What makes
horror different is the “monster” (yes Carroll was right about some things).
While Nickel hesitates to agree, he furthers Carroll’s definition by putting
nonfictional things in the category as well. This would include the “monster”
of a serial killer simply because it defies the normality of the audiences
lives (hopefully); however, if a serial killer watched a movie about a serial
killer, he probably wouldn’t be repulsed. His lack of accepting the serial
killer as the “monster” would perhaps cause him to see the movie as a different
genre… perhaps comedy or mystery. Without the “monster,” to some degree or
another, yes horror films could be showcases for new technology and bloody
props.
In Richard
Donner’s The Omen (1976), I found
that there were several aspects of the “monster” in question. First, I am going
to identify these aspects as they fit in with the readings, then I want to
directly address some concerns brought up by Matthew in his post. For those of
you who have not seen the movie, it is about a diplomat who’s child dies at
birth and is given the antichrist in exchange. Some odd deaths occurrences
surround the child. More than just deaths, the new nanny from the beginning is
told to be his protector and turns out to actually personify the almost
instinctual will of the demonic child, and there is a vicious dog that guards
the child’s door. To me, all of these aspects fall into the category of the first
monster. Is the child a monster? Technically, but this is what the father has
to understand. We as an audience, and even the father from pretty early on in
the film, get the idea that the child is the antichrist, but this does not
complete our or his understanding of it. Like I said there is the weird trilogy
of beings, similar to the trinity, which defines 666, and this is the dog, the
boy, and the woman. Satan, the antichrist, and the false prophet. This is the
first monster.
The second
monster lies more in the father. This pertains to Nickel and Carroll’s
readings. The father must overcome this philosophical skepticism to kill his
child. In the eyes of society by the end of the film, the father is the
monster. He tried to kill his child. For some people in the audience, perhaps
parents or children, this could be a frightening aspect of the film,
identifying you with some aspect of the monster. So in response to Matthew’s
post, sure this sort of thing doesn’t happen every day, but the fearful aspect
is that for five years this family lived a normal life and then strange things
started happening suggesting that their child is the antichrist. Well… lots of
people have children and have been living normal lives for so many years. Are
they going to ultimately fear their child and have to make the monstrous
decision to kill him or her? The tagline to the movie is even “if something frightening happens to you today, think about
it. It may be "The Omen." This defines Nickel’s idea of tearing away
the intellectual trust that stands behind our actions… after all, aren’t most
characters in horror films initially in denial? “I’ve seen that in the movies…
It would never happen to me.” So Nickel is right in saying that intellectual
backing for trust isn’t necessarily secure, and we can act as if it were;
however, that doesn’t sit right with people. Horror simply takes advantage of
that.
In the context of this movie, I would disagree with your statement about the "second" monster. I would certainly say that the child alone is the monster overall because it is through him that these evil events occur. The nanny and the dog are essentially just tools for the child to use. As for the father, I do agree that to the other people within the movie he may seem evil, but they also view the child as innocent so the question is can the father really be considered a monster? In Carroll's reading she states that one of the common themes of a horror film is the character's discovery of the monster. We, the audience, have fairly concrete proof that Damien (the child) is the antichrist, even before the father puts it together or believes it. Even after the death of his wife he struggles with the decision to kill Damien without absolute proof (which he finds on the child's head). We know that Damien is not human, so to us the father is being more or less a hero. As far as others within the movie are concerned they just lack the proof of what Damien is, but their ignorance does not classify the father as a monster, just an unsung hero.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your classification of the father as the second monster. A parent's essential role in society is to protect their child, and the father goes against that role and becomes a monster in his attempt to kill Damien. What if the child had not been the antichrist? Is it truly the child's fault that he is the antichrist, it was not his choice and he did not purposefully cause the deaths that happen in the film. Can we truly justify his death?
ReplyDeleteI think considering the journey the parents have to go through is the more horrifying part of the movie. Yes, the concept of your child being the anti-christ is rather improbable, but what if your child was a murderer? Or a rapist? What if they were doing horrible acts and the only way to stop them was to kill them? I think this movie really makes us consider that concept. Could you kill your child? What would you do to protect them, and what would you do to stop them from committing terrible acts? Nickel's discussion of the importance of there being some relation to reality comes into place here. You may really have to go through that decision in your life. I really think that these questions are why The Omen is such a classic horror film. The gore may have become cheesy, but the question of the father's monstrosity is lasting.
A great point, Maddie, I agree, especially since we've known the father to be a sort of savior - or hero - all along. I tend to think about elements of he uncanny when I analyze horror. The scariest things are sometimes the things that are the most normal - until something unfamiliar and necessary make it terrifying.
ReplyDeleteTake a mannequin in a shopping mall. Pretty normal - just sitting there doing its stationary thing advertising a new blouse. If, while taking a look at its face, you notice the mannequin's head turn and meet your eyes, you'd probably freak out.
The father is the normal - the familiar, the one whose demeanor and morals about which we know the most. But then his decision (and indeed the plot) to kill his boy forces him to take on a role of a monster (or murderer, etc), we experience the horror - the horror that you accurately say make this a classic and relevant issue in society.
David, I really liked your point about how a film's genre can have different meanings to different people, and although I haven't seen The Omen, I believe this point relates very well in determining who the monster(s) of the film is/are. I agree with Maddie and Ian's points that our perception of the monster depends on how we view the roles of the different characters, especially the dad. Wile it goes without saying that the child is a monster, the role of the father as a monster is definitely debatable. Based off the the blog post and the comments, I would interpert the father's role in the film as that of a monster, specifically based on Ian's point that the father is the "normal" and my own perception of my father and a father's role in general. However, I do see where Justin is coming from.
ReplyDelete