How I Look at Horror

I always look at horror films in three ways (in addition to whether or not I enjoyed them). I look at them for genre, the time in which they were made, and what the overall message or context might be. I do that with other movies, but I do it with horror in particular. Part of that is because I write it, and part of that is because I’ve formally studied it. In addition to reading A LOT about the genre (Robin Wood’s criticism, David J. Skal’s books, Stephen King’s Danse Macabre, etc.), one of my professors was the great Sharon Russell; Doc Russell wrote The Stephen King Companion and authored great articles on the witch figure, vampires, and more.

Part of this is because (I believe, anyway) that most horror filmmakers are trying to illustrate a larger point about society. Horror is a really flexible medium, but it’s also a chameleon; you can explore an issue without it seeming like you’re making an “issues” film. I think it’s pretty obvious, for example, that John Carpenter is making numerous points about politics, the media, and consumerism in They Live, but he does it in a way that serves the story.  Similarly, the original The Stepford Wives is just a super-dark satire on the women’s movement and how men treat women. Get Out is an obvious issues film that does a great job at functioning within both scares and satire because of the skill of all involved; you never "forget" the issues while you're watching it because Peele and company use them to magnify the horror.

So, breaking it down:

Reading for genre: Does this film fit in a pre-existing genre? Does it stick to the conventional rules of that subgenre, does it invent new ones, or does it introduce unexplored areas of folklore? (Example: In Fright Night 2, Tracy Lin slays a vampire by shoving a rose in its mouth; roses were protection against vampires in some folklore, a fact she actually learns in the film by studying). Can the film fit into more than one genre? (Example: Alien).

Time: Is the film contemporaneous with when it was made, or is it set in the (relative) past or future? Is setting of time used to make a particular point? Does that time articulate something about the theme? Why that period as opposed to another? (Example: Night of the Living Dead almost HAS to be about Vietnam.)

Theme/Context: Is there a larger point past the story itself? Is it subtle or overt? Why was that choice made? If it’s a remake, is it expressing different concerns than an earlier version, and why? (I’ve always been interested in King’s theory that horror is a Dionysian intrusion on Apollonian reality, and the ending is either a return to normalcy or a fall into chaos).

I’ve always thought that most horror stories are a reflection of some kind of human or social fear. Fear of the dark, fear of the unknown, fear for our children, fear of the future, etc. And those fears can be contextualized through a monster/villain/event that becomes an expression of those fears. Like Big Steve, I see The Amityville Horror as fear of financial ruin. In my short story collection, INHABITED, I tried to focus on one kind of fear in each story (in “Hunter’s Moon,” it’s fear of falling victim to a predator;  in “RomCom Ending,” it’s really two, which are the fear of ending up alone and the fear of not really knowing someone you love; in “The Ongoing Problem of Haunted House Bedtime,” it’s the figurative fear of something that’s literally under the bed; etc.). I’m working on a horror-adjacent novel right now that hits on a couple of bigger themes, one of which is how childhood trauma informs both the good and bad decisions we make as adults.

None of that is to say that you can't simply enjoy being scared. That's fine. Entire industries are devoted to that (hello, roller coasters), but I think that most makers of horror are aware that they can use it for broader themes and will do the work to make a piece as effective as they can on more than one level.

And yes, movies that suck can still say something. Or attempt to say it.