first

Just thinking of a few books here

Jaws
Moby Dick
The Woman in White
Frankenstein
A Christmas Carol
Dracula
The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde
The Invisible Man
The War of the Worlds
The Time Machine
The Picture of Dorian Grey
The Hound of the Baskervilles
The Castle of Otranto
The Man in the Iron Mask
Ritter Gluck
Der Sandmann
Grimms' Tales
The Murders in the Rue Morgue
The Tell-tale Heart
Northanger Abbey
A Sicilian Romance
The Great God Pan

The majority are thought to have artistic merit as well as contributing to the horror genre - and have been around a lot longer than cinema.

“What about ice cream?”

”Coffee.”

”COFFEE!” 👹

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.

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

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.

Haha I can literally hear that exchange

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.

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).

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

Duplicate post

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

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

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.

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!

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.

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

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

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

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"? 😉

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.

If Casablanca is shlocky, I'm a rube.

Agree: it’s not a good novel at all.