James Chastek offers a succinct explanation of the horror genre:
One can make any number of horror-movie monsters by removing the limits from some natural desire: Alien is reproduction without regard for anything else; The Blob is pure and unlimited growth (with unlimited consumption as a corollary); The Thing is a sacculina-esque parasite that places no limits on its own desire to survive etc. Removing the limit shows two sides of removing a limit: on the one hand we get a monster and on the other hand we get godlike power. These two aspects are usually reflected in the plot: the protagonists want to kill the unlimited thing as a monster; the antagonists (government officials) marvel and desire the unlimited thing as a god. The marvel of the antagonists is tempered by the fact that they do not simply marvel at the godlike thing but also desire to possess and control it. Such possession itself is a claim to unlimited power, and so is a redoubling of the monster.
Via Brandon Watson.
August 27th, 2012 | 11:08 am
It has always struck me that the appeal of horror movies is that almost without exception, (1) they are a battle of good versus evil, and (2) again almost without exception, good triumphs in the end.
I don’t see any general theme of the government being the antagonist. A familiar theme is that scientists want to study the monster, not kill it. They are generally made out to be wrong or demented, and when so, there is an anti-science slant to the movie.
August 27th, 2012 | 3:28 pm
Dear David Nickol: Regarding (2), it’s an oddity of many contemporary monster movies that the good does not triumph, or at least the evil is not defeated (the first few Freddy Kreuger movies, for instance). I wonder if this reflects a general pessimism in the contemporary audience?
August 27th, 2012 | 5:19 pm
Craig,
I should have noted that I haven’t been to a monster movie (or a horror movie that I can think of) for a very long time. It seems to me the hallmark of most genre fiction (mystery, science fiction, horror, romance) is that it has an ending you are satisfied with, except in very rare cases where there a twist clever enough that you don’t mind evil winning out. But my ideas here may be out of date.
August 28th, 2012 | 9:49 am
I tend to agree with you. Horror movies used to be creepy, scary, but satisfying. Today many are creepy, scary, and ultimately sickening, in many senses of that word.
August 28th, 2012 | 9:50 am
Who can be identified as an “antagonist (government officials)” in _Alien_, the original _Blob_, or the original _The Thing from Another Planet_ (or its 80s remake, for that matter)? There are no government officials in _Alien_, where everyone (except for the monster) is an employee of the “Weylan-Yutani” company; the GOs — mostly police — in the original _Blob_ are “protagonists,” not “antagonists” (to use Chastek’s terminology); as for both _Things_, I only remember an “antagonist” from the older film, Dr Carrington, who is a standard “mad scientist” and a government employee, not a government official.
The only film Chastek alludes to that somewhat fits his “succinct explanation” would be the 80s remake of _The Blob_ (but even that has its problems, namely the existence of “protagonist” GOs). Overall, his attempt to tag government officials as being “monsters of the id” is a failure. Such monsters can be “protagonists” and “antagonists” and many other persons, and can be found in the oddest places: go ask Morbius.
August 28th, 2012 | 10:58 am
My poor Krell!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact