There is a bit of a special effects gap between Poltergeist and what is being shown in theaters today, however, although the effects look "fake" now, surely they were perceived with just as much terror as a movie like Insidious or The Fourth Kind is today. I was not as frightened during parts of Poltergeist as I would have been if the movie had been made with today's technology. For the purpose of this blog post, let us assume that I watched the movie with no historical context for special effects, and that I was extremely frightened by the on-screen action. Beyond the rush of adrenaline and beyond the movie's ability to string along my curiosity, what makes it a quality film/piece of art? I believe that the answer (for Poltergeist as well as any other well-made horror flick) lies in its ability to reveal truth.
Freud talks about the necessary quality that "uncanny" works must have in their capturing the viewer's perspective and making it one with the main character's. This caught my attention along with the part of his essay that explains the concept of "unconcealment" as it relates to horror. In "The Uncanny," Freud claims that part of what makes something uncanny, aside from it being unknown and horrifying, is its ability to reveal the concealed. It is in this way that I believe the value of horror movies reflects the value of art in general. To clarify, the relationship where substance is revealed to the viewer of the "uncanny" is similar to the relationship that a subject has with any "higher" piece of art; something must be shown to the viewer that was either formerly suppressed or unknown to him or her. That unconcealed substance, and the relationship itself, are truths. This is a Heideggarian concept which I will not go into for sake the sake of space on this blog post, but it is a concept that I firmly believe in.
Horror movies are interesting in this regard (that is, with respect to unconcealment) because they often revolve around things that are not real. Because they cannot show us the truth behind ghosts or monsters, they have to show us the truth behind our reactions to those things; therefore, the truth that a scary movie has is a self-reflective one - a scary movie shows us, among other things, how fear works in the human psyche and how the relationship between a film and it's viewer operates.
So, what is the truth that Poltergeist reveals? Well, if I had been truly scared by the movie, it could have possibly shown me something about what makes me, as an individual, afraid. What the film did do, however, was successfully create an accessible perspective (that of the parents of Carol Anne) that I could absorb while watching the movie. Looking back on the few hours that I spent viewing the film, I recall nothing out of the ordinary in my movie watching experience. That experience however, is out of the ordinary when compared to the goings-on of my everyday life. There is not one moment of my day where I sit down and participate in an activity that is remotely like watching a movie. Both my body and mind become vegetables and like slaves to the director's intentions (depending on the quality of the execution). You could tell me about the plot of Poltergeist and I would not be scared, but present it to me in a way in which I start to cognitively participate in the plot, and I become terrified. Surely there is some truth present in that relationship. This post must come to a close, but any ideas from you all would be most appreciated.
Great post! I think Poltergeist aligns quite nicely with many of the ideas proposed by Freud. I'm particularly interested in your closing speculation that if you were told the plot of the film in summary, it would not evoke as significant of a reaction as the film itself did (or at least, as it would have with better special effects).
ReplyDeleteFreud makes the claim in another part of his essay that "we adapt our judgement to the imaginary reality imposed on us by the writer,” and I think this speaks to your observation. A film is terrifying if that imaginary reality is properly constructed, as is the aim of a competent filmmaker. A summary of the plot neither constructs a fictional reality nor invites you (the listener) into it, and I think that's the most significant distinction.