The HEART of horror
January 15th 2007 03:08
This is not always the case with horror movies. In most slasher flicks the victims are a bunch of obnoxious teenagers whom one couldn’t care less about, although there are exceptions to the rule.
Wolf Creek (2005) was a good example of a horror movie which played with a lot of the slasher conventions, yet broke some new ground as well. One of the main reasons the film was so effective was because the viewer had become emotionally involved with the victims’ characters. So much so that when the bad stuff started to happen you really felt for the poor buggers.
But was it just because the characters were uncharacteristically likeable? Or was the story and movie that much more affecting because the events portrayed in the movie were loosely based on real events?
Is a horror movie likely to be that much more intense and resonant if the story is based on real life incidents that actually took place somewhere in the near past?
Ed liked to use the skin, bones and genitalia of his victims to fashion his own unique clothing and as alternative upholstery for the furniture around the household, and of course, most infamously he was partial to having a mask of dried human skin upon his face.
Psycho (the novel by Robert Bloch and tsubsequent film by Hitchcock) also claimed Gein as source material. And the film's Maniac (1980) and American Psycho (2000) both reference Gein's crimes.
The novel Dracula was based very loosely (flappin’ those wings!) on the obsessive antics and so-called blood lust of one Vlad Dracul - Vlad the Impaler - a mid-15 Century Romanian warrior prince who stuck the heads of his Turk victims on poles (Wolf Creek anyone?) to warn any further attackers.
Is that why Dracula is such a powerful story, because it has its heart based in fact? Or is just because Bram Stoker knew how to illicit fear and fascination through the sheer potency of prose?
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986) is based on the atrocities committed by real life sociopath Henry Lee Lucas, a serial killer who plagued America and confessed to having being involved in over 3,000 murders between 1975 and 1983.
Does knowing that Henry is about Henry Lee Lucas make the movie any more horrific? Does it make the movie any more convincing? Is the slow burn intensity of the movie due to the insidious truth behind the action, or is it really down to John McNaughton’s studied direction and Michael Rooker’s chilling performance?
How crucial is the heart of horror? How strong does it beat? Where does it lie?
* the image on this page was taken from the following wikipedia page:
heart and Ed Gein
| 94 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by David my David
Just curious. Have you ever read 'Deviant'? The life of Ed Gein by Harold Schechter? (America's primo-supremo true crime writer ... and equal to Brian Masters ... ?
There's so many true-crime novels cashing in on the sensationalism of the crime ... but Schechter and Masters? Masters ...
I'd just be interested if you've read either ...
Plus upping the vote count!
David ...
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
For me it comes down to the other components you speak of, a combination of skilful filmmaking with atmospheric cinematography, well drawn characters that are consistent and unsettling music all edited with an eye for tension.
The key is control, nothing worse than a low key, authentic feeling set up that spirals into contardicting character choices and comic book style gorfest finales.
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
no, haven't heard of it ... But I will hunt it down ... cheers for the props!
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Yet the second that I begin to slightly empathise with the persons struggle. I am interested in seeing them resolve the conflict, to survive or at least to die defiently.
Some badly written films have a hierachy of death based upon who annoys people the most. Least annoying gets it first then we move up the food chain. Yet well written films like Alien we have no idea who will be next and even Ripley was an annoying at first but we care about her later.
Comment by Tracy
Movies and Life
Another great post that set me thinking....
To me, I don't think it matters whether it is a true story or not, rather the involvement with the characters. I watched Wolf Creek a while ago and I was surprised that the first half of the film was dedicated to building the suspense with quite a strong storyline of the backpackers and their Aussie counterpart’s relationship. According to a couple of reviews I read many people complained about this build-up, but I think it was an effective device from director McLean' to make sure we cared about these people, and would stay with them during their ordeal. And that's why I was able to watch the film....alone....and at night....yes, I'm proud of it....
Tracy
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
personally i prefer characters whom are flawed ...
i don't mind watching obnoxious fuckwits getting torn apart in a slasher flick ... but i am more affected when i do actually care for the character (i guess that's stating the obvious a little) ... and i particularly care, or at least am affected, when the acting is of a strong calibre ...