By Stephen King
While walking back to my Boston hotel after a surprisingly well-attended Tuesday afternoon showing of Bryan Bertino's horror thriller The Strangers, I found myself musing on what's scary and what's not. Whatever it is, The Strangers had enough of it to do incredibly well at the box office [JPX saw The Strangers and thought it sucked]. But what makes such a little film with only one star (Liv Tyler) work in the first place? That the question interests me shouldn't amaze anyone, since I've worked in the scare-'em-silly field for years. And it must be of vital interest to Twentieth Century Fox, which this summer releases two movies in the genre with much higher budgets: The Happening and The X-Files: I Want to Believe. The Happening was better than I expected, but it wasn't as scary as The Strangers. As for The X-Files (out July 25)? Children, I have my doubts.
One thing that seems clear to me, looking back at the 10 or a dozen films that truly scared me, is that most really good horror films are low-budget affairs with special effects cooked up in someone's basement or garage. Among those that truly work are Carnival of Souls, Halloween, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Night of the Living Dead, and The Blair Witch Project. All cost almost nothing to make and earned millions, while their sequels and remakes were crap (Dawn of the Dead in both its incarnations being the exception that proves the rule).
Horror is an intimate experience, something that occurs mostly within oneself, and when it works, the screams of a sold-out house are almost intrusive. In that sense, a movie such as Blair Witch is more like poetry than like the ''event films'' that pack the plexes in summer. Those flicks tend to be like sandwiches overstuffed with weirdly tasteless meat and cheese, meals that glut the belly but do nothing for the soul. Studio execs, who not only live behind the curve but seem to have built mansions there, don't seem to understand that most moviegoers recognize all the bluescreens and computer graphics of big-budget films and flick them aside. Those movies blast our emotions and imaginations, instead of caressing them with a knife edge.
Read rest of article here
9 comments:
I'm not ready to completely write off the Strangers yet. I didn't love it, but it had its good moments. I watched it very distractedly and I feel it deserves a second viewing. I’d say more, but I have to leave for work.
The set-up was great but the final reel does not deliver. There's a lot of build-up that leads to nowhere.
I wasn't as bothered by that as you, in fact, I think I can live with it. I feel that I need a second viewing of this film before I could give my final review, but, in contrast to your opinion, I think my biggest problem is at the very beginning of the film when it is revealed that that the two protagonists will die. I see why he made that decision but it partly ruined the suspense for me. Instead of anticipating their survival, my anticipation moved towards the part you’re referring to, and I left feeling unsatisfied.
I think I’m not willing to say this film sucked because I think in many ways it came close to being something great, but yet fell very short because of some poor choices. Although, not as creepy as I would have liked the film definitely has its moments, and it’s when it’s done very subtly that it works. I liked the cinematography. I think the color choice was great. It is subdued and clam, which is in contrast to the film. It works well. I liked the lack of dialogue, and use of sounds.
I’d say more, but I have to go class.
I haven't seen this yet, but the picture in EW that went with the review makes me angry alone. The picture shows Liv Tyler and her man, on the floor of the house, with a shotgun across his lap. (Some of the trailers showed them with a gun as well) Unless the plot twist is that there is no ammo for the gun, I will hate this movie. Here's why:
If you cannot survive, in a locked house, WITH A FUCKING SHOTGUN, you don't deserve to live. The exception to this rule would of course be supernatural opponents, which it appears does not apply to the Strangers.
I agree that the film has a great creepy vibe and look, but nothing happens in the story and there is no satisfaction with the home invasion situation whatsoever. I'll watch is again for Horrorthon. WG and I watched it at the drive-in outdoors and there were too many distractions to enjoy the film.
JSP, my email isn't working, which is why I haven't responded to your email.
Well that's just unacceptable.
So did Stephen King really just compare the Blair Witch Project to poetry?
Hilarious avatar, JSP!
I am not interested in anything Stephen King has to say about horror movies, because he has proven himself to have no understanding of them at all.
It's too bad, because he used to be pretty good on the subject. He wrote a book in like 1980 (Danse Macabre) analyzing the horror genre, and its chapters about movies were good; very well done.
Now that he writes that ridiculous column in EW I go to special unprecedented lengths to avoid encountering his lame-o ideas. Back thirty years ago he was still trying to use a regular critical framework to examine the stuff; now he's content to shoot his mouth off in the laziest possible fashion, not even bothering to tap into his formidable critical skills in order to make sense of what he's trying to say.
His point here is stupid. Sometimes big horror movies are good (The Ring, The Exorcist) and sometimes small horror movies are good (The Blair Witch Project, Night of the Living Dead) and, yes, there are some underlying principles involved, but you have to do some fucking work in order to determine what, exactly, those principles are and how to develop them as useful, enlightening ideas rather than just as a glib summary that explains nothing. "Only the cheap ones are good! [bangs gavel] There, I figured it out. Next?"
Umm..this post is probably too late, but the movies that scared the SHIT out of me?
Alien
Close Encounters
2001
2010
ET
Empire Strikes Back
Freddy, Jason, zombies - those al totally fell almost into the comedy realm for me as a kid. I was never scared or horrified of those fuckers.
Those movies above all represented a HUGE shift in thinking for me, almost horrific, and the way they all were presented was extraordinarily powerful, and they all haunted my dreams for years. To this day, almost.
My mom has a great story about me, as an eight year old, PASSING OUT during that scene where ET is facedown and pink in the ditch. Apparently I started convulsing. She had to carry me around the lobby whispering "It's just a movie" for a good 20 minutes before I could deal with going back in.
I don't remember this, but it's a testament to Spielberg's filmmaking that he can make a kid completely lose his shit like that. The Horror Genre has never made me feel that way, emotionally. I was "horrified" at the prospect of this alien being laid down in a ditch.
For the longest time (like WELL into my 20s), I couldn't look at the screen when the "spider alien" appeared in the ship in Close Encounters. The monolith in 2001/2010? Terrifying. The alien in Alien? (shudder, no words)
And as a 6 year old, Vader TERRIFIED me in ESB. Fortunately, I grew up to be a total nerd.
Anyway, my point is that "horror" is in the eye of the beholder. I haven't been truly "horrified" by a movie in years...
Post a Comment