Do you think the Oscar's Horror tribute will lead to more opportunities?

Twilight a horror... It's a supernatural romance and has as much to do with horror as Brokeback Mountain does.

*clears throat*

As for the topic, I say it's about time. Horror has been the bastard child of literature and movies for as long as I can remember. It has always been treated as a lesser offshoot and not "real".

SAW for instance will never equal normal oscar fare but that doesn't make it any less relevant to the movie/book world as many people would like to believe.

I personally think they should have an Oscar for every genre so that each genre gets due recognition each year. What makes for a solid horror story will never be able to compete to tear jerking dramas. They aren't meant to, not in that forum, but a really well done horror needs just as much craftmanship as that tear jerking drama.

icerose said:

Horror has been the bastard child of literature and movies for as long as I can remember. It has always been treated as a lesser offshoot and not "real".

Click to expand...

Unless you can remember 'always', those two statements are contradictory. In fact, horror was a perfectly respectable subject to write about until literature balkanized into the various genres during the pulp era, roughly the 1930s & 1940s. Nearly all the great classics of horror and the iconic monsters of modern culture date from before then. Frankenstein, Dracula, Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde (the 1932 movie version of which won a best actor Oscar for Fredric March, BTW) and the Phantom of the Opera all appeared in print prior to the Great War, in editions most folks were comfortable displaying on their family bookcases. Most of the authors deemed greats dabbled in horror or speculative fiction, from Dickens to Twain and everyone in between on both sides of the Big Pond. Cabell's fantasies were best-sellers into the 1920s, and Lord Dunsany's plays of gods and men appeared on Broadway through that decade.

I think it was the Great Depression that split the genres off from the mainstream. Times were too tough for serious literastes to waste their efforts on frivolity, and so the genres scattered across the pulps while real writers wrote about soup kitchens and the Dust Bowl instead, each genre with its own array of sensationalistic magazines bearing garish covers designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Where Weird Tales did have aspirations to being fairly literary and literate, Horror Stories and Terror Tales made no such pretensions. The other genres grew gaudier and less refined as the 1930s progressed, as well.

So, unless you're a lot older than I am, yes, horror does seem to have forever been the red-headed granchild of literature. Always, though, is much too long a time to justify your second statement as quoted above.

Well, even with that wall-o'-text above, I failed to answer the original question. I think the horror 'tribute' was a skeezy sop to horror fans to help them to get over the past, present and future lack of Oscars for horror films, apart from the occasional make-up or technical nomination. The last real horror film I can think of to get major nominations was The Exorcist, back in 1973. Ten noms, including picture, director, best supporting actor and best lead and supporting actresses, and all it went home with was sound and adapted screenplay. The only major victory for a horror film was the above-mentioned Fredric March for the '32 Jekyll and Hyde. It's not that Oscar hasn't had plenty of opportunities. Jeff Goldblum deserved at least a nomination for The Fly in 1986. Nope, not happenin', Jefferino. Not for a horror flick. And don't hold your breath for it to happen in your lifetime or mine. Enjoy the bone they tossed you Sunday last, horror fans; it's all you're going to get.

The always was in reference to as far back as I can remember, which was mid-80's.

I like being where I am. Personally, I find mainstream to have a certain quality I simply do not feel comfortable. I can't put a word to it very well but it seems tense, programed. I like being a junkyard dog in a fashion show.

SirOtter said:

Unless you can remember 'always', those two statements are contradictory. In fact, horror was a perfectly respectable subject to write about until literature balkanized into the various genres during the pulp era, roughly the 1930s & 1940s.

I think it was the Great Depression that split the genres off from the mainstream. The other genres grew gaudier and less refined as the 1930s progressed, as well.

Click to expand...

My grandmother told me stories of how people were found reading "such trash", and they would hide their graphic novels under their mattresses to try and keep their parents from taking them away back in the late twenties and throughout thirties. How it was seen as something to be ashamed of, to read things such as horror and other things.

As for the Oscars giving horror a little limelight?

Well, for the film industry, I'm sorry but they're going to have to step up their game. And get to know the genre better. Many of the films I see in the horror section don't illicit anything from me--I wrote scarier stories as a teen. The last time I watched a really good American horror film was Mirrors and hell, we had to redo a Korean film to get that. Before that, it was The Exorcist. Long stretches between good horror films, wouldn't you say? Oh, and yes, I don't think there were any good ones in between. There were decent films, sure, but I felt no fear from them. Not like I did Mirrors and The Exorcist. When a movie can scare me, I'm happy. Which is sad, because I usually scare very easily. Film just doesn't do it for me.

I don't really expect horror to get anything from this little bit. Horror film makers won't get anything in the way of recognition until they learn that cheap trick doesn't do it. And I'm not just talking blood and boobs here.

Horror just doesn't transfer over into film very well. Let us take IT from S. King for example. No one but Tim Curry could be Pennywise, but the thing about it is--no film maker can do what our minds can. We watch a film and we are seeing the horror through another person's ideals, mindset and eyes. It is much more intimate, and scary, when we do it for ourselves. As readers of horror, our imaginations do the work. And the work of another person's imagination doesn't hold a candle. Reading IT as a novel made me piss my pants (c'mon, no comments. I was a kid!). The movie made me laugh. Because in my head, it was more intense. It was like I was right frigging there, running from the evil clown who killed George and so many others. The film filter doesn't do horror any justice. Film makers fall back on cheap trick because it's all they have. They don't have the power our imaginations do. Horror in the film industry has a long way to go, in my opinion.

Literature, on the other hand. I've read so many books that kept me up for hours, nights, weeks. Only two movies have managed that for me.

Those things that make ya go "Hmm."

SirOtter said:

The last real horror film I can think of to get major nominations was The Exorcist, back in 1973.

Click to expand...

Isn't 'Silence of the Lambs' considered horror? Or 'Jaws?'

dolores haze said:

Isn't 'Silence of the Lambs' considered horror? Or 'Jaws?'

Click to expand...

I don't think of them as horror. Hannibal Lector, as twisted as he may be, is still a fairly functional human being, apart from his rather eccentric diet. The shark in Jaws is simply an animal doing what nature designed it to do. It's a nice distinction, perhaps, not unlike the former Supreme Court justice (can't remember who or when) who said that he couldn't define pornography but that he recognized it when he saw it. It's difficult to explain why Erik from Phantom of the Opera meets my criteria for being a monster and Lector doesn't, but I'm comfortable with the difference. Doesn't mean you have to be.

SirOtter, you might not consider 'Silence of the Lambs' horror, but your average moviegoer did. Seven is another movie most people considered horror, and that film garnered several Academy nominations (and several wins if my memory serves me correctly). I think there will always be 'respectable' horror movies along with rubbish like Hostel - no offense meant to any fans of the movie. I really think it could have been a good film; the idea was interesting, but the delivery? Not so much.

I believe before that tribute they said horror was the most popular film genre. I do think that good horror movies will continue to be made, just as good horror novels will still be written, and I hope they receive the accolades they deserve.

dgrintalis said:

SirOtter, you might not consider 'Silence of the Lambs' horror, but your average moviegoer did. Seven is another movie most people considered horror, and that film garnered several Academy nominations (and several wins if my memory serves me correctly). I think there will always be 'respectable' horror movies along with rubbish like Hostel - no offense meant to any fans of the movie. I really think it could have been a good film; the idea was interesting, but the delivery? Not so much.

.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if the average moviegoer did consider those two horror - I would have thought they considered them thrillers. More to the point (maybe), I don't think most horror fans would have thought of them as horror. Interesting that you tag them as 'respectable' horror. Because they are over that thin-ish line on the side of thriller, maybe?

I just don't think they take you to that other world, they're too grounded in reality. There's not that 'anything can happen', free-falling sense of boundaries being removed. Both serial killers are still limited in the damage they can inflict; they are being pursued rather than being the only ones pursuing, and they don't have that all-encompassing advantage that makes you feel there's no escape.

But I think what's most important is that neither of the protags in SOTLs and Seven is the victim (until the threatened killer turns on them) but the nemesis of the killers, so they, and we, are one removed from the horror and that immediacy is lost.

zahra said:

I just don't think they take you to that other world, they're too grounded in reality. There's not that 'anything can happen', free-falling sense of boundaries being removed. Both serial killers are still limited in the damage they can inflict; they are being pursued rather than being the only ones pursuing, and they don't have that all-encompassing advantage that makes you feel there's no escape.

Click to expand...

There's the crux of the matter, the distinction that makes one horror and another not that I groped for earlier and couldn't get my hands on. That's why Erik is a monster and Lector is merely an evil man. Thanks, Zahra, for clearing that up for me.

In short, no. I've seen video games that had more atmosphere and creep factor than the latest Hollywood 'horror' movies.

Poltergeist scared the crap out of me when I was a kid. You can't tell me the sound of Carol Anne crooning "They're he-ere!" isn't creepy. Lots of parts in the movie are scary (the clown, the tree, the pool full of skeletons). It's been a while since a movie affected me like that.

It won a few awards too, and it's definitely horror. I wish there were more movies that built atmosphere and appealed to the most visceral emotion of fear, instead of relying so much on special effects and shock tactics.

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon. Right now, we're more likely to see loads more vampire/werewolf/paranormal romances on the big screen.

To me, vampires, slashers, and serial killers are not horror at all. To me, horror has to have an icky bug, whether it's a ghost, a demon, or a creature. I think vampires, slashers, and serial killers should be in their own genre so as not to confuse them with regular horror. I may be in the minority by saying this, but that is my take.

I agree with those saying that until horror films start stepping their game up, so to speak, they will be shunned at the Oscars. A good horror film, in my opinion, should be a good film period. I think horror fans get too caught up in excusing the flaws of a lot of films by saying "Well it's horror, it doesn't have to have these other qualities of good films." And as long as that keeps happening the genre's going to remain an Oscar pariah.

On a side note, personally, I'm among those who would consider Se7en a horror movie. Silence of the Lambs a little less so. To me it's about the vibe the film / story presents. Does it put a significant priority on scaring the audience? If so it's horror. Twilight is no more of a horror film than Teen Wolf, but Se7en, Jaws and Alien would definitely qualify in my eyes.

Jcomp said:

I agree with those saying that until horror films start stepping their game up, so to speak, they will be shunned at the Oscars. A good horror film, in my opinion, should be a good film period. I think horror fans get too caught up in excusing the flaws of a lot of films by saying "Well it's horror, it doesn't have to have these other qualities of good films." And as long as that keeps happening the genre's going to remain an Oscar pariah.

On a side note, personally, I'm among those who would consider Se7en a horror movie. Silence of the Lambs a little less so. To me it's about the vibe the film / story presents. Does it put a significant priority on scaring the audience? If so it's horror. Twilight is no more of a horror film than Teen Wolf, but Se7en, Jaws and Alien would definitely qualify in my eyes.

Click to expand...

See, I think Seven and Silence are detective thrillers. No more horrors than the goriest CSI. The Protags are only in danger at the last moment, when they corner the serial killers.

I agree about the horror fan liberalism. We should make them up their game. I hope my game is up...

Horror has always received its share of films. Always has, always will. Unfortunately, this has never translated to a bigger share of teh market for horror novels.

The Silence of the Lambs is a big old pile of quivering gothic terror. It has cannibalism and skin jobs. Lector kills a guard and straps his corpse (complete with opened ribcage and dangling intestines) to the bars of his cage. He slices a guard's face off and uses it for a mask.

Ted Levine tucks his cock between his legs and sings along to The Fall with his tailor's dummies in the background. He is about to get the hose out, and no one wants that. SOTL is a horror film down to its very marrow. It is far more horrific than the insipid slasher/torture films we have all got so bored of.

I'm with Aschenbach on this. To me, a thriller is something like The Firm, The Usual Suspects, or Rear Window. I think The Silence of the Lambs has one foot dragging in the thriller category, but the other firmly planted with most of its weight in horror