Follow Up: Zinoman's Horror Criticism

7/8/2011

In my previous blog post, I discussed the first two entries in Jason Zinoman's four-part Slate magazine series on ways to "fix" the horror genre. In this post, I will briefly follow up with a discussion of Zinoman's third and fourth parts.

In Part III, Zinoman advocates more remakes of well-known horror movies, provided that they become more "relevant" to contemporary audiences, generally by reflecting contemporary political and social controversies (his example is Carrie and post-Columbine paranoia):

"A remake that follows the script of the original while ratcheting up the body count offers few surprises. But one that brings back beloved old monsters while occasionally turning left when we're expecting a turn right has the potential to scare us in ways the original never did."

Somehow this seems wrong. If a monster is "beloved," it ceases to become frightening. This is one reason the Universal monsters of the 1930s grew progressively less frightening in the 1940s and then downright lovable thereafter. It is also why audiences cheer for Michael Myers, Freddie Kruger, and Jason Vorhees rather than cringe in fear. Even Scream's Ghostface and Saw's Jigsaw puppet have become familiar rather than frightening.

In Part IV, Zinoman advocates for more gore, for him the highest form of horror. He seriously misunderstands Stephen King's reflection in Danse Macabre that he seeks first to terrify, and if he cannot do that, to horrify, and if that is impossible to generate a "gross-out." This is not, as Zinoman thinks, King's squeamishness over gore; instead, it is King's recognition that there are levels of fear. The highest is terror (pure psychological fear), followed by horror (psychological fear mixed with fear for one's body), with "gross" things (purely physical disgust) at the bottom rung as the least effective form of horror. How Zinoman misunderstands that is beyond me, since King says as much in so many words.

Taken together, the four parts of Zinoman's series paint his ideal film as a plot-free, ultra-violent remake of something we've seen before. In other words, exactly what Hollywood is already doing.

Update: Zinoman has responded to this post here.

3 Comments

Jason Zinoman

7/8/2011 02:31:57 pm

Jason,
I appreciate these responses to my Slate essays especially since one of the things I hoped to do was to spark some discussion. The problem is that I have trouble engaging with your arguments because you mischaracterize almost every point I make. So the only suitable response is to try and clarify on the level of facts. I hope you will not mind. I will go sentence by sentence.

WHAT YOU SAY
Jason Zinoman is attempting to “fix” the horror movie by making suggestions to “return” horror films to the pure, perfect state they achieved in the 1970s, roughly around the time of Zinoman’s youth or just before, when, in the time-honored tradition of cultural scolds, all things were better and purer and more wonderful.

THE TRUTH
I do think that the period from 1968 through 1980 was a golden age for the genre, but I never said it was a pure, perfect state. I don’t think all things were better in my youth, which was not when you say it was. I was born in 1975 and started watching horror in earnest in the following decade. I have an opinion that horror films were very good then. You might have a different one. Fine.

WHAT YOU SAY
Zinoman’s problem with contemporary horror movies resolves primarily to a single point: Horror movies, he believes, need to be nearly plot-free orgies of ultra-violence.

THE TRUTH
I never say all horror movies need to be nearly plot-free. Or that they must be orgies of violence. My point about back-story is strictly about the monster and does not mean that no good horror movies can have a monster with a back-story. I love all kinds of horror movies, and I have raved in print about everything from The Eclipse to Rosemary’s Baby. But when it comes to creating a really frightening monster, my opinion is that the scariest ones are part of this subgenre represented by Halloween, Henry, The Hithcer, etc. You may disagree and the world is big enough for both of our opinions. But please get mine right.

WHAT YOU SAY
In the first entry in his Slate series, Zinoman (who by miraculous coincidence has a new book out about the glories of 1960s and 1970s horror films) argues that horror today is not perverted, violent, and disgusting enough to satisfy Americans’ bloodlust.

THE TRUTH
I never say that horror is not perverted, violence or disgusting enough to satisfy American’s bloodlust. That’s pure invention. Yes, I wrote a book. And I do hope people will buy and read it. You got that right.

WHAT YOU SAY
This view is so deeply, entirely, and completely wrong that it threatens to undermine everything the horror genre has stood for since its inception at the hands of Horace Walpole in 1768. Traditional horror has been extremely conservative, working to uphold the manners and mores of the day by dealing out punishment to those who transgress. It is only with the rise of postmodernism in the 1960s and 1970s that horror decoupled itself from traditional Western values and began its descent into mindless, barbaric violence. But, remembering that Zinoman believes 1968-1979 to be horror’s most perfect years, it is no wonder that he interprets the genre’s history as a lead up and reaction to that golden era.

THE TRUTH
These are for the most part opinions. You have a right to them.

WHAT YOU SAY
In the second installment of his series, Zinoman argued that horror movies spend too much time on “back story” (or, rather, plot) at the expense of debased violence. For him, the “unknown killer” is infinitely more interesting than the killer explained.

THE TRUTH
I never say horror movies spend too much time on back story. I happen to think there are some horror movies that benefit greatly from back story but anyway, back to facts. I never say I want more debased violence. I also never say the unknown killer is “more interesting.” I say they are more unsettling and then explain why. I also said “three-dimensional characters” and “complex psychological portraits” can be wonderful in horror movies. In a later installment, I write that horror movies can be cerebral (like those of Cronenberg who I love) or discrete (like those of Polanski, who I also love). None of this penetrates your understanding of my view of horror. I suggest you try harder.

WHAT YOU SAY
But Zinoman has the gall to use H. P. Lovecraft’s famous quotation from Supernatural Horror in Literature about the power of the unknown to generate fear to defend his views. If ever there were a horror writer who was the antithesis of Zinoman’s violent ethos, it was Lovecraft. What, after all, is “The Call of Cthulhu” (1926) except back story? The entirety of the story is told in flashbacks, back story to a very thin framing tale of a man shuffling papers at a desk.

THE TRUTH
You are entitled to this as well.

WHAT YOU SAY
Zinoman has confused definitions and has muddied the waters of horror t

7/8/2011 02:36:59 pm

WHAT YOU SAY
Zinoman has confused definitions and has muddied the waters of horror to include violence but exclude nearly all else.

THE TRUTH
I’m curious: Where do I define horror in my four essays exactly? I never do. Each essay has a narrow thesis and the thorny and quite interesting question “What is Horror” does not come up. The idea that I exclude anything from my one theory of horror is pure fantasy.

WHAT YOU SAY
I therefore differ from Zinoman in an important way: While I recognize Halloween and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre as horror movies, I do so not because they are violent (frankly, Halloween is almost bloodless in any but a psychological sense) but because they use fear to explore the unknown.

THE TRUTH
You offer a definition of horror, if im not mistaken. That’s one of us.

WHAT YOU SAY
Zinoman would, in honor of the 1970s-1980s slasher film wave, have shocks and blood be the sine qua non of horror, but the genre’s greatest masterpieces have been almost free from the type of morbid, perverted violence Zinoman himself prefers and therefore wishes to make universal. “The Call of Cthulhu” is a horror story, but not a bloody one. Frankenstein (Shelley’s novel or Whale’s movie) is a horror story, but non one built on violence. The Haunting (either the original film version or Jackson’s novel) is frightening because of its psychological insight, not for any severed limbs or blood. Would The Turn of the Screw be improved with a few more disembowelings? Would M. R. James’ reputation rise with the inclusion of a “human centipede”?

THE TRUTH
I never say that shocks, blood and violence should be universal and since pretty much the entire paragraph rests on that premise, it lacks relevance.

WHAT YOU SAY
The point is that horror is no one thing, and neither is fear. Violent, bloody fare has its place, and some of it (like two of my favorites, Halloween and the Texas Chain Saw Massacre) approaches greatness. But one thing horror should not be is the modern equivalent of the Roman Coliseum. If horror movies exist for no other reason than to torture and maim and kill, then they are less works of art than snuff films. The most debased violence, Zinoman is correct to note, belongs in horror movies; transgression is a part of horror’s soul. But he is wrong to say that there is no need to have a plot or story to justify such excesses. Filmed violence, absent any purpose other than depictions of the obscene, is not horror; it is pornography. No, wait, check that. Porn at least sometimes attempts plot.

THE TRUTH
Again, I never say there is no need to have a plot. You missed the entire point that I was referring to the monster. Even Halloween has a plot. So does every other movie I talk about. You apparently missed that, too.

So now we come to blog post two.

WHAT YOU SAY
In Part III, Zinoman advocates more remakes of well-known horror movies, provided that they become more "relevant" to contemporary audiences, generally by reflecting contemporary political and social controversies (his example is Carrie and post-Columbine paranoia):

THE TRUTH
I do not advocate for more remakes. Here is what I say:

“Most die-hard horror fans will tell you that the remake is a corrosive virus that threatens to take over the entire industry. Critics are either dismissive or infuriated by it, especially when they learn that a sacred cow like Carrie is being remade. Alas, there are enough moviegoers willing to shell out to see the same old monsters trotted out once again that the studios aren't likely to close up the remake mill anytime soon. But here's the good news: Remakes don't have to be as bad as they are. And the best way for directors to start making them better is by breaking that first rule.”

Notice the “alas” and the “here are the good news” following the point about people willing to shell out money. Someone paying attention would notice this indicates I don’t like the trend of so many remakes but since we are stuck with them, I argue, here is a theory to make them better. I also never say that we need them to be “relevant” at all. Now I did bring up Columbine and the point about how effective it is when directors tap into phobias and anxieties of the day, but that was in a previous essay. I do say that updating Carrie to reflect the changing times would be a better strategy than just copying the old one. But I also bring up several other examples (Frankenstein, Sweeney Todd, both of which incidentally are the opposite of gory, explicit violence) that have nothing to do with relevance, so you are once again creating a straw man. Have at him.

WHAT YOU SAY
Somehow this seems wrong. If a monster is "beloved," it ceases to become frightening. This is one reason the Universal monsters of the 1930s grew progressively less frightening in the 1940s and then downright lovable ther

jason Zinoman

7/8/2011 02:37:50 pm

WHAT YOU SAY
Somehow this seems wrong. If a monster is "beloved," it ceases to become frightening. This is one reason the Universal monsters of the 1930s grew progressively less frightening in the 1940s and then downright lovable thereafter. It is also why audiences cheer for Michael Myers, Freddie Kruger, and Jason Vorhees rather than cringe in fear. Even Scream's Ghostface and Saw's Jigsaw puppet have become familiar rather than frightening.

THE TRUTH
Opinions.

WHAT YOU SAY
In Part IV, Zinoman advocates for more gore, for him the highest form of horror. He seriously misunderstands Stephen King's reflection in Danse Macabre that he seeks first to terrify, and if he cannot do that, to horrify, and if that is impossible to generate a "gross-out." This is not, as Zinoman thinks, King's squeamishness over gore; instead, it is King's recognition that there are levels of fear. The highest is terror (pure psychological fear), followed by horror (psychological fear mixed with fear for one's body), with "gross" things (purely physical disgust) at the bottom rung as the least effective form of horror. How Zinoman misunderstands that is beyond me, since King says as much in so many words.

THE TRUTH
I never advocate for more gore, I advocate for ceasing to divide horror up between the good non-gore kind and the bad gore kind, since I think it’s a simplification. As for saying it’s the highest form of horror, you made that up. As for King, I know his different levels but my point that was that the fact that he delineated levels with a highest and a lowest, which is the gross-out, tells you something. What does that tell you? I was clear: “It's a reminder that while few artists have done more to bring gruesome horror into the mainstream, King belongs to a generation of artists that viewed gore as something to be a little ashamed about.” Now perhaps you think that there is less gore today and it’s less accepted in movies, but that would be an opinion. Not my concern.

WHAT YOU SAY
Taken together, the four parts of Zinoman's series paint his ideal film as a plot-free, ultra-violent remake of something we've seen before. In other words, exactly what Hollywood is already doing.

THE TRUTH
I never mention my ideal film anywhere.

So I think that covers it. I hope this clarifies things and I hope you print this since otherwise, you have a lot of misleading information on your blog. All the best, Jason

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Follow Up: Zinoman's Horror Criticism

Leave a Reply.

Author

Newsletters

Categories

Terms & Conditions

Archives