After reading Ty Burr’s recent article, “The Genre That Wouldn’t Die,” I felt compelled to comment on it. Here’s a man who fully acknowledges that slasher films are a genre for which he doesn’t care. So why write an article condemning something he knows he doesn’t understand? That would be like me writing about musicals. I don’t like them, by and large, but I understand that many do. That doesn’t make either side right or wrong; we just have different tastes. Fine. Bygones be bygones, etc. Burr apparently doesn’t see it that way, so I’m here to break it down FireJoeMorgan.com-style (R.I.P.). My apologies for not being nearly as good as they are. And I’m responding as if I was responding to Burr.
The genre that wouldn't die!
With the remake of 'Friday the 13th,' we consider how far slasher films have come - or fallen
At least we already know where you stand.
The remake of "Friday the 13th" is opening next Friday, which means more nubile counselors at Crystal Lake are going to bite the dust. Unusually, the film will screen for critics; slasher movies almost never do. Why bother, when you know the reviews are going to be savage and your target audience doesn't read them anyway? (A deeper cynic than I would say the horror audience doesn't read, period.)
Really reaching out to the slasher fans with this paragraph. The problem is, the fans of the genre are probably amongst the most knowledgeable of film fans. They know the history of the genre, the significant turns, and watch everything. Fans seek out everything, no matter how low-budget or minute the release.
Let’s not forget that there have been countless books written on the subject. It’s one of the most well-covered genres in film. Methinks the “Ty Burr’s” of the world aren’t writing these books. Perhaps fans???
This suits me fine, though, because I hate the nasty little things. Allow me a confession: Dice-and-slice horror is the one genre this critic simply cannot abide. In college, I walked out of the original "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" in a cold sweat. (I saw the whole movie a few years later and had to admit it was a work of scurrilous genius.) I think "Halloween," the 1978 thriller that launched the modern slasher genre, is not a "classic" but a craftsmanlike reduction of Hitchcockian suspense clichés to a depressing nub.
I’m not entirely sure what your examples set out to prove. You seem to respect the former and while writing off Halloween, failing to acknowledge that it (along with help from Psycho and Black Christmas) created a genre! Albeit one you don’t like. Regardless, how many films can claim that? It’s a huge moment in film history.
And while I’m not a fan of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (I find it obnoxious and too loud by about ten), neither film you mention is remotely gory. Suggestive, yes, but there is barely any blood in either. The fact that TCM is remembered as being one of the goriest films ever is a testament to how effective the filmmaking is.
I've seen "Scream" (1996) and I've seen "Saw" (2004), and I know they're the same old eek-eek-eek gussied up with one good idea (self-aware parody and claustrophobic threat, respectively) that is then beaten into market complacency by sequel after sausage-like sequel. I can find no excuse for the career of Eli Roth.
Saw is not a slasher film.
Eli Roth had nothing to do with either of those films. Why bring him up? And while I don’t care for his films, he certainly has a sense of humor and history.
Again, writing off another slasher classic in Scream. I’ll talk about his fallacy in this a little later, but Scream still holds up today and practically ushered in the “meta” world we now live in. I’m not saying he has to like it, but he should understand its significance.
It's true that every reviewer has his or her blind spots - one woman I know is so attuned to perceived anti-feminism in the films she covers that she was unable to give "Fight Club" a fair shake - and that it's up to each writer to be aware of those blind spots. And it's not like the critical community has ever been kind to the gore genre. Reviewers generally look on film as a form of art or entertainment. Slasher movies, by contrast are pure function: They exist to bypass reason and pump adrenaline by any and all means necessary. They also allow socially acceptable date-clutching; no small thing. (Oh, and another reason there are so many of them: They're extremely cheap to make and thus profitable.)
I fail to see how “exist[ing] to bypass reason and pump adrenaline” is mutually exclusive from slashers being entertainment or art. I’ll agree, more so the former, but they are meant to be fun!
All accepted, and anyway, a professional reviewer covering mainstream film has to be a generalist - that's the reality of the game. We're paid to comment knowledgably on every kind of movie, which means we have to see, and have the critical tools to appreciate, every kind of movie. We consciously set aside preconceptions when the lights go down, and we let the film work up (or down) to the limits of its kind. That doesn't mean all movies are equal but, for better and for worse, all movies have an audience they're trying to appeal to, and that audience deserves to know whether the movie in question works.
And yet, this article is showing that you can’t comment knowledgeably on the slasher genre. The title alone shows a complete disrespect for the audience they are trying to appeal to. Mr. Burr, you have just admitted to failing to fulfill your job requirements. I hope to see your resignation soon (not really, you can just hand it to your boss [OK, I don’t want you to quit, just stop being stupid]).
Yet when watching a film like last year's "Mirrors," in which actress Amy Smart slowly rips her jaw off her face in loving and bloody close-up, I have to ask: Who is the audience for this? And what are they getting out of it? I personally know more than a few gorehounds; they love movies and can be perfectly articulate about why, but when I press them on how watching a character being put through physical agony can be categorized as entertainment, their arguments invariably boil down to "I like it."
First of all, no one said they like Mirrors. You just made that up.
Secondly, us “gorehounds” can express quite clearly why we enjoy Slasher films. Perhaps you’re being a bit reductive in your evaluation of their arguments.
In response, my argument boils down to "I don't." I don't find it enjoyable on any level to see a human being, even a fictional stupid one, writhe solely for my viewing pleasure. I find the equation of sex and death that's a founding pillar of slashers - the slut-gets-killed/virgin-gets-away trope - to be reactionary and boneheaded. (There are those who say this reflects adolescent sexual anxieties; I say it fuses pleasure and pain in profoundly confusing ways.) I think the genre exists primarily as a market-approved forum for torturing women and girls.
So you’ve never heard of sado-masochism? Or maybe you’re just confused by your own sexual desires.
There are many books written on the topic, most notably Men, Women, and Chainsaws. It’s far more complex than your simplistic evaluation. And if you knew much about the genre history, conventions were established, then dismantled. It’s not just “slut-gets-killed/virgin-get-away.” It’s also important to think of the culture in which these films are produced. That influences the content of any film, not just Slashers.
None of this is new, obviously, despite the handwringing of cultural commentators and other pantywaists (guilty as charged). Human beings have treated dismemberment as sport for millennia, from the Colosseum entertainments through public executions and up to the "Faces of Death" videos. Despite civilized protests to the contrary, we're a species that adores violence, especially when it happens to other people. We're wired for it, but I have yet to hear a reasonable defense for it. Perhaps it's that our bloodlust pre-dates speech. Maybe watching people die just makes us feel alive, however briefly.
You spelled “Coliseum” wrong.
Painting those of us who enjoy slasher films as uncivilized (and I don’t think I’m reading too deeply into your words) is just as ridiculous as saying atheists are immoral.
An interesting comparison to slasher films for me is slap-stick comedy. While I have no idea of Burr’s opinions on slap-stick, I should have to think they are far milder than his slasher opinions. But it seems to me that most slashers have a healthy sense of humor and are really slap-stick with the “real” repercussions (I know they aren’t real, but getting it in the head with a steel pipe with no wound is even less real).
And maybe I'm being a hypocrite here, since there are some pretty disgusting movies I find worthwhile, even entertaining. The difference, I suppose, is that there has to be an idea or a sensibility somewhere in there for me to make the leap. "Re-Animator," Stuart Gordon's 1985 grand guignol gorefest, pushes the envelope of the genre with astounding high spirits and subversive kink; Sam Raimi's "Evil Dead II" (1987) fuses zombie mayhem with unexpected slapstick; both are the work of smart, witty moviemakers. "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" (1990), for all its grisly violence, works because its observant coldness is the opposite of exploitation.
Either you’re being a hypocrite or you aren’t watching slasher films with the same care as these non-slasher examples. I would say, with the exception of most studio-produced horror, those making horror films all have the spirit and sensibility for which you are looking. Only fans of the genre work in the genre. They know what’s been done and try to top what has already come. However, low-budgets often thwart their efforts (that and bad acting/filmmaking).
What’s fun about horror in general is that it’s the only genre where the awfulness of a film can enhance the film. No other genre is as fun to mock with a bunch of friends drinking beer.
Tarantino? Again, his sense of humor and his craft give him a pass for me, although I still think the ear-cutting scene in "Reservoir Dogs" (1992) unalloyed prurience. I'll give you England's "The Descent" (2005) - just barely - on the strength of its suspense and decently-realized characters and Japan's "Audition" (1999) on the strength of director Takashi Miike's pure weirdness.
I don’t understand why you’re trying to build credibility here. We get it. You’re a film reviewer. Probably seen thousands of films. I’m sure there are horror movies you like. Stop bringing them up unless they apply to your argument (like, say, a slasher movie that you like).
That I find so little worthwhile in American horror movies of the last 20 years, though, indicates A) that I'm probably getting too old for this, and/or B) that the genre as purveyed by US filmmakers has become locked into a feedback loop in which the clichés remain the same but the bloodletting, by commercial and psychological necessity, only heads upward. Audiences go to "Saw IV" (2007) or "Turistas" (2006) to feel scared - to feel anything, really - but as the pop-culture scar tissue builds up from three decades of post-"Halloween" slashers, each movie needs to cut deeper to strike a nerve.
Earlier, you mentioned distaste for Scream, yet here you say the clichés remain the same. Scream represents exactly what you are looking for, and it’s not the only film that has toyed with the genre in “the last 20 years.” Now, you cannot like Scream for other reasons, but you can’t write it off. Most interestingly, Scream is probably on of the only film that demanded at least one sequel, because otherwise, it would be an incomplete dissection of the genre.
Using Saw IV and Turistas as examples is simply ignorant. Horror fans don’t like these movies. If anyone is going to see these films, it’s the general public. Horror films are more critical of the films in the genre than you will ever be. The benefit of being a horror fan is that even the detritus can be fun. We can acknowledge and embrace a bad horror film’s schlockiness, as I’ve mentioned. So when you insult the intelligence of the horror audience in the first paragraph, you misspoke. It’s not us giving these crappy films money, it’s the 14-18 year-old non-discerning film fan. I will accept an apology now.
That's why hipster Hollywood filmmakers have lately been remaking Japanese horror movies ("The Ring," "One Missed Call," et al), and that's why they're remaking the slashers of the first generation: They hope to get under our skin faster. A new "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" came out in 2003, "When a Stranger Calls" and "The Hills Have Eyes" in 2006, "Halloween" in 2007, "Prom Night" last year, "My Bloody Valentine" last month, now "Friday the 13th" - not a sequel and not even a remake but a reboot. Admittedly, these are almost always better-made movies than the originals; the 1980 "Friday" looks like a late-'70s porn film precisely because that's what director Sean S. Cunningham was making before he tried his hand at horror.
What hipsters?
I completely agree with the lack of value in these remakes. They rarely offer anything new to the material. Three points, though:
1) I have yet to see of anything other than major studio productions. This is a big deal, because most of the great horror films of recent years are either foreign or “independent” (in quotes because the word is losing it’s meaning). Halloween is the only one mentioned and it’s the iconic slasher. Burr, you know nothing of horror film.
2) A remake/reboot of a horror franchise where each sequel is essentially a remake of the prior film is not that different from another sequel. I’m not opposed to this, because in these horror films, you go to see the killer kick-ass, not get involved in the story.
3) Several film directors from the 70s got their starts working in the porn industry, not just horror directors. The division between the two was not nearly as great as it is now.
The DVD commentary track for the first "Friday the 13th" is worth a listen, though, if only to hear Cunningham and screenwriter Victor Miller talk with touching bluntness about their motives. "The most important thing you can do in your film career is make money," says the director, while Miller admits he personally abhors violence and simply screened and copied "Halloween" when writing his script. (Lesson No. 1: "You have sex, you die.") It's a healthy reminder that the majority of slasher movies exist for one reason and one reason only: To shake the change out of a young and bored audience's pockets.
The majority of movies exist to make money. To claim that slasher and horror in general is the main culprit of this is ridiculous. Why is the summer filled with blockbusters? Surely not to add insight into the world.
It may be that my own mistake is expecting movies to be more.
It’s not a mistake to expect something from movies. It’s a mistake to not adjust your outlook to the movie you are going to see. If you expect Friday the 13th to be anything but Jason chasing people around with a machete, then it is entirely your fault for your experience. All genres have films that offer more than just entertainment, but there is nothing wrong with films being just entertainment.
I don’t really have anything against Ty Burr. His end of year top ten is very similar to mine and that he acknowledges the excellent Let the Right One In adds points in his favor. But there is no point for this article to exist. All he needs to say is, “I don’t care for the genre” and no one would care. But instead he insults people who do like it while making himself look foolish for not understanding the fans or the genre.
No comments:
Post a Comment