Horror at the Movies

I'm not a horror movie aficionado. My taste in scary movies runs to the old Universal monsters -- Frankenstein, Dracula, the Wolf Man -- or the poorly done ones of the fifties and sixties. You know: the Blob, the Creeping Terror. Monsters that had to be helped by their victims, who stick their hands in unknown goo or run around in circles or really, r e a l l y slowly until the guys under the shag rug catch up with and devour them.

I've completely ignored horror's evolution into the bloody and gory, the psychotic madmen with chainsaws and the supernatural villains who kill without discrimination or motivation. You can get enough of that reading the news. Callous sadistic people are a minority, but they make themselves known. In short, I don't like these movies, so I don't see them.

My friend's husband, son and sister in law go to every horror movie. It's a thrill -- like riding a roller coaster or bungee jumping. And a test: they can face the grossest of the gross-out stuff and take it. That's fine with me. I don't like the bloody, explicit horror movies that started with Day of the Dead, but to each his own. I don't think it's the end of civilization, or that people will see these things and become desensitized or psychotic killers. There are some traits, like callousness, that are inborn, and emerge to a greater or lesser degree depending on a person's upbringing.

However, the latest excuse for a horror movie disappointed them. I'm not naming it; it doesn't deserve any publicity. It wasn't a question of gore, even though this was excessive, according to them. It's the spirit of the movie.

Even in the worst of these things, there are a few conventions. There's usually a hero who outfoxes the killers, a few people who have been made sympathetic and the audience roots for them to survive. Generally at least some of them do. The evil force -- whatever it is -- is defeated. At least until the sequel.

This movie, it seems, is extraordinarily mean spirited, even for the genre. According to my friend her son described it thus: The first half hour is soft porn -- beautiful young people continuously having sex -- boobs and penises out bouncing around. Then the remainder of the movie is unrelieved bloody violence. Brutal torture and bloody killings. Everybody dies. One girl who survives being blow torched in the face and having her eye pulled out throws herself under a train, gore and body parts flying about. No reason is ever given for what's happened; there is no plot.

I wonder about the motivations of the writer, director, and anyone instrumental in foisting this off on an unsuspecting public. I've read conservatives who say that Hollywood's liberal screenwriters and directors are more interested in pushing their own leftist agendas than in making good films. Is this some sort of propaganda effort by necrophiliacs? Do the people behind this film get off on gore? Is that why they have the soft core at the beginning -- to get everyone excited, then abruptly replace the images of sex with those of violence? And they hope that people are going to stay stimulated and begin to associate violence with feelings of sexual pleasure?

Not that I believe it's going to work. As I said earlier, that level of callousness and psychosis is inborn. All they're going to get from this effort, if anything, is people demanding their money back. My friend's son was disturbed and disappointed. This movie will, I predict, sink into obscurity; even the DVD version will end up in the bargain bins and go largely ignored. Unless it's publicized by people objecting to it. It is objectionable. But, much like a two year old gleeful shouting naughty words, if there's too much of a fuss made over it, thrilled by the reaction he will continue with it longer.