Saturday, February 16, 2013

Horror and Belief: Shaping our Perceptions

In the previous class we discussed the aspects of horror movies. We talked about some of the key features that make horror movies what they are, and one of the common ideas that we all presented was the idea that a fictional monster was not the qualifying thing about horror movies. Contrary to what Carroll believes, there are other aspects besides the presence of a monster that can be the focus of a horror movie. This being said, I would like to jump into the idea of realist horror. Cynthia Freeland writes about the topic of realist horror and highlights its relation to Aristotle’s Poetics as well as Plato’s critiques on tragedies. She touches on what I believe Carroll misunderstood, “First, in realist horror like Henry, the monster is a true-to-life rather than supernatural being” (Wartenberg & Curran 262). In the article by Carroll, he seems to disbelieve that a human can be qualified as a monster by definition, and limited the category to only supernatural entities that possess some sort of power. Freeland further defines the term “monster” as a malevolent being with unique but dangerous features. This certainly seems to be a better fit because not every supernatural being is considered a monster (i.e. God, Santa Claus, etc.). A monster seems to be more universally defined as a being which chooses not to be morally righteous. A monster can indeed be supernatural and is often portrayed as such, but in the case of realist horror the monster can just be an average human.

A curious aspect of realist horror is the issue of whether the “monster” is actually choosing his/her/its actions. In movies about psycho slashers or charming murderers, a lot of people like to suggest that the person has some sort of mental illness. Maybe they are schizophrenic, or suffer from some intense and unbearable trauma. This is a defense so that people who watch these films, or hear about similar events in real life, will not be led to believe that such a thing could happen to them, or to anyone for that matter. In this sense, realist horror can be even more terrifying than the classic horror genre in that even if mentally ill, these sorts of humans do exist.

Within the story of The Exorcist you see a little of what I mentioned above. For those who have not seen or heard of the movie, the plot of the movie centers on a single mother, her daughter, and a local priest. The mother is an actress and so she and her adolescent daughter live a relaxed life. It is not explained how, but the daughter eventually becomes possessed by an evil entity (Or maybe multiple ones). The mother eventually seeks the help of the priest after modern medicine has no effect on the girl’s condition. The audience is led to believe with very little doubt that the daughter is possessed, but the doctors in the movie are not quite convinced at first (even after the mother reports the entire bed shaking). This issue of belief seems to play a big part in many horror movies, both within the context of the movie and also in the viewpoint of the audience. The way in which people perceive certain situations affects the classifications that are placed on them. For example, in the movie the doctors firmly believe that the daughter’s symptoms are simply due to physiological and psychological anomalies. Their lack of evidence for her drastic behavioral changes only leads them to believe that there is nothing wrong with the daughter. The mother is not religious, but the overwhelming number of impossible events led her to believe that there is a supernatural presence. If one who does not believe in exorcisms watches this movie, does the movie cease to be a horror film? Or is it through suspension of belief that such people can watch movies like this even though they don’t believe that the certain phenomena can occur? Actually I think the obvious answer is that people suspend their beliefs when watching films so that the movie remains what it is. What about in the case of movies that don’t clearly allude to a certain explanation? For example, Donnie Darko is one such film that the audience can explain in two different ways. There is the psychological explanation and there is also the parallel world explanation. In a nutshell, some people think that because of Donnie Darko’s psychological instability, the entire movie is just his imagination going wild. Others, however, believe that the events in the movie are “real” and that Donnie Darko travels through time at the end of the movie. The explanation that a person chooses affects the way the movie is perceived, either being a movie about time travel or a psychological thriller of sorts. Horror movies have this belief aspect within them as well. Realist horror, even though lacking supernatural beings, contain this too in the way that one perceives the human “monster” and whether we classify the person as crazy or if we see the person as normal but morally corrupt. 

2 comments:

  1. I think the insanity question is an important one when considering horror movies. With the supernatural there is always the question: is it real or is it the product of insanity? This is the crux of a lot of movies (especially horror films involving supernatural events) and the character's attempt to discover the truth is often the main journey of the story. This goes back to Carrol's belief that curiosity is what drives our interest in horror films. However, I think it's interesting to think about our fear of insanity and the way it drives our films. What's more horrifying, that the monster is real, or that you can't tell the difference? Does it matter if the monster is real if that's the only way you perceive it?

    Characters in horror movies seem to take one of two routes when dealing with this issue, both of which involve them making a decision on what they believe before they investigate. They either decide that the supernatural can't be real and whoever is seeing it must be insane, or, because they saw it with their own eyes, they feel the need to prove to everyone that they are not insane. It seems to work in those directions most of the time: if someone else saw it, they're probably insane, if you saw it, it's probably real. To me this suggests that while the supernatural is an intense fear, enough to doubt others, insanity is an even greater fear.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To build off your comment, Madeline, I think that one of the reason's that horror movies are so effective in scaring people (and in helping people to suspend their disbelief, as mentioned in the original post) is due the exact phenomenon you described of many people that didn't have direct contact with the "monster" believe that it doesn't exist. As viewers, we haven't had direct contact with the monster, and therefore can attempt to assure ourselves thorugh logic that the monster doesn't actually exist outside of our imaginations. However, as we watch the characters within the movie disputing the existence of the monster (and then frequently being killed by it soon after), we're led to question if we are merely following in the footsteps of the hapless non-believers on screen. In this way, horror films provie a rebuttal to all viewers claiming the monster to be fake that's built directly into the film itself.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.