| Author |
Message |
| < General Discussion ~ Is Romero turning into horror's George Lucas? |
|
 Posted:
Mon May 31, 2010 9:59 pm
|
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Jan 1970
Posts: 237
Location: Sunderland, England
|
|
| Quote: |
| Romero's work is subtext obsessed, character study stuff, but it absolutely fails at being horror. There's nothing scary about it. Horror movies with depth and subtext and everything else are great, but if these fail to be scary in the first and foremost then everything else is pretty redundant. |
I think you're making a mistake here. We are the ones who like to pigeonhole a movie into a particular category - horror, thriller, comedy etc. - but that's just a general guideline used as a shorthand to classify something.
Horror movies do not have to scare you to work. Frankenstein is one of the best horror movies ever made, it's not scary (at least not anymore), if anything it's beautiful and melancholy. The Wicker Man (the original) is considered a horror film but isn't really meant to scare you throughout, it all hinges on the reveal at the end and that innate feeling of being shocked by what happens, unless you're a pyrophobe then it's not "scary".
A few of Cronenberg's movies - Videodrome, eXistenZ, The Fly are not always about being scary, its more about the repulsion of seeing what happens to the flesh in his films, plus lots of subtext. It's the same with comedies - they don't always have to make you laugh to be an effective comedy, there are some which are more about the quiet chuckle and smile or simply amusing you with an idea.
In the end, the "category" of a film is irrelevant, just because it has zombies doesn't mean Romero wants you to have sleepless nights at all, you're just taking that as the given purpose because of the label.
And at the end of the day, your reaction to a film on that level is a very personal one - I'm not scared by any horror film, never have been. Does that mean they all have failed? No, it's because what you find horrifying or scary is a personal - you might not find his movies scary but I know plenty of people who have.
The claustrophobia of being trapped, surrounded by a vastly superior horde of the dead who want nothing more than to tear you apart and eat you alive is a situation that's tense and scary enough for some people.
Looking at it objectively, whether it scared you personally or not, Romero's movies have it all over Lucas'. Afterall, I personally don't find any of his films the least entertaining, but that's not my basis for the comparison because that comes down to personal taste. |
_________________
follow us on http://twitter.com/digitalnasties
become a fan on http://facebook.com/digitalnasties
|
|
|
|
 |
|
| Posted:
Mon May 31, 2010 10:03 pm
|
|
|
Digita Nasties Actor
Joined: 14 Jul 2007
Posts: 51
Location: Newbiggin-by-the-Sea, Northumberland
|
|
| Quote: |
| Horror movies do not have to scare you to work. Frankenstein is one of the best horror movies ever made, it's not scary (at least not anymore), if anything it's beautiful and melancholy. The Wicker Man (the original) is considered a horror film but isn't really meant to scare you throughout, it all hinges on the reveal at the end and that innate feeling of being shocked by what happens, unless you're a pyrophobe then it's not "scary". |
Fair enough. I see your point, but I don't agree with.
Horror has to scare me to work. Anything else is entertaining at best. Same goes for horror lit. If I read it and don't get the chills up my spine, then I've wasted the time it took me to read that book.
I'm not gonna debunk your examples, because, as you rightly say, it'd merely be an exercise in subjective opinion. But I have no interest in horror that doesn't want to scare me, despite that being the accepted paradigm of today's establishment. That's too liberal in its definition for me, just as my definition is no doubt too conservative for yourself.
Ultimately I'm an advocate of the Jamesian paradigm, regardless of medium. I've little interest in that which doesn't fall within the conventions of that paradigm, which, I openly admit, is very limiting. But I don't believe that broader definitions allow for greater breadth of quality myself, rather that they allow horror too much opportunity to pander to the lowest common denominator. Just my view, which I don't expect you to agree with or even like.
But it is what it is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon May 31, 2010 10:07 pm
|
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Jan 1970
Posts: 237
Location: Sunderland, England
|
|
| JackDeth wrote: |
| But I have no interest in horror that doesn't want to scare me, despite that being the accepted paradigm of today's establishment. That's too liberal in its definition for me, just as my definition is no doubt too conservative for yourself. |
Oh, please... Horror that focusses on intelligent ideas like character study and societal subtext is somehow a lesser artform than that which appeals to more basic primitive knee-jerk responses like childhood fears? The art that you love wouldn't even exist if it weren't for people who wanted to push boundaries.
Yet now the similar-styled artists looking to push boundaries are merely appealing to the lowest common denominator? Safe conventional storytelling that fits comfortably within a dated limited paradigm is actually greater than anything that strives for something different or new? Any attempt at originality is ultimately pointless?
Sorry, but you're gonna need some serious justification for that viewpoint. |
_________________
follow us on http://twitter.com/digitalnasties
become a fan on http://facebook.com/digitalnasties
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon May 31, 2010 10:09 pm
|
|
|
Digita Nasties Actor
Joined: 14 Jul 2007
Posts: 51
Location: Newbiggin-by-the-Sea, Northumberland
|
|
| jonathon wrote: |
| Horror that focusses on intelligent ideas like character study and societal subtext is somehow a lesser artform than that which appeals to more basic primitive knee-jerk responses like childhood fears? |
I don't recall mentioning anything about childhood fears. I've no objection to them of course, but there are plenty of other types of fear that are more preferential.
Nor did I stipulate that originality, character study, or social subtext are the hallmarks of lesser storytelling. I said that those things are irrelevant if the horror in question fails to scare. And I stand by that. Those qualities are a delight in any genre. But a comedy that isn't funny, or an action movie that fails to excite is not redeemed by their presence because they've fallen at the first hurdle. You can't run before you can walk as the ol' saying goes.
I'm all for pushing boundaries, being different, and being new. But I don't think those things are worth much in a horror movie if it doesn't have any scare value. To iterate a Romero example. Night of the Living Dead has been hailed as a deconstruction of the American family, a critique on racial relations, a study of human compatibility issues under extreme circumstances, a genre-defining pushing of the envelope in film-making.
All of those things have been said of it, and I'd agree with all of them. But all of them would mean nothing if the film wasn't so damn scary. Night of the Living Dead is a terrifying horror film. The sense of claustophibia and impending doom in it is largely without parallel. It's originality and social commentary value are great, but all are of secondary importance compared to the level of fear it generates. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon May 31, 2010 10:13 pm
|
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Jan 1970
Posts: 237
Location: Sunderland, England
|
|
| JackDeth wrote: |
| The sense of claustophibia and impending doom in it is largely without parallel. It's originality and social commentary value are great, but all are of secondary importance compared to the level of fear it generates. |
You always say the most bizarre things when you discuss this subject, I suppose I'll make my traditional notation that your argument basically boils down to the idea that a string of jump-scares and gimmicks, with no greater ambition than being "scary," makes for a better horror movie than a thoughtful, intelligent, multi-layered horror piece.
I know you reject that characterization, but that is, in effect, your argument. FRIDAY THE 13th is a better horror movie than DAWN OF THE DEAD.
That's just crazy. I know you try to leave some wiggle-room between that by insisting the scares should be well-done (and the movies of which you speak approvingly certainly demonstrate you have good judgment when it comes to films themselves), but you don't get well-done scares from filmmakers who are only looking to make a quick buck off some scares--you just get hack-work from hacks (or, ever so rarely, once-in-a-lifetime happy accidents).
If you want a real film, you have to have real filmmakers, The complexity you decry isn't, as you would have it, some extraneous part of a well-constructed horror show, It's integral to it, Inseparable, Good horrors literally can't be done without it (for that matter, I would argue that horror movies--good, bad, and indifferent--are inherent social commentaries, regardless of intent). |
_________________
follow us on http://twitter.com/digitalnasties
become a fan on http://facebook.com/digitalnasties
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon May 31, 2010 10:18 pm
|
|
|
Digita Nasties Actor
Joined: 14 Jul 2007
Posts: 51
Location: Newbiggin-by-the-Sea, Northumberland
|
|
Jump scares and gimmicks aren't scary. I've never advocates that position. The genre would be better off if jump scares had never been invented. Jump scares and gore were, in my view, the absolute worst things that ever happened to horror.
Friday The 13th is not a better film than Dawn. Again, it's not scary. It's a gore soaked, sloppy, jump scare orientated piece of rubbish. It fails both at being a good horror film, and being a good film. Dawn of the Dead is a good film, but an average horror film. Of course it's the better movie.
I agree with you completely the the complexity of good horror necessitates good characterisation, depth of storytelling etc. I'm not arguing against those things, which I thought I'd explained. I AM arguing against the idea that those things are the only thing that make a good horror movie. Which I don't agree with at all.
Let me give you a working example by which to make an analogy which I think rings true here. Back in my Uni days we'd discuss horror in film class. All you'd get is 'social commentary this, social commentary that' about films which were complete crap. But because some liberal scholar felt they contained a political position he/she agreed with, that somehow made them great films.
It doesn't. Such nonsense is, of course, to be expected from academia. But I'm a little baffled as to why it's so prevalent in wider horror culture. Now in Romero's case, I actually agree with a lot of his political subtextual ranting. I don't bemoan the likes of Diary of the Dead because of it's political subtext. I actually think a lot of the accusations Romero makes in that movie are quite true. The movie has depth to it, I won't deny that, but it just fails 100% as a horror film.
I am not anti-social commentary or good characterisation. I love those things as much as anybody else. But if a comedy, for example, was brilliantly characterised, full of the depth of Bergman at his best, exquisitely shot, but didn't have a single joke in it that worked, would that make it a good comedy? No. It'd make it a great film from a technical standpoint, but an absolute failure on it's simplest terms. The simple terms have to be satisfied first, before the complex terms. BOTH have to be satisfied.
What is basically comes down to is this -
You fine folks think a horror film can still be a good horror film if the characterisation and subtext are up to par, even if it's not remotely scary.
I don't.
Don't get me wrong gents, I respect the position of everybody who's posted on this thread, But I don't see us ever coming to agreement over this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon May 31, 2010 10:19 pm
|
|
|
Dead Meat
Joined: 15 Jul 2008
Posts: 27
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
|
|
| I know what you mean but i just don't think the comparison is fair. Lucas can't direct and never could, at least Romero has made some good films, albeit at an increasingly diminished quality. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon May 31, 2010 10:20 pm
|
|
|
Dead Meat
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 39
Location: Renascence, Maine, Usa
|
|
| Gore Comes Home wrote: |
| I know what you mean but i just don't think the comparison is fair. Lucas can't direct and never could, at least Romero has made some good films, albeit at an increasingly diminished quality. |
I disagree entirely. I think he isn't just doing the movies for the money, I don't think he's ever been as happy as he is working right now.
He has more freedom than ever before and has found a happy place making his zombie films outside the Hollywood establishment.
He's not in it for marketing toys, just making the zombie films he feels good about. I think he cares for his fans and always hopes they like his movies.
These days this is not the case and he gets a giant dump taken on his recent work. Maybe he should just retire and say the hell with it because his fans dismiss everything he's done since DAWN, but there are still an enthusiastic few, whose number is dwindling it seems, that look forward to his movies..I'm one of them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon May 31, 2010 10:24 pm
|
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Jan 1970
Posts: 237
Location: Sunderland, England
|
|
You lot are suggesting that Romero should retire with dignity while he can! I would think he will have one last shot and if this bombs he may take the easy way out.
But Romero is a man of great determination and I have a hunch that his next film may just be another incredible bomb.
As much as Romero disappoints certain sections of his audience at times, I agree with all of you who said Romero cares a lot about what his fans think about his output, I just hope he can still come through all this and triumph once again. |
_________________
follow us on http://twitter.com/digitalnasties
become a fan on http://facebook.com/digitalnasties
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon May 31, 2010 10:27 pm
|
|
|
Dead Meat
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 39
Location: Renascence, Maine, Usa
|
|
| Romero film with a happy ending? anyone know one? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
SmartFeed
