HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER
tarantula
Chainsaws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film_. Having just watched the
uncut uncensored version and reading the footnote on page 229 -- well
I'll save my $.02 for later. Would like to hear people's thoughts on this:
"[A] film like HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER, which plays
definitively on sadistic impulses, does not in my view qualify as horror.
The reviews I saw simultaneously classified it as and distinguished it
from horror. ('This low-budget film is gory and chilling, but not
exploitive in the way of most slasher movies. Unrated' [_San Francisco
Examiner, 13 May 1989].)"
ray...@my-dejanews.com
tara...@typhoon.temple.edu (tarantula) wrote:
> "[A] film like HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER, which plays
> definitively on sadistic impulses, does not in my view qualify as horror.
> The reviews I saw simultaneously classified it as and distinguished it
> from horror. ('This low-budget film is gory and chilling, but not
> exploitive in the way of most slasher movies. Unrated' [_San Francisco
> Examiner, 13 May 1989].)"
People often disagree with me, but my idea of horror includes books and
movies that have no monsters or supernatural elements (hell, I think CNN is
horror most of the time). And it *definitely* includes HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A
SERIAL KILLER. While Henry and Otis are human, they are every bit as
monstrous as any werewolf or vampire ... and scarier, I think, because they
are so close to the truth (being based on Henry Lee Lucas and Otis Toole,
real-life mass murderers). Director John McNaughton's refusal to take a
moral stand makes the movie even scarier because it gives us a chance to look
at Henry through clear, unflinching eyes and see him as he is ... and he's
scarier than shit. He has no pattern and intentionally kills differently
each time to avoid being tracked and caught. He knows what he's doing is
wrong, so he's not a confused mental case, yet he has no remorse, and even
enjoys it so much that he can take pleasure in watching himself kill on
videotape. Now if THAT isn't horror, I don't know what is.
Ray Garton
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Brian Parent
SERIAL KILLER
Chainsaws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film_. Having just watched the
uncut uncensored version and reading the footnote on page 229 -- well
I'll save my $.02 for later. Would like to hear people's thoughts on
this:
definitively on sadistic impulses, does not in my view qualify as
horror. The reviews I saw simultaneously classified it as and
distinguished it from horror. ('This low-budget film is gory and
chilling, but not exploitive in the way of most slasher movies. Unrated'
[_San Francisco Examiner, 13 May 1989].)"
I reply:
I haven't yet seen Henry : Portrait of a Serial Killer, but it's on my
list of movies to see, so I'll probably be able to give my opinion on it
soon.
BTW, Welcome back, Tarantula.
Brian Parent
"I'd like to meet the devil some night. I'd chase him from here to the
wilds of the Pacific. I am the devil." - Lestat, Interview With The
Vampire
Gene-Michael Higney
eloquently: HENRY was a perfect example of the essence of real horror: to me
it is the unreasoning element; the knowledge that there is no rhyme, reason
or logic (that the victims or the viewer can tell) behind the motivations of
the killer. One cannot defend oneself against illogic and randomness. And
that's scary. Thanks for summing it up so well. Best, Gene-Michael Higney
<ray...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7gjekf$8dt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
>
>
> tara...@typhoon.temple.edu (tarantula) wrote:
>> "[A] film like HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER, which plays
>> definitively on sadistic impulses, does not in my view qualify as horror.
>> The reviews I saw simultaneously classified it as and distinguished it
>> from horror. ('This low-budget film is gory and chilling, but not
>> exploitive in the way of most slasher movies. Unrated' [_San Francisco
>> Examiner, 13 May 1989].)"
>
>People often disagree with me, but my idea of horror includes books and
>movies that have no monsters or supernatural elements (hell, I think CNN is
>horror most of the time). And it *definitely* includes HENRY: PORTRAIT OF
A
Dr Walpurgis
Nice to have you back, Rog.
_______________________________________
Se questo website non ti spaventa
...sei già morto!
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/3390
ray...@my-dejanews.com
"Gene-Michael Higney" <shi...@dancris.com> wrote:
> HENRY was a perfect example of the essence of real horror: to me
> it is the unreasoning element; the knowledge that there is no rhyme, reason
> or logic (that the victims or the viewer can tell) behind the motivations of
> the killer. One cannot defend oneself against illogic and randomness. And
> that's scary. Thanks for summing it up so well. Best, Gene-Michael Higney
Exactly, Gene-Michael! And in horror fiction and movies, *human* monsters are
the only ones that behave that way. Vampires prey on humans because they need
the blood. Werewolves have to eat. If certain rules aren't followed in a
horror movie that deals with vampires, werewolves, aliens, whatever, then the
movie falls apart. Only human monsters can kill without rhyme or reason and
still be believable ... because they do it in real life all the time.
Nick Lindley
>Finally finished the last chapter of Carol Clover's _Men, Women, and
>Chainsaws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film_. Having just watched the
>uncut uncensored version and reading the footnote on page 229 -- well
>I'll save my $.02 for later. Would like to hear people's thoughts on this:
>
>definitively on sadistic impulses, does not in my view qualify as horror.
>The reviews I saw simultaneously classified it as and distinguished it
>from horror. ('This low-budget film is gory and chilling, but not
>exploitive in the way of most slasher movies. Unrated' [_San Francisco
>Examiner, 13 May 1989].)"
If Henry isn't a horror film, what is?
For me, watching Henry for the first time was a strangely cold experience.
It just kind of washed over me. I think the beginning and the ending are
very good but, as a whole, I'm not really a fan of the movie. Like I said
about Cannibal Holocaust, it's not really my idea of entertainment but it's
definitely worth a watch. Michael Rooker is great as Henry.
Cheers,
Nick
Email: Ni...@LindleyN.freeserve.co.uk
Website: www.angelfire.com/mi/mindlesszombie
'See you around, buddy boy!'
tarantula
: Nice to have you back, Rog.
Thanks Doc and Brian for the greetings.
Note: the following is somewhat lengthy.
Re: Clover's book _Men,_Women,_and_Chainsaws_: the entire book maintains
such frustrating claims throughout. Also, Clover's forced airs are quite
asinine, imo. Clover's essays proffer mere opinions without any
warranting reasons to back them up. The writing is overtly
pseudo-intellectual to no positive end. Such a great title, but such an
awful piece of over-educated bullsh!+ without sound reasoning or adequate
understanding of the genre.
For anyone interested in real scholarship on the horror genre, check out
Isabel Christina Pinedo's
_Recreational_Horror:_Women_and_the_Pleasures_of_Horror_Film_Viewing_.
Concerning Henry, Pinedo relates not only background info that appeals to
avid fans of the genre, but she also interprets the most popular horror films
with keen insight. For example, while Pinedo claims that Henry is a
deviation from the slashers which preceded it (F13, NOES, etc.), Henry
finds itself as worthy of a deeper and much more clearly stated analysis
than Clover was uncapable of (probably due to Clover's obsession to appear
academic). Pinedo writes:
Henry details the sanguinary activities of a psychotic serial
killer who appears normal, at times even likeable. He is clearly
the narrative center, the subject of a portrait whose face clearly
implies a Cartesian subject but which ultimately masks a deeply
divided self whose violence ruptures any semblance of normality.
In this film, it is normality that masks the killer whose promised
portrait grows murkier as the film develops." (p. 98)
The phrase 'Cartesian subject' refers to Henry being the center of the
world, i.e., the philosopher Descartes' discussion of the self (the "I").
Furthermore, Pinedo does not suffer from the hackneyed simpleton syndrome
that seems to ever plague the media: "The power of the single-bullet
theory that violence in the media causes violence in everyday life is that
it is able to direct anger and fear about real-life atrocities into a
concrete and emotionally satisfying target. Simplistic though it may be,
this argument appeals because it lends itself to scapegoating and to [...]
tunnel vision [...]." (p. 106) This follows simply because "[t]o accord
horror films the power the power of inducing real-life violence is to make
film bear the blame for the larger social processes in which film
participates as only one of many factors, while letting larger political
and economic practices off the hook." (p. 106)
Utter destruction of the ignorant mindset that horror is a mindless genre
and viewing experience with strong argument is one of the sweetest parts
of thee text.
(Btw: Noel Carrol does not write about Henry (so far as I recall), but _his
_Philosophy_of_Horror_or_Paradoxes_of_the_Heart_ still stands as the
soundest and most complete analysis of the genre.)
"The old ways are still the best." - La Vergine di Norimberga
tarantula
: If Henry isn't a horror film, what is?
Henry is one of the most terrifying horror films imo, esp.
the scene when Otis and Henry invade the suburban house and 'wrestle'
with the man and wife (?) until the neck-cracks and stabs which are perhaps
too audible. On the DVD this scene is so frigidly chilling (the uncut
version which the box claims is 130 mins.)
: For me, watching Henry for the first time was a strangely cold experience.
: It just kind of washed over me. I think the beginning and the ending are
: very good but, as a whole, I'm not really a fan of the movie. Like I said
: about Cannibal Holocaust, it's not really my idea of entertainment but it's
: definitely worth a watch. Michael Rooker is great as Henry.
: Cheers,
: Nick
To me if the film brings chills to crawl down my spine, that's a
pleasureable horror film. Henry is definitely not something to watch over
and over as Otis does with their videotaped excursions. Still, it is
worth a watching ever 3-5 years (which is just enough time to forget the
horrors; same goes for Cannibal Holocaust). "The old ways are still the
WideScreenPig
wrote:
>"The old ways are still the best." - La Vergine di Norimberga
Hey Roger,
Didn't know about "Recreational Horror..." I'll check it out. Always
nice to have some more grist for the mill when confronted with the
"Why do you WATCH this crap?" argument.
_____________________________________________
WideScreenPig
"I don't believe that evil comes out of madness...
I believe that madness comes out of evil."
- Col. Kane
andy749
with real-life atrocities,and ...say either Frankenstein or Return of
the Living Dead,or Dracula or The Howling...films that are heavy on the
fantasy element. IMO Henry is not a "Horror" movie. It's not in the same
family as the other 4 I mentioned.
cultcuts
andy749 wrote:
No it is not the same, but doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a horror film.
Boris Karloff himself stated that he hated the term Horror film pasted onto
his films, thus by your theories, you completely disagree with a master
actor. The actual definition of Horror is pretty much to disgust. This is
what Karloff took offense to. He felt his films were fantasies of the
macabre. Terror maybe, but not horror. I consider all the films you
mention to be categorized as horror if one must categorize, but different.
For example:
Alien: scifi/horror
Aliens: action/rambette/horror
Dead Alive: comedy/horror
Henry POASK: realism/horror
Frankenstein: fantasy/horror
etc. etc. etc.
Another example would be Heavy Metal music. While there are many fans of
all kinds, the categories are limitless. For example some metal heads hate
(ugh...I hate typing out these names) Faster Pussycat, Poison, Motley Crue
and other Bubble Gum metal bands yet like Slayer, Motor head, Overkill, etc.
There is Death Metal, Speed Metal, Gothic Metal, Bubble Gum Metal, the list
goes on and on.
Categorization doesn't work unless you accept generalization! I don't think
we will be seeing Poison opening for Venom anytime soon, but many would call
them both metal, just different kinds.
Personally, I don't try to categorize anything, especially living in
Seattle, with all the types of underground music and movies, etc.
I just like what I like!
Mark
http://www.concentric.net/~cultcuts
CULT CUTS MOVIE MAGAZINE
andy749
>mean it isn't a horror film.
If Henry is a horror film...then why wouldn't
Saving Private Ryan be one too? You have to draw the line
somewhere,someplace, once in a while...don't ya?
cultcuts
andy749 wrote:
> If Henry is a horror film, then why wouldn't
> Saving Private Ryan be one too. You have to draw the line
> somewhere,someplace, once in a while...don't ya?
Sure, when one crosses into another categorization to a certain point.
Saving Private Ryan is "horrifying" but, revolves around the fact that
it is a War picture which gives it a whole other genre. The horrors of
war, I think still make it a War picture, but horrifying nonetheless.
tarantula
: I just don't see the conection between a movie like Henry,that deals
: with real-life atrocities,and ...say either Frankenstein or Return of
: the Living Dead,or Dracula or The Howling...films that are heavy on the
: fantasy element. IMO Henry is not a "Horror" movie. It's not in the same
: family as the other 4 I mentioned.
It's called the postmodern monster. Hello!? "The old ways are still the
Matt Bowman
<cult...@concentric.net> writes
--
Matt Bowman
cultcuts
Matt Bowman wrote:
Hey, I didn't start it, I just responded to it. Very old argument,
definitely! Karloff had the same arguments in the sixties!
Craig Hamann
I would have to go along with Cult Cuts. Yes, the argument is an old
one, but I have to say that no matter now one categorizes HENRY, it is
horrific and disturbing (two qualities often found in my favorite
horror films).
Of course, there is a bottom line here, IMHO, which is that HENRY is
just plain good, no matter how one categorizes its genre.
Craig
andy749
>stated that he hated the term Horror film pasted
>onto his films, thus by your theories, you
>completely disagree with a master actor.
How do you get that I disagree with Karloff about anything?
All I wrote was that IMO HENRY
should not be considered as the same type of
movie that is generally or traditionally regarded as being in the
"horror" genre...such as FRANKENSTEIN, NOLD,DRAC and HOWLING, movies
that rely alot on fantasy...that deal with things not of this earth.
Matt Bowman
<and...@webtv.net> writes
movies. If you accept that Horror is a fairly meaningless genre name
then there are so many types of horror movies it becomes meaningless.
Look at the classification system biologists use - I'm studying the
bastard at the moment! There are so many different types of sub-catagory
that if you did it with movies You'd have a different section for every
movie available.
The most common argument I've heard is that "x" movie was horrifying
(for x see Schindlers List, Saving Private Ryan etc). I guess that
argument is right but generally you can tell when you are sitting down o
watch a horror movie. I guess some movies, (Like HENRY and another one
about a pedophile that was on Channel 4 a while ago) just defy the one
word description normally required to put them in a catagory.
Oh bollocks, I've confused myself now. Can anyone set this thing
straight once and for all?
--
Matt Bowman
tarantula
: >How do you get that I disagree with Karloff about anything?
: >All I wrote was that IMO HENRY
: >should not be considered as the same type of
: >movie that is generally or traditionally regarded as being in the
: >"horror" genre...such as FRANKENSTEIN, NOLD,DRAC and HOWLING, movies
: >that rely alot on fantasy...that deal with things not of this earth.
: You can't afford to be narrow minded when it comes to classifying
: movies. If you accept that Horror is a fairly meaningless genre name
: then there are so many types of horror movies it becomes meaningless.
: Look at the classification system biologists use - I'm studying the
WTF!? For crying out loud! Phantom of the Opera (1925), M('32), Dr. X
('32), Mystery of the Wax Museum, etc. HENRY belongs in the sub-genre of
horror known as Psycho/Slashers. It's as simple as that. Stop babbling
nonsense.
Classification is here O blind one leading the dumb one: Demons, Witches,
Vampires, Mad Doctors (e.g Frankenstein, Re_animator,etc.), Werewolves,
Psychos/Slashers, Ghosts, Mummies, Zombies. These have been the traditional
category for decades. Try picking up a horror book! As if a human could
not be portrayed as a monster, as if it were never about that.
Did I leave out a category? Possession would go with Demons. Giallo's?
KILLCITY69
>HENRY belongs in the sub-genre of
>horror known as Psycho/Slashers. It's as simple as that. Stop babbling
First of all, truly original films often don't fit into ANY genre. Truly
original minds don't think in terms of genre, either....with a film like FRIDAY
THE 13TH or ILSA, SHE WOLF OF THE S.S., there's no getting around it. Its
cut and dry exploitation/horror/splatter. However, this is not the case with
CHRISTMAS EVIL or AMERICAN NIGHTMARES for example. And I don't think HENRY
deserves to be seen as a "horror" movie, for its above ANY genre pigeonhole.
Why is this so hard to understand? Do you realize how narrow minded you are,
Tarantula? If you're under the age of 15, you have an excuse....so I hope you
are.
Gene
"Win some, lose some, it's all the same to me."
Motorhead
KILLCITY WEB:
http://members.aol.com/KILLCITY69
cultcuts
andy749 wrote:
> >No it is not the same, but doesn't necessarily
> >mean it isn't a horror film. Boris Karloff himself
> >stated that he hated the term Horror film pasted
> >onto his films, thus by your theories, you
> >completely disagree with a master actor.
>
> How do you get that I disagree with Karloff about anything?
> All I wrote was that IMO HENRY
> should not be considered as the same type of
> movie that is generally or traditionally regarded as being in the
> "horror" genre...such as FRANKENSTEIN, NOLD,DRAC and HOWLING, movies
> that rely alot on fantasy...that deal with things not of this earth.
Karloff's point was that his films were NOT horror because of the
fantasy element and films like Henry (it obviously wasn't released then,
but realistic films) which were meant to shock you with its grimness and
perversity WERE horror. Therefore in Karloff's theory, movies like
Henry would be horror and films like Frankenstein, he hated being called
"horror." That is where you would disagree with Karloff. Just a
statement that supports what I was saying earlier, nothing else, because
I consider his films, if generalized into a category, to be horror. He
just hated the term.
tarantula
That's so hard to understand. What's so hard to understand why it fits in
the sub-genre of psycho horror films. Psychological horror is
psychological horror. Why is it so difficult for you to stop the bs'ing?
If you're insane, you have an excuse -- haha nice head killcity, nice ad
hominem .. totally in keeping with your aptitude. Sounds like you're just
jumping in due to some greater reason here other than to add
constructively to this argument.
I've entertained reading your bulls$1+ far too long. So long KILLCITY =
KILLFILE
tarantula
: Classification is here O blind one leading the dumb one: Demons, Witches,
Sorry about this line as I was being playful and thought the : was :) I
did not mean any serious insult.
tarantula
: >No it is not the same, but doesn't necessarily
: >mean it isn't a horror film. Boris Karloff himself
: >stated that he hated the term Horror film pasted
: >onto his films, thus by your theories, you
: >completely disagree with a master actor.
:
: How do you get that I disagree with Karloff about anything?
: All I wrote was that IMO HENRY
: should not be considered as the same type of
: movie that is generally or traditionally regarded as being in the
: "horror" genre...such as FRANKENSTEIN, NOLD,DRAC and HOWLING, movies
: that rely alot on fantasy...that deal with things not of this earth.
This is a starting point, but a film merely possessing monsters is not a
sufficient condition to call it a horror film, neither is other-worldly
monsters. If that was the only condition than odysseys, myths, and fairy
tales (as Noel Carroll rightfully points out, btw) would fall into that
category and that's counterintuitive to what's commonly understood as horror.
The best working definition which enhances understanding is Carroll's:
"Members of the horror genre will be identified as narratives and/or
images (in the case of fine art, film, etc.) predicated on raising the
affect of horror in audiences." This would be fear, but not mere fear as
the threat is coupled with feelings of nausea, revulsion, or digust.
Re: otherworldly: "In works of horror, the humans regard the monsters they
meet as abnormal, as disturbances of the natural order."
Take your pick of the simple everyday classification which has been in
place and in common practice for decades and/or Carroll's explanation.
It makes a good deal more sense then the spew coming forth from that
foaming idiot who claims since he don't understand it, it don't fit.
Nice Head STILLPITY THE FOOL! Must be all that acidic urine.
andy749
>horror because of the fantasy element and films
>but realistic films) which were meant to shock
>you with its grimness and perversity WERE
>horror. Therefore in Karloff's theory, movies like
>Henry would be horror and films like
>Frankenstein, he hated being called "horror."
>That is where you would disagree with Karloff.
>Just a statement that supports what I was
>saying earlier, nothing else, because I consider
>his films, if generalized into a category, to be
>horror. He just hated the term.
By what you say then...Karloff the King agrees
with me. It doesn't matter what word you use to describe movies like
Karloff made,"horror", "terror","monster",that's besides the point. You
say it in your post...Karloff didn't like the movies he was in,
associated with movies that were meant to "shock you with their grimness
and perversity"(and realism),like HENRY. That's the point I've been
makng all along. I don't think they should be associated with each
other-connected either.
They are two of a completely different kind IMO.
andy749
>understanding is Carroll's: "Members of the
>horror genre will be identified as narratives
>and/or images (in the case of fine art, film, etc.)
>predicated on raising the affect of horror in
>audiences." This would be fear, but not mere
>fear as the threat is coupled with feelings of
>nausea, revulsion, or digust.
"The best working definition" ?...according to
who?
"feelings of nausea,revulsion, or disgust"....well,
that definitely describes watching HENRY :-)
People actually enjoy watching this?
You can quote all the people/books you want...yer not gonna change my
mind about
HENRY..nor am I gonna say anything to change anybody else's( I don't
even want to).
To each his own.
tarantula,
I was wondering, are there any movies often called "horror" that you
don't think fit? Do you consider CAPE FEAR with DeNiro "horror" THE
BOSTON STRANGLER with Tony Curtis? Are all psycho/slasher/serial killer
type movies "horror" to you?
The Gore-met
> This is a starting point, but a film merely possessing monsters is not a
> sufficient condition to call it a horror film, neither is other-worldly
> monsters.
I put forth Godzillla as a case in point.
--
"I ain't a bum. I'm a workin' man."
-Frank, Bride Of Frank
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terror! Mayhem! Bloody Horror!
The Galloping Gore-met- http://www.interlog.com/~goremet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Walpurgis
tarantula wrote:
> Nice Head STILLPITY THE FOOL! Must be all that acidic urine.
"Stillpity"! I like that!
- Dr "Don't tell me I'm not brilliant!" Walpurgis
Proud member of "the chortling, humorless geek squad"
cultcuts
Matt Bowman wrote:
> In article <27776-373...@newsd-123.bryant.webtv.net>, andy749
> <and...@webtv.net> writes
> >>No it is not the same, but doesn't necessarily
> >>mean it isn't a horror film. Boris Karloff himself
> >>stated that he hated the term Horror film pasted
> >>onto his films, thus by your theories, you
> >>completely disagree with a master actor.
> >
> >How do you get that I disagree with Karloff about anything?
> >All I wrote was that IMO HENRY
> >should not be considered as the same type of
> >movie that is generally or traditionally regarded as being in the
> >"horror" genre...such as FRANKENSTEIN, NOLD,DRAC and HOWLING, movies
> >that rely alot on fantasy...that deal with things not of this earth.
> >
> You can't afford to be narrow minded when it comes to classifying
> movies. If you accept that Horror is a fairly meaningless genre name
> then there are so many types of horror movies it becomes meaningless.
>
> Look at the classification system biologists use - I'm studying the
> bastard at the moment! There are so many different types of sub-catagory
> that if you did it with movies You'd have a different section for every
> movie available.
>
> The most common argument I've heard is that "x" movie was horrifying
> (for x see Schindlers List, Saving Private Ryan etc). I guess that
> argument is right but generally you can tell when you are sitting down o
> watch a horror movie. I guess some movies, (Like HENRY and another one
> about a pedophile that was on Channel 4 a while ago) just defy the one
> word description normally required to put them in a catagory.
>
> Oh bollocks, I've confused myself now. Can anyone set this thing
> straight once and for all?
> --
> Matt Bowman
Matt,
I think your hitting on the general idea. For the most part
categorizing entertainment really sucks! Just like, when people tell me I'm
part of the Gen X generation, yuck. Variations of themes cause creativity
but when others must pigeonhole them into a category, fine stuff gets lost
in the mix. It can be dangerous.
cultcuts
andy749 wrote:
Yes, they are two different kinds of movies and I agree with you there.
Karloff said, directly "MY FILMS ARE NOT HORROR" and "I HATE IT WHEN THEY
CALL THEM HORROR". This is where Karloff and you disagree. You say, his
movies are horror and Henry is not! He says, films like Henry are and
Frankenstein is not. This was my point and yes I understand your point of
you categorizing both types into two different categories and Karloff also
categorizes them into two different genres! But your categorization and
Karloff's are the exact opposite.
Did this make sense? It has been an ongoing debate for over 50 years, and
there are never any simple answers! I like what I like and in my tape
collection which I have in sections, Henry and Frankenstein are both in
horror sections, one modern one classic. No big deal, but a nice argument
anyways!
Skrybe
half-decent description. Whether the monster is a creature (eg: King Kong,
The Alien, The Thing, etc) or a monstrous person (Hannibal Lector, Henry,
The dude in Seven) makes no difference - they are still monsters.
I think the definition could also include the idea that the audience is
supposed to feel some form of fear, revulsion or shock. This would mean that
Godzilla 98 isn't horror (it was designed more as action) whereas something
like King Kong is horror - since it was originally intended to frighten
audiences.
This definition can then extend to include all manner of films and books,
even Dirty Harry movies, Doctor Who, Batman comics, etc.
--
Skrybe aka nospam.Ke...@publicworks.qld.gov.au
You know what to do with the spam...
Is it true that cannibals won't eat clowns because they taste funny?
ICQ: 30519074
Skrybe's Tales of Terror
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~skrybe/
Last update 22/3/1999
Check out the Aussie Horror Trading Post
The Gore-met wrote in message <373BBB...@interlog.com>...