Dread Reckoning

The Demise of Horror Culture?

[13 May 2008]

While the horror classics of 1968 may have indeed revitalized the genre, few today are aware of these movies' impact on the canon...if they acknowledge them at all.

By Marco Lanzagorta

In this installment of Dread Reckoning, we continue our celebration of the 40th anniversary of the American Nightmare. As discussed last month, in 1968 four revolutionary films were unleashed into the world, and they completely changed horror culture: George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead, Roman Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby, Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Franklin J. Schaffner’s Planet of the Apes.

One could easily go to great lengths in discussing the aesthetic and narrative impact of these films. As previously argued, these masterworks defined what is known today as the postmodern horror film. That is, these movies repudiate narrative closure, question rationality, portray authority institutions as inefficient and decadent, and are quite grim and violent. Back in 1968 these characteristics were original, and in a sense, they can be appreciated as a reaction to the political and social turmoil of the era.

cover art

2001: A Space Odyssey

Director: Stanley Kubrick
Cast: Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, William Sylvester, Daniel Richter

(Warner Bros.; US theatrical: 2 Nov 2001; 1968/2001)

cover art

Night of the Living Dead: Millennium Edition

Director: George A. Romero
Cast: Duane Jones, Judith O'Dea, Karl Hardman, Russell Streiner, Marilyn Eastman

(Image Ten Productions; US theatrical: Available; 1968)

cover art

Planet of the Apes

Director: Franklin J. Schaffner
Cast: Charlton Heston, Roddy McDowall, Kim Hunter, Maurice Evans, James Whitmore, James Daly, Linda Harrison, Robert Gunner, Lou Wagner

(Twentieth Century Fox; 1968)

cover art

Rosemary's Baby

Director: Roman Polanski

(Paramount Pictures; 2008)

Furthermore, the undeniable critical and box office success of these films had a dramatic impact on the motion picture industry. For instance, Night of the Living Dead exposed the untapped economic viability and aesthetic potential of low budget independent productions. On the other hand, 2001 and Rosemary’s Baby showcased how horror cinema had to be acknowledged as a reputable form of art, worthy of large production values under the able hands of acclaimed filmmakers. As such, not only are recent horror movies clearly indebted to these classics, but also contemporary science fiction and independent flicks are part of their legacy.

However, from a cultural perspective it is really troubling that, even though these films have legions of devoted followers, they remain unknown by a large percentage of modern cinemagoers. Indeed, while the legacy of Night of the Living Dead, Rosemary’s Baby, Planet of the Apes, and 2001 continue to be appreciated and evaluated by critics, academics, and fans, somehow their popularity is limited when considering the total number of people who watch movies on a regular basis.

At the same time it is important to note that this is not a problem unique to the films that constitute the American Nightmare. If you think about it, nowadays very few people have seen the astonishing German expressionistic films from the ‘20s, the Universal classics from the ‘30s, the poverty row horrors from the ‘40s, or the giant monsters extravaganzas from the ‘50s. From my personal experience, more than a few devoted members of our beloved horror subculture are hesitant of watching silent flicks. And of course, a similar observation remains valid for movies outside the horror genre.

Arguably, modern cinemagoers wrongly believe that films made before their time will not address their specific cultural contextually, and therefore can be safely ignored. Truth be told, except for a few intransigent connoisseurs like me, the essential building blocks of our horror heritage are being avoided by the majority of modern audiences. That is, even though horror films are consumed on a regular basis by a large number of viewers, their historical roots tend to be completely ignored.

However, if you think about it, this is completely different from the way the classical arts tend to be consumed and appreciated. Indeed, those who enjoy the bliss of classical music very rarely concentrate their interest on modern works while ignoring everything else. If anything, the works of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, or Wagner, are far more popular than those by Alexander Goehr and Lepo Sumera. And a similar observation holds true for those who value sculpture or painting.

Of course one could argue that the classical music fan should be compared to the horror connoisseur for a more fair assessment. After all, these two groups form well established subcultures. However, this is not the case, as what really matters are those who consume these cultural products, and not their particular experts and authorities. That is, within the context of this discussion, the general movie crowd who attends a showing of a horror film should be compared to the general audience who attends a performance at the concert hall.

Furthermore, in our modern technological world, where a large number of important films from all periods of cinema history are accessible on DVD, the dodging of classic movies is a truly unforgivable state of affairs. But then again, perhaps the large assortment of options available on home video is the reason why people may not want to spend their valuable time, and dollars, with older movies. As thousands of new films are made every year, it has become extremely difficult just to be up to date with the current releases.

These observations make us ponder if the difference between popular and classical cultural products is the way their historical roots are cherished and appreciated. In such a case, in what appears to be a contradiction, the discrimination of the horror classics by general audiences appears to be a consequence of the popularity of the genre. That is, because movies are popular cultural products designed and manufactured for immediate consumption, their historical context seems to become irrelevant by the public at large. Therefore, in a rather nontrivial manner, the immediacy and availability of home video has complicated the appreciation of older movies. Talk about an irony.

On a personal note, as I was growing up during the ‘70s, well before the wide adoption of the VCR, my initiation to older flicks was mostly due to the limited programming on broadcast TV. And most of my friends had similar upbringings. And even thought they are not obsessed with films like me, they have a rather wide knowledge of cinema history. Today, on the other hand, there is so much variety at our hands that there is no need to sit through a movie whose title does not match our artificial expectations. And as a matter of fact, except for a couple of channels, it is now nearly impossible to catch older movies on TV.

At this point I have to confess that, for as incredible as it may sound, Night of the Living Dead, Rosemary’s Baby, Planet of the Apes, and 2001 became favorites of mine, well before I watched them for the first time. Indeed, even though I was a toddler when they were originally released, I read a lot about them in film books and magazines. And except for Planet of the Apes, I actually read the respective novels and novelizations prior to having an opportunity to see them on a cinema screen.

However, as I talked to brothers in arms, I came to realize that my situation is not unique. Most horror fans I know got inducted and initiated to these films by positive word of mouth, by reading about them in books or magazines, or by pure peer pressure. Therefore, although all my evidence is completely anecdotic, I believe that the explicit legacy of these films has survived throughout the years mostly because of an unofficial and informal tradition of information dissemination forged by horror film fans.

Regarding fandom, it is crucial to notice that there is an age gap that clearly distinguishes the majority of the fans that love the old classics of the genre, in contrast to those followers of current gore extravaganzas. That is, most fans of the Universal classics are adults over 50-years-old, while nearly all the followers of the latest torture porn flicks are under 25. Also, each group tends to foster and promote, in a nearly exclusive manner, their favorite films. Thus, as the generation of kids that forged horror culture during the ‘50s begins to fade away, so does part of our heritage.

Further amplifying this problem is the recent collapse of the horror magazine industry, which has being displaced by the extra features found in DVDs and by specialized web sites. Arguably, this shift has translated into a lack of focused and centralized sources of information devoted to the serious discussion and appreciation of older films. For example, more than a simple magazine, during the ‘60s Famous Monsters of Filmland was a true cultural beacon that disseminated the love for the films of Lon Chaney, Bela Lugosi, and Boris Karloff to nearly all fans of the genre. In contrast, today, in spite of the ubiquitous nature of modern information technologies, there is no web site that plays a cultural role equivalent to Forry Ackerman’s beloved magazine.

On a side note, from a cultural perspective it is equally troubling that many important horror magazines and fanzines that were published since the mid ‘50s, and which contain a wealth of valuable information, are only available on the private collections of a few individuals. Without an official repository such as the U.S. Library of Congress taking hold of these collections, aiding on their restoration and preservation, horror culture risks insurmountable losses.

Therefore, if the traditions that forged our beloved fright subculture during the second half of the 20th century continue to disappear, then we could foresee a near future where Night of the Living Dead, Rosemary’s Baby, Planet of the Apes, and 2001 will become forgotten classics. Forget about killer computers and rotting zombies, this is really terrifying!

Marco Lanzagorta received a PhD in physics from Oxford University and has worked at prestigious research institutions in England, Italy, Switzerland, Mexico and the US. During the past 18 years, he has conducted research in physics, computer science, and neuroscience. Currently, Marco is a scientific consultant for the US Department of Defense at a major research laboratory in Washington DC, and an affiliate associate professor at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.

Dread Reckoning

Fighting the Flu

By Marco Lanzagorta

04.May.09

The mobilization of the military to control the spread of the current outbreak of a rare strain of the swine flu in Mexico City is right out of Stephen King’s The Stand.

By One’s Own Hand, Then

By Marco Lanzagorta

18.Feb.09

On the one hand society at large relies on moral and theological arguments to ban suicide; on the other our world is plagued with destructive wars and suicidal conflicts.

Something to Do with Death

By Marco Lanzagorta

06.Jan.09

By manipulating mankind’s fear of death, organized religion clearly emerges as the most ruthless and totalitarian authority institution in the history of the world.

 
 
Comments

eah, that’s about right.

Of course, a part of this problem is the very existence of the “cult movie buff” and the “horror fan.” As laudable as Ackerman and his offspring are, the existence of the parallel world of horror film criticism and the parallel world of horror film marketing means that we’ve managed to seperate the universe of the “horror film buff” from the world of the regular movie buff, which is at the heart of the problem you’re writing about. “Horror movie fans” want different kinds of kicks than your run of the mill “movie buff.” We do have several contemporary Forry Ackerman….Chas Balum or “Deep Red,” that Bougie guy of “Cinema Sewer,” Bill Landis and Michele Clifford, Jo Bobb Briggs are a few of the most prominent examples. They are doing the same work Ackerman did. “Famous Monsters” chronicled exploitation cinema from twenty to thirty years before it’s time, as do these guys. Only instead of a trash culture made of monster movies and poverty row shockers, we get gore flicks, zombie movies, violent pornography, and other assorted sleaze. (Bear in mind these are descriptive labels, not pajoritive ones….I like this crap!) DVD companies that specialize in reissuing old horror and exploitation movies movies are similarly minded. Synapse Pictures anyone? Blue Underground?

The fact that most film audiences are aesthtically illiterate and historically ignorant isn’t odd or alarming….not eveybody is a movie buff…. but the fact that horror movie geeks…people who devote lots of movie, time, and energy into the genre, and who therefore are the target audience of horror filmakers, and who therefore have a lot of say in what gets made….seem to have memories that go no further than “Dawn of the Dead.”

The fact is that horror fans generally become horror fans when they are teenagers with teenaged concerns. I, like a bunch of other horror geeks my age, remember seeing the icky, sexy, perverse video boxes in my local video store, and wanting to get my hands on those little slices of the forbidden. Out of this fascination grew a much larger interest in the history of the genre, but my aesthetic values really were founded by looking at those video boxes. For ME horror the central texts in horror cinema are Lucio Fulci’s Zombie flicks and “A Nighmare on Elm Street.” Why is this? Because those movies shocked me and turned me on when I was 13.

Loving this jolt of the trasgressive, or rather, loving this jolt of what seemed trangressive, is what roped me into being a horror geek. Certainly my tastes have expanded since then, but in my head, horror movies are always reacting against or living up to those flicks that formed my interest.

Since being a horror movie geek is driven by different impulses that the impulses that make somebody a run of the mill movie buff (I’m one of those too, but to a much lesser extent), those two groups of folks have pretty diffent attitudes about the past. If you claim to be a movie buff but haven’t seen at least three or four Akira Kurasawa flicks, or if you don’t know anything about Italian neo-realism or Charlie Chaplin, then you are a poser. If you claim to be a horror buff and you don’t know who James Whale is…..well, so what? Defining oneself as a horror film buff means that you love trash culture, that you want to see art that adopts the pose of being transgressive, that you like to be shocked. These are adolescent concerns, and while horror films certainly aren’t necessarily stupid or adolescent, one usually must be able to see through adolescent eyes to really “get” a horror film. The stuff that was “cool” when you WERE an adolescent will always be central to you.  “Dawn of the Dead” is a brilliant satire of patricarchal authority and mindless consumerism, but it’s also a movie where you can see a zombie get the top of its head wached off with a helicopter blade in a mist of orange blood. Bad freakin’ ass.

I would certainly like it if horror geeks made more of an effort to incorporate the “classical music fan” mentality you’re talking about into their viewing habits, and I certainly would like it if more of my fellow horror fans had broader tastes. Why isn’t Warner Herzog’s “Nosferatu” remake held with the same esteem by horror fans as the awesome, but vastly inferior “The Seven Doors of Death”? Because one hits those adolescent buttons and one doesn’t.

Of course, the fact that the horror geek film has a well cultivated subculture where these alternative values rule is no surprise…mainstream values aren’t equipped to seriously deal with a film like “I Spit on Your Grave” or “The House by the Cemetary,” nor are mainstream critics inclinded to try. Had rottentomatoes existed back then, both of these films would have ranked as some of the all time “least fresh” films ever. But they are classics; important, influential films that have provoked more respectable filmmakers to make films that critics have taken very seriously, like “Irreversable,” just to name one obvious example.

What might be a big threat to the health of the horror film is the way that horror culture has gotten better at promoting and defining itself. I’m not against film festivals or horror conventions, but I do wonder if we are helping to limit what horror films are supposed to be. How much Romero-lite do we really need?

By the way….a book that adopts what I think is an ideal mix of historically minded criticism and geeked out fun is Jamie Russell’s “Book of the Dead.” In addition to providing a broad, throrough historical base and tying differet eras of film history together, it manages to make critical sense of the excess of the zombie movie genre without being spoilsportish.

This post is getting out of hand, so I’ll call it a day. Thanks for an interesting article.

Comment by jamie — May 13, 2008 @ 3:46 pm

Hi Jamie,

I am glad to know that you found interesting my most recent column. I agree with your insightful comments, and I would like to briefly comment on them.

Certainly Chas Balum and Joe Bob Briggs are exceptional writers that manage to disseminate the interest and love for the horror genre, or at least for those “trash flicks” from the 1980s (which I love). Personally, Balum’s many variants and editions of his horror score guides were fundamental during my teenager days. However, quite unfortunately, Balum and Briggs pretty much have disappeared from the map since 5 or 6 years ago. If there is a writer/publication that may compete with Ackerman’s Famous Monsters, within a cultural context, that would be Tim Lucas and his exceptional Video Watchdog.

Also, we must be of about the same age, I was in my early teens during the late 1970s and early 1980s, and those years I saw movies which to date I still adulate: Alien, The Shinning, Altered States, The Thing, Videodrome, Escape From NY, Zombie, The Beyond, Mad Max 2, Blade Runner, Conan The Barbarian… So, indeed, when, where, and with whom one watches a movie is very significant to the way one appreciates them. But then again, this is part of the cultural contextuality which I constantly refer in this and previous articles.

Similarly, I believe that most of the followers and admirers of these films I mention are people of about our age. So, when we fade away, so will be part of the interest for these specific movies. Today, most of the principal writers who keep alive the silent flicks, the Universal classics, and the Hammer films, are at least in their early 40s. And I am indeed afraid that when they pass away, these older films will progressively become less popular than what they are today.

Regarding conventions, I used to attend almost every single year the Midnight Marquee and Fangoria reunions. Unfortunately, the first one, with its strong emphasis on older movies, it has practically disappeared. And the second, with its emphasis on movies that have not even been released, it feels more like a promotional event and lacks a critical appreciation of the genre (and still, believe it or not, one of the happiest moments in my entire life was the very first Fangoria convention I attended, back in 1990). In any event, I do not think that these fan gatherings have too much of an influence on the horror industry, but they just reiterate what the box office numbers show.

Marco

Comment by Marco Lanzagorta from Norway — May 15, 2008 @ 7:24 am

Curiously, I’m a few years younger than you (28), but the video store shelves looked about the same when I was a young teenager. Those flicks and their goofier, zanier knockoffs (Barbarian Queen, Return of the Living Dead, etc.) were the ones I remember staring at on the shelf.

I’m not sure conventions don’t have a bigger influence than you acknowledge. For low budget horror, the trick seems to be to get the film onto a screen at a convention so that a DVD distributer will pick it up. That means that stuff than “plays” with audiences of horror geeks on vacation has a better shot at getting onto the shelves.

Of course, I don’t really know that much about the biz, so this perception might have more to do with the films that get written about in the horror press (and those usually do play at film festivals) than anything else. Oh well.

I guess Chas Balum hasn’t really turned out much lately. I saw him briefly in a doc about the making of “The Manson Family” a couple of years ago, but I don’t remember when that footage was actually shot.

Comment by Jamie — May 18, 2008 @ 3:02 am

Add a comment

Please enter your name and a valid email address. Your email address will not be displayed. It is required only to prevent comment spam.

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the sequence of letters and numbers you see in the image above. Do not include any spaces.