Genre Studies: Horror

Of the various genres, horror is perhaps the most ambivalent. One of the oldest genres of the art form, its conventions, riddled in cliché, can be spotted by even the most generic of movie goers, yet it remains as one of the most sustainable powerhouses the studio industry has left. It possesses one of the most unique followings, a cadre of misunderstandings attached to its popularity, and, over the decades, a veritable rollercoaster ride in regards to quality and originality. However, despite its notoriety, the horror genre is ultimately a representation of our fears and failures, and as such, will always remain as a vital representation of our society, and the nature of our humanity.
As one of the earliest film genres, horror can trace its roots back to the early French film Le Manoir Du Diable or The Devil’s Castle, a short two minute film from 1896. And while this particular film was certainly the first in the fledgling genre, it was soon trumped by the feature length films produced in the silent era. The Golem (1915), The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1919), and Nosferatu (1922), all born of German expressionism, became the true roots of the horror genre. These films, due to their much greater sphere of influence, appeal, and impact, are today considered the forefathers of the horror genre. Their more formal length giving greater room for exploration into new territory, and providing the foundation needed for actual solidification of the genre itself.
Now, the period in which a genre is officially recognized as such is a rather fluid stone to set, but in the early 1930’s, what with the American studios’ sudden recognition of the appeal such films had, the exploitation of this fact soon warranted its definite authenticity. It is within the 1930’s that one sees the emergence of many iconic characters in the horror genre. Dracula, Frankenstein, The Mummy, and the list goes on, the characters, most drawn from mainstream literature, providing a safe basis for the genre to continue to flourish, while allowing for new interpretations to take place and original ideas to be introduced. And, with the excellent reception these films received, the genre was successfully stabilized in its conventions.
Large portions of the population relish an adrenaline rush. And horror, at its most basic level, is meant to produce fear, the very definition of the word giving weight to the statement. Therefore, branching from this fact, many of the genre’s conventions spring forth. Reflecting the genre’s primary goal, to scare, the mise-en-scene of a horror film will usually be somewhat eerie or creepy in nature. This sets the stage for the rest of the film, creating a sense of unease in the viewer. As such, most horror films will be set in some sort of foreboding atmosphere. Disturbing weather, copious night shots, unsettling sounds in the distance, old or foreign places; these are all elements of mise-en-scene that a talented director will bring to life in order to make the audience more susceptible to the various scare tactics the story will provide.
Additionally, due to their nature, horror films have always offered a slightly more visceral experience than most other films provide, although the intensity certainly varies depending on the period of their creation. This is most commonly seen in how inherent death is to the genre, but is also seen in the tension between the characters. Watching the interactions between the victims in the film as they handle whatever is plaguing them, watching them crack so to speak, serves to further put the audience on edge, as they slowly recognize that the horror does not always come from the outside. However, as the genre has progressed, or, as society has become increasingly numb, this intensity has come to include both language and sex as well, which is responsible for much of the genre’s infamy. Blatant attempts to jolt the audience are common as well. The typified “just a cat” taking the form of sudden bursts of diegetic sound, appearance of hidden animals, shadow movement, or other such contrivances, all traditional scare tactics.
Finally, the villain, or the source of the horror, also possesses certain conventions as well. First, going back to mise-en-scene, the appearance or characteristics of the villain rarely leave any doubt to their purpose in the story. From red eyes and coarse fur to prison garb and a vicious smile, the picturesque elements of evil possessed by the villain are usually rather blunt. Secondly, the villain has to be somewhat unstoppable. Fear is most often rooted in helplessness, and a villain that can easily gobble up platoons of marines or possesses some sort of otherworldly power, creates that sense within the audiences. Lastly, a horror film will most often end with a moment of uncertainty, a hint that the villain just might not be gone forever. And, while this convention receives a lot of love from the studio execs in the form of multiple sequels, the original intention supports the genre, a final stab at the audience’s psyche. Basically, “the evil was defeated, but don’t get too comfortable.”
These conventions however, while they do validate the genre itself, do not, in this case, fall into the formulaic or stifle the art form too badly. And, being a subject of one of humanity’s most basic emotions, horror has become one of the deeper representations of our culture. Creature From the Black Lagoon (1954), one of Universal’s many monster flicks, is a prime example. From here one can begin to trace the genre’s evolution, tied to the changes in culture and technique. Creature, a relatively simple film, follows the exploits of a team of researchers, and the presence of an undiscovered life form, the titular creature. From the very beginning of the film, in the first few minutes, the culture in which the film was made becomes strikingly clear. First, there is a nod to the Christian faith, giving credit to God for the creation of earth, reflecting the need in the fifties to portray piety, actual belief in irrelevant. At the same time however, the film validates the Theory of Evolution, revealing the culture’s fascination for science, and the interesting hybrid created between faith and science born to this decade. Additionally, this introduction is performed by an off screen narrator, one having no place in the actual story. This practice, while still in mild use today, was common for this era, almost as if the common masses needed things explained to them, leaving no room for individual interpretation. This is once again, a reflection of the culture.
As the film progresses, a rather simple plot unfolds, lacking many of the details and complex character motives seen in many of today’s horror films. As an audience, America seemed to demand less at the time, while today people come to the theater with elevated expectations, regardless of what they will actually accept. In the film, the lead archeologist, without even the smallest montage, stumbles upon the fossil that pushes the plot forward, the man seemingly just picking it up out of the dirt. Bringing it back to the “lab” the rest of the characters are introduced, devoid of the actual complexity inherent to being human, their motives immediately made clear from the get go.
Additionally, the gender roles within the films reflect the culture with uncanny accuracy. While the female lead within the film is part of the work force, she is still portrayed as being dependant on her boyfriend for support and protection. She is seen within the film as being much weaker than the men, and constantly worrying. Within the plot she continuously puts herself in danger, and is the object of interest of all the other men as well as the creature itself. And while the film is an extremely far cry from possessing an actual misogynistic portrayal of the character, she is portrayed strictly within the bounds of the traditional perception of the fifties. The love story between the two mains is also extremely traditional in nature. Their interaction is innocent, subdued, and perfectly happy, the only complication being mild and playful banter regarding when they actually would be married. In today’s eyes, the relationship feels hollow and bland, but to a culture where the outward perception of happiness and perfection are paramount, this would have been acceptable.
As well as looking at the genre’s cultural facets, one must also note the various trifles within the film that map the actual progression of the genre itself. One of the most pointed examples of this is in the manner the director attempts to frighten his audience. Here the focus is almost entirely on the suspense and the actual monster, which was typical for the time. And, while one might normally think the genre has grown out of this completely, (looking at many of today’s mainstream horror films) the genre has actually just branched. While not as popular as the shock type imagery one most commonly sees, there still remains both a monster (special effects focused) and suspense branch within the genre, stemming from these early films.
As far as technical elements, the film has multiple scenes in which a POV shot is used, a trend begun in horror by Rouben Mamoulian in his film, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931), which today is a mainstream component of horror films. Diegetic sound is also used within the film to startle the audience. A convention of horror mentioned previously, although it is certainly a limited amount of use by today’s standards. The mise-en-scene was appropriately creepy, but much lighter than a modern audience is used to. The score is blunt, but recognizably appropriate for the genre. But, in addition to these technical notes, the way the film plays out also presents many aspects that have imbedded themselves within the genre.
For example, the minorities in the film (Brazilian research assistants and crew members) are continuously dying as the film goes on. Typical in many horror films, especially the monster flicks, the minorities are the first to die, usually written into the script as mere fodder for the monster to devour, providing more tension in regards to the main characters. Another example is the presence of the notorious inability for the female lead to make a proper escape from the monster without tripping at least once on nothing. This is probably horror’s most laughable cliché and, as seen from this film, is an aged motion. The ending, revealing the monster’s uncertain defeat, is another of the film’s typified conventions.
Jumping forward a few decades, we can see how the genre’s conventions and cultural reflection have progressed, using Clive Barker’s Hellraiser (1987) as an example. In this film the focus is primarily on that of the supernatural, instead of the focus on science seen in Creature. The film revolves around a family living in the house where a man named Frank, the former lover of the main, died. When Frank begins to come back to live, feeding on the flesh of the living and manipulating his ex lover, the tale begins. Vital to the plot is a small cube, which can be manipulated in order to summon a special sect of demons, specializing in torture. They want Frank, who had escaped them in the past, and so the film plays out, entrenched in the machinations of Frank and the demons, and focusing on those captured in the struggle.
This focus on the supernatural as the source of fear is directly related the cultural priorities of previous decades. Prior, as seen in Creature, science is becoming inherent to the American culture, but is new and therefore produces fear. In Hellraiser, a film of the eighties, science has become part of our lives, and so the focus has shifted to that of the supernatural, that which cannot be explained by science. In addition to this, the exposition and characters of the film have become much more complex. What was so simply portrayed in creature has now become subject to individual interpretation, the complexity inherent to the new post modern era.
We also see a much different perspective of gender equality. In Creature the female lead was portrayed in a way reflective of the traditionalist views of the culture. In Hellraiser, we can see a notable change. The multiple female leads in this film are portrayed as equals, if not domineering, in each of their typical relationships. Both characters are much stronger and more outgoing in this film, and are no longer simply victims of the evil that plagues them. Here we see them killing men and demons alike in order to secure their goals or defend themselves, no longer relying on the male as a source of protection and providence. And while the film is still subtlety machismo in nature, (placing women in horrible situations for a mainly male audience) the actual portrayal of women within the film reflect the attitude of the modern culture.
The happiness in the film in no longer existent either, in fact, it is quite the opposite. It may seem ridiculous to not the absence of happiness in a horror film, but if we look back at Creature, the portrayal of happiness, even amidst all the adversity, is very important. Here, this previous importance has been lost, and a much more realistic perspective has taken its place. And while the tension between characters in Creature was essentially akin to two rocks hitting each other, in Hellraiser it is more like oil and water. Both have the same tension as part of the objective to set the audience on edge, but the more modern attempts have developed into something more, the tension from unseen motives and slippery beliefs, rather than simple differences in opinion.
The overall experience of the horror film has become much more visceral as well. In Creature much of the edge comes from the actual suspense. In Hellraiser, we see the trend of shock horror that picked up such momentum in the eighties. Close up shots of massacred bodies, rats, cockroaches go hand in hand with cringe worthy shots of personal injury and mutilation of the human body. No longer is there any active censorship of coarse language, the characters letting the F-bomb fly in order to add to the tension of the audience. In Creature the height of sensuality was a kiss. Hellraiser possesses multiple scenes of suggested rape, blatant seduction, and simple unhaltered lust, but it is still considerably lighter material than what one might find in a horror film today.
The mise-en-scene is noticeably darker, the sun rarely shining, more noticeable in a color film. The score to has progressed, the soundtrack much more subtle and complex, the music covering a much broader range of emotional pull. The monster has also changed slightly. While being more complex in motivations, the character itself has become less so. The monster in Creature carried a touch of sympathy, the genre convention of absolute evil having not quite set. In Hellraiser, we see this convention risen into its complete form. This shift is actually a by-product of the increasing complexity of the characters. As the protagonists begin to slip into fields of grey, the antagonist must become blacker in order for there to be a proper difference. In horror especially this difference must be made clear, so as to create a source for the fear.
These changes however, are not the end, the genre continuing to evolve. Today we can see the beginning of a shift away from the slasher film’s of the eighties, the focus coming back to monster and suspense films of the thirties and fifties. While fear of the supernatural remains strong, the fear of biological and genetic mutation has been becoming mainstream as well, the genre reflecting new fears within our culture. Even as more and more filmmakers begin to pull and stretch many of the genre’s conventions, horror remains, stronger than ever. And as a new branch forms, cinema vertite slowly stemming within the genre as a recognizable technique and the influence of many foreign filmmakers, one can only speculate where the genre will proceed to.