Misunderstanding Horror

[AntiAntagonist]

I was inspired by a recent thread. This is a topic that has been covered in many articles. Even here on the Escapist.

I currently define horror's motivation as coming from the basic parts of our brain that tell us to 'fight or flight' with heavier emphasis on 'flight'. This usually stems from an apparent difference in ability to win a conflict against antagonists or survive an environment.

The questions I have are:
Why do so many people confuse "horror" with 'action covered in blood'?
What subsets of horror are there that are still generally all accepted for the genre?
Additionally what subsets should continue to be referred to as "horror"?

 

[Wellby]

well games like fear are sorta horror action esque. They instill fear while allowing the action element to play in heavily. This isn't "wrong", its just a differant way of doing it. Bioshock however is just creepy folks. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you were in fact not playing through a horror game. That was an atmospheric shooter. Any complaints can go see the protagonist, as he shoots fire and bees at his enemys as they run screaming for cover.
A good example of mixing horror and action though is definitly Condemned

 

[fix-the-spade]

Because people lack imagination.

Horror needs suspense, you need to have the audience sat there crapping themselves over they thought they saw (Texas being an incredibly good example of this). Sadly people are stupid, the world is full of dimwits who have no imagination, show them a shadow or an empty room and that's all they'll see. A shadow isn't scary if you can't attach anything to it with your mind.

 

[wgreer25]

Your reference to TCM is a good one, both original and remake. One factor of these horror type movies, it the realism (i.e. this could actually happen). Leather Face was loosly based off of Ed Gein, a real life person. Because we all know there are some really F'ed up people out there. That can be scary.

I think the remake of TCM did suceed in creating horror in a few sceens. Expecially when you have the moments of hiding here and hoping not to make a sound. And dispite the guys leg being cut off and being hung on a meat hook (which happed in the first movie) the other death scenes via chainsaw were not shown, more was left to your imagination. But I digress.

To your issue of creating horror, I don't think the current adaptation of "torture porn" is really horror. However, the torture aspect can create horror, see Audition. But I did think Saw was an excelent movie, but not really horror. To me horror has to get to you on an emotional/psycological level. And for me, some of the unbelievable stories achieve this better than something that could really happen. Maybe that is due to our imaginations and a desire for the unknown. I would cite The Ring, Tale of Two Sisters, or Alien.

However, horror can be achieved with a real sense of Fight or Flight (survival instinct). I think those movies that are more situational, i.e. throw a group into a situation and see what they do to get out. See Descent and The Mist. The situations in the movies couldn't happen, but you could see how a natural disaster could produce the same responses from people and in those moves you saw that the real horror was the people not the monsters trying to get them.

So I guess where I'm going is that the mind f#ck is a good why to create horror. Prey on the viewers imagination by using an absurd situation where the consequences could be something that could actually happen. You brain fills in the gaps to get there.

EDIT: Spade, we posted at the same time and I didn't see your response. Since I think it takes imagination to make horror, I will take you post to mean that I am not a Dimwit But I agree with you, lack of imagination is why there is more blood and gore, but I would think that is lack of imagination on the creators part, not the viewer. A good creator can make good horror without needless gore. See the movies I listed above.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

I contend that Resident Evil 4 isn't horror due to the reams of options the player is presented with in weaponry.

Guess what! That guy with leeches and such needs to be shot from behind, or needs to have plenty of ammo pumped into him.

I can see overwhelming odds inspiring fear, but it has to be done well (limiting resources or ability) with a goal in sight (survival). In Unreal Tournament a player can respond with fear while playing Invasion due to the number of enemies compared to weaponry (including ammo). However other cases such as Resident Evil 4 the player is inundated with supplies with smart management, and only ever gets a run for their money on bosses, or maybe some high-level mobs.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

I think I'll use an example many people will understand: Half-Life 2. I wasn't spooked by the HL2 headcrab zombies because they had the skin torn off their chests and faces. I was spooked by them because they would come from nowhere, and would keep on howling and shuffling even when injured. Because when you opened a door and walked into a room, they would spring up from the floor as you got close when they appeared to be dead. Because you could hear them before you heard them, so they might always be around the next corner.

To put it simply, an atmosphere can create fear more than possibly when all you have is a film of someone having a chainsaw rammed into their gut.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Horror contains so many elements.

There's shlack horror; like you described.
Stalker horror : Like any proper zombie film.
Unearthly horror : Mr. Lovecraft.
'Rug Pull' Horror : Steven King's work
'Reversal' Horror : Clive Barker
'Raaaargh' Horror : Headcrabs, facehuggers

A good Horror (like Psycho) contains as many of these elements as possible, Shlack in the shower, Stalker for Anthony Perkins, Unearthly for 'Mother', Rug Pull (Mother again), Reversal (Killing his girlfriend), Raaargh (Eeee...eeee...eeee).

But the one trick that really needs to be there is Suspense, which is what a lot of the 'shlack' misses. It's not that Jason is wielding a bloody knife; it's that he is STILL coming, and you can't stop him, and he's killed your friends and you can't find anywhere to hide and the lights are getting dim and he's getting closer and you've got to get out of the door

Spoiler: and

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s173/jillybeanz666/JasonVoorhees-Eye.gif

 

[Count_de_Monet]

The best example of HL2 horror was Ravenholm because it used different techniques to wind you up before delivering the action. There were bodies around, blood all over the place, noises coming from things you couldn't see, stuff moving without you touching it, and to top it off you were alone in a dark town and (at least I was) running low on ammo so you felt a little helpless.

Good horror should build up in the viewer and periodically be let out or, ideally, not be released until the end. The problem with horror in video games is immersion. A game absolutely has to be first person in my opinion, I've never played a third person where I really felt anything but mild anxiety. Also, a game needs to get you to not trust your senses by showing you things that don't make sense or making you hear things that make you react. You have to see something happen then when you get to it's not there or make you hear footsteps but when you turn around there is nothing behind you. Also, it needs to hint at violent death without providing you with it directly; by that I mean showing blood on the ground or in a path like a body was being dragged or leaving things like audio tapes and journals for you to read so you get involved. If you just see bodies everywhere you will get desensitized quickly and it won't scare you.

Another thing you rarely see in games is making you feel helpless. Most shooters provide you with enough weaponry to take out a small country on your own and it's difficult to feel vulnerable when you have gun that can vaporize an elephant at 100 yards. The beginning of System Shock 2 is great for this because all you have is a wrench and you know something is about to tear your nuts off around every corner. The feeling is someone dulled when you run into a bad guy and he's made of 8 polygons but...that's not an issue anymore.

If someone made a game that mixed the little girl in FEAR, with HL2's Ravenholm, threw in some Resident Evil zombies, and made you vulnerable similar to System Shock 2 then that would be a scary ass game. No one would buy it because you'd crap yourself after the first ten minutes then never pick the game back up but it would be fun until then.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

But the one trick that really needs to be there is Suspense, which is what a lot of the 'shlack' misses.

There is a brilliant play I think you'd enjoy (this is addressed to any fan of sunpensual horror). It is entitled "The Woman in Black" and uses suspense brilliantly. For example, the main character (there are only two actors) spends a full 60 seconds asleep in bed in the haunted house, in silence. Literally, dead silence. Things like that, where it is subtle but also brilliant. Adding to the enjoyment was the fact that I watched it at the same time as a group of teenage girls were there, shrieking at each and every mildly spooky bit.

 

[The_Deleted]

Action+ Being able to defend yourself against a beatable enemy. You are fully tooled up and know the best tool for the job. There is a continuous flow of enemies.

Horror= You're defenceless. Have a piss poor weapon and any ammo required is at a minimum if any use at all. You are better off running from an unknowable, undefeatable enemy that can attack any time. There is a sustained feeling of suspense but you are not always under attck.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

But the one trick that really needs to be there is Suspense, which is what a lot of the 'shlack' misses.

There is a brilliant play I think you'd enjoy (this is addressed to any fan of sunpensual horror). It is entitled "The Woman in Black" and uses suspense brilliantly. For example, the main character (there are only two actors) spends a full 60 seconds asleep in bed in the haunted house, in silence. Literally, dead silence. Things like that, where it is subtle but also brilliant. Adding to the enjoyment was the fact that I watched it at the same time as a group of teenage girls were there, shrieking at each and every mildly spooky bit.

Seen it. Loved it. It's often the bits that are left out that really make the horror, because your mind can make up sooo much more...

Easiest way to scare the life out of anyone : Put them in a dark, silent, cluttered room and then play an incongruous noise, like a children's nursery rhyme. Guaranteed to have most people screaming.

 

[Caliostro]

The thing about horror, the main thing, is to create fear in the viewer, and you do that by instilling a sense of vulnerability. You can do this in several ways:

- First, by introducing uncertainty. This is something that games and movies neglect horribly nowadays. Most of the time you see the scary parts coming right away... The music builds up, everything seems to stop, a lot of focus is given to a specific "trigger-action", and it always happens... Often with barely any build up... A good horror movie or game will trick you often, so you have no idea when the music and setup are a queue for something horrible, or just building your suspense over nothing. You never see it coming. This is, by far, the best method of instilling fear and horror. One of our most basic instincts, we fear what we don't know, what we can't predict.

- Making you feel weak (mostly regarding games)and the enemy strong. By introducing enemies that can't be killed (even if they're easily avoidable), or that seem almost unphased by your attacks, even if they die. Being outnumbered also helps. Why are one of the all time "horror" classics, The Zombies, so scary if done right? They're an horde of undead, you can only kill them by a blow to the head, they don't feel pain, and don't back down over threats, or even if you rip off their arms or blow their legs off, this kind of "resolve", "determination" is very frightening...Even if it's not really resolve or determination but pure mindlessness. Another good trick in gaming is to make the enemies possible to avoid, but far easier to kill, then granting only scarce ammunition.

- Shock value. Often delivered in the monster and scenario designed. Anyone remembers the hospital level from Silent Hill 2 (I think)? Anyone remembers how much it messed you up to see the faceless, misshaped, mutilated and rotten nurses, holding the dead freak babies, in the blood and rust soaked halls of the hospital? I think there's few scenes in gaming or movie history that are more shocking, because it messes with basic principles of our culture: Hospital, place of healing, safe place; Nurses are healers, people we trust, often with our lives; Babies are helpless, innocent... Silent Hill took these concepts and turned them inside out. For some reason there's few locations that can be scarier than a hospital if put under the right (or wrong) light.. which leads me to another point...

- De-contextualization. Removing things out of context. The human mind is one of habits, of familiarity. It is naturally comfortable with things that make sense, that are under the normal context. When something suddenly escapes the norm it is aberrant, it is weird, it's disturbing, peculiar. Take, for instances, American Mcgee's Alice [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_McGee%27s_Alice]. While a lot of criticism can be leveled with this game, there's one thing certain: the game is disturbing. Why? Because it takes one of the most cemented childhood stories of all time (Alice in Wonderland) and twists it, perverts it into horror.

- The gore. Ironically this is least effective method, and the one used more often by games and movies nowadays, often used exclusively, which makes it rather moot and bland. Gore should be used scarcely, cause the more it's used the less "shock value" it carries, specially in our society nowadays where we're constantly bombarded with gory movies and games. If used correctly, it can make a frightening movie/game nightmarish, if used wrong it just makes a bad movie a total joke.


If a movie or game has the user going "ok..ok..calm down...what's going to happen?...whaT?....What was that??What the fuck do I do now??Ahhhh!!" when there's nothing there, it won, it did it's job.

Sadly, nowadays, most horror movies and games fall too deep into "action", a good horror movie/game won't have too much action, as it empowers the viewers/players and detracts from the horror feeling.

 

[Blair Bennett]

Why do so many people confuse "horror" with 'action covered in blood'?

Maybe it's because we sort of want it to be considered horror so we can feel brave and manly...

*EDIT* Sorry not exactly an articulate post but a much quicker way of saying something I don't know if I could explain in words simply because I'm stupid...

 

[AuntyEthel]

Speaking from a movie point of view (games have never scared me) these gratuitous gore movies and torture porn just make me laugh with how far they can push the dismemberment, decapitation and disembowelment. Movies that build up a creepy suspense are more what I think of as horror (not this Grudge/Ring/Eye type shit though, those aren't even thrillers)

Texas Chainsaw (the original) is a great example. Its not actually violent, just crazy. Anyone who says its gratuitously violent is talking out their ass.

 

[Monkfish Acc.]

Bah! Horror! Every horror movie I've ever seen ended up with me rooting for the bad guy. Even as a little kid, I would giggle at the terrible actors being killed.
To this day, I remember the odd looks all the adults gave me when they realized I was in the room, and that the evil cackle was coming from me. I think the most shocking thing was that my siblings were always so terrified when it came to horror. I mean, they couldn't even watch the music video for Michael Jacksons "Thriller", and I was frequently found shouting encouragement to Freddy Kruger. When I could manage to sneak a look in, anyway.

As for horror games, I've played very little of them, expecting the same experience I had with movies. So far, I've only really played stuff from Capcom, and all of it has proved me right.
Except, no movie could ever come up with any of the shit Capcom keeps dishing out. Seriously, that stuff is priceless.

 

[Sylocat]

Different people find different things scary. I found Alfred Ashford scarier than any zombie or supermonster in the RE franchise. I'd like to see a horror movie with a character like that, but no zombies or monsters, just some ordinary person or persons having to deal with this creepy, psychotic madman.
Gore doesn't do it for me. Sadly, it's the cheapest, least demanding way of doing it, and heaven knows game designers aren't going to make real effort to make their games good, when they can just cover it in blood and people will still call it horror.

Why do so many people confuse "horror" with 'action covered in blood'?

Maybe it's because we sort of want it to be considered horror so we can feel brave and manly...

Hmm, never thought of that.

 

[The Iron Ninja]

Anyone here seen the remake of The Wicker Man? That is an excellent example of horror done wrong. I laughed my ass off in that movie (not a game I know, but it had to be said)

I didn't find Doom (the new one, and I mean the game this time) scary at all, in fact I found it repetetive and predictable.

 

[meatloaf231]

Anyone here seen the remake of The Wicker Man? That is an excellent example of horror done wrong. I laughed my ass off in that movie (not a game I know, but it had to be said)

I didn't find Doom (the new one, and I mean the game this time) scary at all, in fact I found it repetetive and predictable.

That's because it's simple horror: things jumping out of small spaces at you. Sure, it may make you jump, but it doesn't actually frighten you. Good example of horror done right: Condemned 1.

 

[AuntyEthel]

Anyone here seen the remake of The Wicker Man? That is an excellent example of horror done wrong. I laughed my ass off in that movie (not a game I know, but it had to be said)

Well, did you see the original? Amazing movie, though more a detective/mystery type than a horror. I only saw the last five minutes of the remake and it was awful. Well, it had Nic Cage. Nuff said.

 

[AntiAntagonist]

That's because it's simple horror: things jumping out of small spaces at you. Sure, it may make you jump, but it doesn't actually frighten you. Good example of horror done right: Condemned 1.

Reasons like this make me think Yahtzee will be disappointed with the new Silent Hill.

Hmmm maybe I should review it before the entertainment arrives...