Comments on: “The problem with horror movies is…”: Reflections on our cultural context

By: John W. Morehead

John W. Morehead — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:51:40 +0000

Skal’s thesis throughout the book is that horror, particularly in its classic form in films in the 30s and 40s, provides a cathartic means of expressing fears related to the Depression and World Wars I and II. He also discusses how later horror externalizes the fear of AIDS through changes in the vampire mythology. So throughout Skal’s book we find a discussion of the externalization of fears through horror. Look to books from late modern theorists who write on horror as exemplifying a shift to the internal as the site for horror.

By: Allix

Allix — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:41:26 +0000

Thank you for your help. I am actually writing a paper comparing Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde to the film “Mr. Brooks.” I argue that both films deal with the psychological battle between the id and ego, however in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde the Other is externally seen as a monster (the hideous transformation of Dr. Jekyll into Mr. Hyde). In Mr. Brooks, he remains a normal citizen, no physical transformation–thus the monster is more internalized. I have currently read parts of David J. Skal’s Monster show, however which chapter are you referring to when you speak of his treatment of external fears?

By: John W. Morehead

John W. Morehead — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 19:46:15 +0000

I’m not sure that it’s appropriate to make a hard and fast boundary between the shift from a focus on external fears in older horror to internal fears in late or postmodern horror, however, I have seen it surface in the academic literature as I touch on in this post. You might consult David J. Skal’s treatment of external fears and the other in The Monster Show, and Barry Keith Grant, ed., The Dread of Difference for discussions related to an internalization related to gender, although this is surely an externalization as well. Hence, the boundaries between internal and externalization in horror is not clearly demarcated, but may be more a matter of emphases.

My two cents. Hope this helps.

By: Allix

Allix — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:41:04 +0000

Hey do you have any academic journals or references to your thoughts on how the monster was more external in the past compared to now, where it is more internal in the present day horror films?

By: John W. Morehead

John W. Morehead — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:26:07 +0000

Dan, thanks for your comments. Obviously with my post I disagree that we are too sophisiticated to be afraid of the non-material. Certainly this trend is reflected in contemporary horror,however, there are still plenty of supernatural or mystical offerings of horror that frighten plenty of people. We just tend to redefine such things to take the overtly supernatural edge of it and call it things like “supranormal.” Some of Japanese horror is a good example, although ghosts are interpreted differently in that cultural framework. Thanks again for your thoughts.

By: dan

dan — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:22:47 +0000

To me, “the Monster is Us” also is a reaction to supernaturalism. It’s the 21st century – we’re too sophisticated to be afraid of the non-material. Here in America we’ve moved beyond fearing the unknown because we’ve moved beyond belief in the unknown. Today our biggest bogeys are Science (28 Days Later, myriad other films) and Our Own Dark Hearts (torture-porn). And don’t get me started on the Whedon-effect — atheist supernaturalism. Fortunately Japan, where they have a different relationship with their dead, is still scared of ghosts.

By: admin

admin — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:28:29 +0000

Steve, I haven’t seen MOTHER OF TEARS so I can’t comment directly. I’d be interested in seeing how this dynamic plays out in relation to my thoughts in this post.

By: CFQ Online

CFQ Online — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:55:18 +0000

I posted a response to your editorial, but since it didn’t show up as a trackback, I’ll put the relevant portion here:

“It just occurs to me that I would be interested to hear Morehead’s reaction to MOTHER OF TEARS, a film that exploits the kind of body horror he decries, while at the same time espousing a view of the world in which Good and Evil are locked in a life-and-death struggle, with benign forces from divergent backgrounds (White Witchcraft, Christianity, and secular law) converging to defeat Mater Lachrymarum.”

By: » Cybersurfing: TheoFantastique gets a new home

» Cybersurfing: TheoFantastique gets a new home — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:46:48 +0000

[...] worry that anything will be lost in transition. His most recent post is about the “Problem with Today’s Horror Movies,” which he blames on our post-modern cultural context – a thought that was ricocheting around [...]