The Death of Horror...An Ill Omen

The Omen, known as one of the landmark horror films that flow into the same vein as The Exorcist, is one of the quintessential films for horror buffs. While I do not deny that at the time of its release in 1976 it was a horrifying film in a portentous way, I cannot help but question whether or not it fulfills the analysis from the philosophical inquiries of Carroll and Nickel have stated. While I do not deny that horror films deal the paradox of having a repellent subject that entices audiences, I believe that both Carroll and Nickel exclude a few phenomena of the human psyche, as well as the nature of a horror film.

            Carroll, in the inquiry “The Paradox of Horror” provides an answer to the conundrum of why people enjoy horror films as much as they do. He explains that it is not the repugnant details of a monster that people find satisfying. Instead, people become intrigued, and continue watching due to the narrative of the film. He continues to say that the horror film is driven by curiosity itself, and that the nature of the monster, due to its anomaly by definition, is what sparks the curiosity, and leaves room for the audience, as well as the characters on film, to “discover” the truth of the monster and defeat it.

            Personally I find this theory of horror to be too wide of a scope to do justice to the unique experience of watching a horror film. Instead of describing horror, it seems to me that Carroll is loosely discussing all of cinema. True, there is something mysterious to a monster, and true, the monster defies categorization, but it seems to me that that is the nature of cinema. If there weren’t the slightest bit of intrigue in a film, we, as audience, would leave the theater to watch something else. If cinema were to catch and portray life, as we know it, the film would be a failure for it would not capture something that may enlighten or educate, or even entertain its viewers.

            Nickel, in a much more interesting article, continues where Carroll left off. His argument focuses on the effect of horror on the audience, as well as finds similarities between the genre of horror and philosophical skepticism and ultimately refutes the notion of Carroll’s paradox, and instead argues that horror films, while they due include grisly details that are meant to inspire dread or at the very least startle the viewer in order to communicate several epistemological truths of the nature of the mind’s understanding of reality. While I agree with Nickel that horror films have the power to make us question the reality that we are in (just think of the first horror film that made you fall asleep with a light on), I do believe that he is mistaken when he claims that the genre of horror can educate persons indefinitely. I will argue that the majority of horror films lose their ability to educate persons due to the passage of time, as well as extend Carroll’s notion of the audience’s curiosity to include the sentiment of pleasure being derived from disgust.

            The Omen is a horror film that revolves around political diplomat, who soon comes to realize that his “son” is in fact the Antichrist after several paranormal deaths occur. One of these deaths includes Robert Thorn’s (the diplomat played by Gregory Peck) own wife. While I can understand why this horror film may be considered a classic, I cannot deny that it was very frightening. Instead, I found the entire film to be humorous in a grotesque (more like cheesy) way. While I admit that this is not the only classic horror film that’s own “horror” has not survived the test of time, I believe that this is a phenomena that must be accounted for in cinema. Due to the rise of realistic special effects in the 21^st century, something has been lost inside of horror. Instead of educating the audience of philosophical skepticism, they merely perform a form of entertainment that provides a “bloody-good” dosage of gore.

            Yet this is nothing new. One only needs to look at the thousands of exploitation films that were quickly released in the fifties through the eighties. The directors intents were to incorporate elements of horror, but instead of rely on suspense, they splashed buckets of ooze and organs to make violent and trashy cinema. It may still be entertaining, but that was its purpose Due to the distortion of horror by exploitation, I’ve noticed the continuing trend inside of horror films. No longer do people try to thrill their audience, they simply try to write and release films that incorporate some mysterious creature with superhuman powers that can obliterate persons in such a way that bloodies up the screen. Directors of these films take inspiration from the Quentin Tarantino’s of directors, and do a shoddy job at it too.

            While I admit that these are by no stretch of the means the rules of horror films (there are exceptions that do a fantastic job at terrifying its audience), I do believe that it is a trend that has escalated to new levels. Horror films from the forties are generally goofy, the fifties had some ups and downs, the sixties brought in new elements, the seventies had its gore and romp-tastic sex, the eighties made those effects better, ditto the nineties, yet they cannot translate into the modern psyche. Maybe this is due to the fact that we’ve seen the tropes before, that the old gore just isn’t real enough for us. The terror has now turned away from the monsters to the mysterious. Directors continue to be inspired by the genius of The Blair Witch Project, while others still make trashy skin flicks that appeal to our grotesque (lovably grotesque) desires. Is there anything wrong with our situation? I don’t think so. We still have some classics, but there are many classics that haven’t survived the trek through time.