Personally, I am not a big
fan of horror films. I get anxiety at the mere thought of watching one. Thus, I
chose to watch The Omen (1976) this
week (during the daylight and with the lights on!) hoping the combination of dated
effects and a relatively tame storyline would limit the amount of “pop out at
you” scenes for which the genre is notorious. Thankfully, this was the case.
For those of you who have not seen the film, it is about a
couple, Robert and Katherine Thorn, that adopts a baby boy, Damien, whose
mother has just died from childbirth when Katherine gives birth to a stillborn
child. However, this all occurs unbeknownst to Katherine who believes the child
she takes home from the hospital is in fact her own. After the couple moves to
London, strange events start to occur leading Robert to discover that his son
is the Antichrist.
The film is a combination of the ideas presented in
Cynthia Freeland’s Realist Horror and
Sigmund Freud’s The Uncanny. Last
week, we discussed Noel Carroll’s The
Philosophy of Horror. While this piece presents interesting, and definitely
valid, concepts regarding the horror genre, its focus is more on the fictional
components of horror, like monsters. As a result, we can’t use these concepts
to evaluate all films within the genre because not all have monsters. Freeland
uses the term “realist horror” in reference to this subset of the genre that
doesn’t include monsters. Unlike Carroll’s “classical” approach, realist horror
doesn’t provide us with the reassurance that what we are viewing is impossible.
Instead, realist horror is “a Chicago man [that] steals corpses and skins them
to make himself a suit. A drifter from Texas [who] confesses to 600 murders. A
Milwaukee man [who] cannibalizes and has sex with the corpses of numerous boys
he has killed” (Freedland). What makes realist horror so terrifying is that
despite its seemingly fictional basis, it creates a scenario in which anyone is
a potential victim. Also, while monsters do exist in realist horror, they are not
the same as those defined by Carroll. Instead, monsters in realist horror are
serial killers, rapists, cannibals, etc.
In Freud’s The
Uncanny, he introduces the idea of the uncanny being the opposite of what
is familiar and how this in turn leads to fear. He says, “The uncanny is that
class of the frightening which leads back to what is known of old and long
familiar.” The example he provides to help explain this concept is a wax
figure. Based on our prior knowledge of wax figures we know they are replicas
of people that, like store mannequins, just stay in place and don’t move.
Suppose, however, that while you are admiring one the figure winks at you, or
smiles. This fear you experience is derived from the uncanny.
The Omen, while
displaying some characteristics of realist horror, deals mostly with concepts
in Freud’s The Uncanny. Damien is the
definition of the uncanny. We perceive and associated children with innocence
and purity. However, Damien’s role in the film as the antichrist goes against
everything we hold to be true and familiar when we think about children. Thus
the fear we experience when watching the film is a result of the unsettling
feeling we get from Damien straying from what we believe his role should be. We
perceive Damien to be the monster. However, Damien’s role as the monster doesn’t
exactly fit into Freeland or Carroll’s definition of a monster. Damien is not a
realist horror monster because the fear he creates for the viewer is not a
result of being a potential victim. Nor can Damien be considered a classical
horror monster because he is not fictional being, but rather a human child. Thus
Damien’s role as a monster remains somewhere in between the two concepts. However,
if we view Robert Thorn’s role in the film as also that of a monster, we can
say he is a realist horror monster. While Robert’s role as a monster is
debatable, it can be argued that by wanting to kill his own son, regardless of
who is son is, Robert is a monster.
Overall, I thought The
Omen was a great horror film. Aside from the corny music and dated effects,
the film had an interesting plot and created a sense of fear without all the
unnecessary (at least from my point of view!) “jump out at you and make your
hair stand up” scenes that most horror films have these days.
While I agree that both Damien and Robert are good representations of the uncanny's role in horror films, I think we can actually consider Damien through Carrol's definition of the monster. From what we understand, he is a supernatural being that has not true possibility in real life. However, because his physical form is of a human child, the character becomes very disturbing (due to the familiar becoming unfamiliar).
ReplyDeleteI like how you pointed out that the fear Damien creates is not through violent spectacle. Damien does not intentionally perform any violent acts, which I think is an interesting point to make in this movie where Damien is so clearly considered to be a monster. The nanny intentionally murdered Mrs. Thorn, Robert intentionally tries to kill his son, yet we are compelled to call Damien the monster. Why do we find him so horrific when he does not perform any horrific actions? What does this say about our view of the role control plays in horror?
Madeline: Damien does perform one violent act in the film, when he pushes his mother over the railing in an attempt to kill her. Although his intent is shown in the scene, at the same time the manner in which he carries this act out is still childish and seemingly as innocuous as an act can be (he ran into her while riding a tricycle). I too watched this film, and although Damien could be considered a monster, the entire time he is shown there is just something "off" about him that left me feeling uncomfortable, like Freud's "uncanny"
ReplyDeleteFreud's notion of the "uncanny" is a resurfacing of a repressed fear, and I think you rightly point out how this applies to Damien, the would-be innocent child, being the antichrist. Our familiarity with the way children normally act and what children represent is called into question when that purity is corrupted in the most extreme way possible, and that (for me, anyway) is the formula for the most terrifying films. I can handle depictions of the supernatural, the extraterrestrial, and even the homicidal at times, for those types of films usually present the monsters in a way to which I am accustomed to seeing them. The most unsettling experience arises from films that show charming monsters (a la The Silence of the Lambs) or demonic innocents, as is the case with The Omen. Creepy kids are the worst.
ReplyDelete