Pause and Rewind: Memories of Age-Inappropriate Film Viewings in the 1980s

[Swank]

Horror does seem to be one of the least well-defined of genres. It's pretty obvious when you are watching a comedy what genre it is (even if you don't find it funny). Same applies to science fiction and fantasy. Horror is a bit different, as a lot of what we do (or don't) find scary will define the genre it mainly occupies. Is Ghostbusters 'horror' seeing as there are ghosts and some spooky bits? Is Jaws horror or an adventure movie like Moby DICK? For me The Thing doesn't occupy the 'horror' genre at all; it's suspensful science fiction, and a lot of Stephen King's later stories I would argue occupy the 'thriller' section far more than 'horror'.

This is a bit of the "elements of horror" thing. Shawn of the Dead and Raider of the Lost Ark have some really pretty gross and horrifying bits in them - but just bits. We define genres not by their elements but by their strongest aesthetic theme.

 

[Dan Jones]

I think Alien was more important to shaping my future cinematic experiences than any other film. You ought to make a podcast on it.

No plans to do Alien at the moment because it's been done to death - there's loads of excellent Alien content out there and unless we get a really relevant guest (we can still make it, Sigourney, you and me!) I don't think we could add anything new.

Having said that, we were discussing this topic of horror last night with our latest guest Tade Thompson, and you'll be pleased to note that Alien did get mentioned in dispatches and we did talk around it for a couple of minutes. Threads also came up.

I fully agree with @paranoid marvin about horror sharing structural beats with comedy. A case in point; we read Tade's latest book, Jackdaw, ahead of our chat with him; Bean found it terrifying, and I found it hilarious. Both are legitimate responses to the existential terror that the book presents.

 

[nixie]

Bad parent here. In the 80's I was watching a film, Killer Clowns from Outer Space, my not quite three year old woke up, I paused the video and went to see to him; he wasn't going back to sleep. I took him downstairs and he was playing with his toys. He won't notice what I'm watching, so restarted the film.
A couple of years later at local gala a clown approached him, he screamed the place down, I did make out killer and space between the screams.

 

[HareBrain]

A couple of years later at local gala a clown approached him, he screamed the place down

To be fair, if a clown approached me now I'd do the same thing.

 

[Phyrebrat]

I think over the last couple weeks I’ve doubled down on my stance as far as the majority of Chrons folk not ‘understanding’ whatI mean re the horror genre. The topic of gatekeeping came up in yesterday’s podcast, and I’m at pains to say I don’t mean to come across as that kind of purist.

But:

I’m with @Swank people here do not understand horror inasmuch as being unable to discern elements of horror from the actual genre.

To Jo’s points; that’s not horror in itself not who’s to say we have to write one or the other? Not me, but what Jo’s describing in her own work is not horror. Horrific elements yes, but not as a category.

What I’m taking about is I cannot get into conversations with people here on horror the way others can discuss George Arrrgh Arrrgh Martin, or Arthur C Clarke. Case in point; horror movies are not horror literature and this is I suspect the fundamental misunderstanding. I want to talk literature not Hollywood movies.

Horror suffers the same marginalisation as SFF genre but in addition it is othered often with a snobby dismissal by fantasy and SF fans. You can argue the point with me but it would not changed my lived experience here would it?

As Jo says, aren’t there any horror fora out there… sure, but this is my home and if it is not catering to me, the suggestion that somewhere else might scratch that itch is rooted in horror not belonging here. I know Jo is not saying that.

But there’s an intersectionality at play here and I’m ramping for more horror discussions, more engagement than the ‘I don’t like horror because it’s scary.’ I would love Chrons to actively encourage outside horror writers and readers.

This doesn’t mean changing Chrons DNA, but giving more diversity to discussions — and stop me feeling so bloody lonely here.

 

[The Judge]

I think over the last couple weeks I’ve doubled down on my stance as far as the majority of Chrons folk not ‘understanding’ whatI mean re the horror genre.

What I’m taking about is I cannot get into conversations with people here on horror the way others can discuss George Arrrgh Arrrgh Martin, or Arthur C Clarke.

There's a difference between discussing a genre and discussing specific writers in that genre. If, because of misunderstandings, you're finding it difficult to find people here who are on your same wavelength as to the former, and they upset/annoy you by conflating horror literature with films, then start a thread on a particular author or book and see where that goes. If it turns out that no one else on here has read the book/author so can't contribute in any meaningful way, it's up to you to make the case why they should.

I would love Chrons to actively encourage outside horror writers and readers.

Um... and just whose job would that be, do you think? Brian T's? The mods? Or someone who actively wants horror discussed here?!

 

[Phyrebrat]

I don't see this as a courtroom, your Hon. I'm expressing my feelings which are valid. I do go to other places and none of them have this homely feel; furthermore, I am constantly trying to get people here.

Your response also underlines what I'm saying.

 

[nixie]

@Phyrebrat, what authors are you looking to discuss? I'm not well read in the genre, I've not really strayed away from the popular authors. James Herbert, Stephen King, Richard Matheson, Dean Koontz and Paul Saul. King seems to have drifted away from horror. Herbert some of his books were more fantasy. Saul as I got older I found his books distasteful. I used to like the collections of ccreepy short stories by different authors.

 

[The Judge]

I don't see this as a courtroom, your Hon. I'm expressing my feelings which are valid.

It wasn't intended to be a legal response, only a practical/pragmatic one. Feelings may indeed be valid, but they don't actually help unless they're acted upon in some way.

I do go to other places and none of them have this homely feel;

I wasn't suggesting that you go elsewhere!

furthermore, I am constantly trying to get people here.

And if you can't get horror writers/readers to come, I'm really not sure what you're suggesting anyone else can do by way of actively encouraging others to join.

Your response also underlines what I'm saying.

If by this you're referring back to horror being dismissed and marginalised, I didn't want to say this, and actually deleted it from my previous post, but frankly every time you repeat this it comes across to me that I'm being blamed or castigated -- or "othered" perhaps -- because I don't read horror, want to read it or have any interest in it whatsoever, and therefore I'm somehow at fault because I don't agree with you/fit into your view of what is right. You might not intend this, but y'know, this is my lived experience so is just as valid as yours.

Just for the record, I don't dismiss horror any more than I dismiss military SF, hard SF, YA fantasy, vampire and zombie SF/fantasy, none of which I read, nor do I have any feelings of superiority or snobbishness about any of them. I don't read these things because they're not to my taste -- in the same way that I don't watch art-house or foreign films, or listen to certain types of music. So rather than put your own interpretation on why others don't appreciate horror as you do, try considering the obvious -- different people have different tastes.

 

[Dave]

I admit to being a little confused by your comments @Phyrebrat as this thread is about "Age-Inappropriate Film Viewings in the 1980s," therefore the comments that I made were about films without a U certificate that would have been available as VHS rentals in the 1980's, and I assume that others did likewise.

I'm neither dismissing "Horror"as a literary genre, nor would I dismiss it, but like @The Judge has said, I haven't read that much. Some Strephen King, and maybe one each of Richard Matheson, Dean Koontz and James Herbert., and you can probably guess which novels because they are really science fiction not Horror. So, I can't claim to be an expert or have anything of real import to say. I have seen a lot of B & W "Horror" films which very likely have screenplays based upon books.

As for Chrons, it totally reflects what the members read and watch, and will begin threads on. It cannot be controlled much more than you can herd cats. However, we do have a horror forum here within the books forum, but no such section with the film forum, so is that not enough? I've taken a quick look through that forum Horror and only one post started by yourself on the first page, but a good few less well-know authors there. I do think that if there are authors missing that you think ought to be there, then you are the one who needs to add them. It's very likely they might garner few replies, but you don't know until you try, and as for other people coming here, they do say that "if you build it, they will come."

 

[Toby Frost]

I'm not really sure what's being argued here. For one thing, horror has to attach itself to a genre, even if that genre is "contemporary drama", because it's an emotion and not a setting. Alien is SF and horror, Bone Tomahawk is Western and horror, The Witchfinder General is historical and horror and so on. That seems pretty obvious to me, but I'm not sure that anyone is arguing otherwise.

I don't think horror is being belittled or looked down on as a genre here. It's not like the "Only hard SF is real SF" argument, which seeks to exclude many (perhaps the majority of) fans from enjoying what they think of as SF. I suspect horror isn't as popular as SF and fantasy, and the reluctance of publishers to outright label books as "horror", rather than as crime or some variant of urban fantasy/gothic/supernatural hasn't helped it.

Anyhow, this probably would be best split off into a separate thread.

 

[Swank]

I'm not really sure what's being argued here. For one thing, horror has to attach itself to a genre, even if that genre is "contemporary drama", because it's an emotion and not a setting. Alien is SF and horror, Bone Tomahawk is Western and horror, The Witchfinder General is historical and horror and so on. That seems pretty obvious to me, but I'm not sure that anyone is arguing otherwise.

I'm sorry, this is pure crazy talk, and I'm going to say so before Phryebrat blows an understandable gasket.

If horror is only an emotion, Western is only a direction. Horror is a very clear genre with writers like Stephen King that are primarily known for their output in this genre. I can't imagine discussing something like It, Pet Sematary or The Shining as anything but horror.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

Perhaps the next stage is erotic Westerns.

My scripts for Thigh Noon, Shame, and Pleasure of the Sierra Madre are going with me to the grave.

 

[Toby Frost]

I'm sorry, this is pure crazy talk, and I'm going to say so before Phryebrat blows an understandable gasket.

Are you expecting a polite reply to this?

My scripts for Thigh Noon, Shame, and Pleasure of the Sierra Madre are going with me to the grave.

I would read all of these!

 

[Swank]

Are you expecting a polite reply to this?

You are politely replying.

But no, I don't expect anything. You might not think so, but it was an incredibly dismissive comment to the (apparently) only horror genre writer on Chrons. A guy who really makes a big effort with podcasts and participation to read and honor the other SFF genres - even when he doesn't care for some of them. I chose my words carefully to reflect how your put-down of his chosen niche was going to be rightfully received.

In general, this thread reads like "What do you want us to do about your fake genre?" That might not have been anyone's intent, but it certainly had that effect of making a really great contributor and sweet guy completely disinterested in his participation on Chrons.


There are two kinds of polite - the kind that controls how a sentence is written, and the kind that controls if the spirit is kind. We seem to be more invested the former.

 

[Dave]

Clearly, this thread was about something else entirely. If it was to discuss semantics, then it's no wonder I was lost. "What exactly is Horror?" is a question that I doubt will ever get answered here.

Two of the biggest problems with language is that you can say what you do not mean to say, and that you can say what you do not mean...
― Mokokoma Mokhonoana

Allow me one question though, and please excuse my ignorance - if horror must attach itself to another genre - what is 'Gothic Fiction'?

It isn't necessary 'historical fiction', because it can be a fantasy world that never really existed, or it can be set in the present day, but never likely to be decribed as 'contemporary fiction'. It has been around since Horace Walpole's 1764 novel The Castle of Otranto. So, it is older than any of the other genres that horror apparently needs to attach itself to. I'd say that supernatural stories designed to haunt, disgust or to fighten people were probably the very earliest fictional tales ever to have been made up. However, it doesn't need to even be supernatural to be 'psychological horror'.

 

[Randy M.]

I'm also working on an academic-flavoured essay on the inappropriate inclusion of horror literature with science fiction and fantasy. More and more I've noticed the disparity between SFF and horror, perhaps more so in literature than movies. I've become more than a little fatigued with the snobbery leveled against horror by genre fans, and my work on the Chronscast (podcast with @Dan Jones) has underlined just how poor a mix horror lit and sff are. I'd argue comedy has far more in common with horror than it does with sff, but as we are all aficionados of genre fiction here, horror gets crowbarred in, despite a fundamental misunderstanding about horror, it's purpose and its creation. (And I never get tired of banging on about how I hate the term 'horror'; it's a reductive term describing an emotion, not a genre, and I suspect mostly responsible for the maligning and misunderstanding of my beloved genre)

For what it's worth, this is an interesting subject to me since I don't see including horror with s.f. and fantasy as inappropriate. As Dave appears to indicate, like those genres, and mystery/crime, it stems from Gothic fiction, and often overlaps all of them. Frankenstein, for instance, manages to be Gothic, horror and s.f. Recently I've been watching Italian giallo movies, and its been interesting to watch earlier ones that are Hitchcock-like crime/mystery and compare to later giallos that verge on slasher-like.

As for separating the literary from the cinematic, well in spite of the above paragraph, I'm willing to try, but it becomes hard to do with most any genre once you start discussing 20th century literature.

I suspect horror isn't as popular as SF and fantasy, and the reluctance of publishers to outright label books as "horror", rather than as crime or some variant of urban fantasy/gothic/supernatural hasn't helped it.

I think this might have been more true 5-10 years ago. Even then there was something of a resurgence in the popularity of horror fiction from its nadir in the mid- to late '90s, or at least a resurgence of Gothic with the emergence of television like Stranger Things, American Horror Story and the advent A24 and Blumhouse, with a boost from certain directors/creators, maybe Jordan Peele in particular, but also Ari Aster and Ti West. I think you could maybe also tie in the surge in interest in Scandi Noir after the success of The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo, indicating a fair number of readers were ready for darker stories. Then the pandemic hit and for some comfort reading went dark, boosting literary works like Mexican Gothic, and seeming to promote writers like Grady Hendrix and Paul Tremblay, among others, into best-sellers.

Are there specialist horror forums? Would they be able to help?

I miss alt.rec.arts.ghost-fiction (think that's right). John Pelan, Jessica Amanda Salmonson, Jim Rockhill and others who populated that group were extraordinarily well-read in ghost/horror fiction. I haven't found anything quite like it since. The problem isn't that there aren't forums, but that the forums are populated by FANS and can make a more academic discussion hard to start or maintain.

So, anyway, Phyrebrat, if you want to start up a discussion in the more literary threads, I'll do my best to chime in.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Having read a few posts, I have to admit that I'm a bit confused myself as to where the discussion is going, or (more likely) that it's splitting off in lots of directions.

It would be great if Phyrebat could do as he mentioned earlier, and create a separate thread in relation to this, as I think it will make for an interesting thread, and perhaps help to better focus the discussion.

Judging by the 75/100/300 Challenges, I think that many of us at least dabble in the 'horror' genre so it will be interesting to see how the thread would go.

Whilst many programmes will feature spooky/supernatural events, I think that outright 'horror' doesn't get a look in, certainly in comparison to the 60s and 70s. I can't speak for most authors, but certainly the 'master of horror' Steven King doesn't write outright horror as often as he used to.

 

[Dan Jones]

Some good posts here, particularly from @Randy M. and @paranoid marvin.

It might be useful to return this to the OP, and particularly the essay. I'm assuming most haven't read it, but it is worth a read - it's not very long as academic essays go, and it's mercifully free of any overly academic language; it's an easy read, mostly taken up with reports of the correspondents who filled nin the author's survey.

I found myself agreeing with the idea that I have a greater memory of watching so-called "forbidden" films when I was young - let's say at the age of 11, or 12 - at home, on VHS, than many other films. I remember watching John Carpenter's The Thing (check out this month's podcast!!) and getting as far as the scene with the dog in the cage, and having to switch off. It took me a couple of years to complete watching the film. The same with Alien - I got as far as the egg scene and had to stop.

But later in life I've got greater fondness for these films than a great many others I probably watched around that time (there are other non-horrors that I have a vivid memory and love for, like Who Framed Roger Rabbit? but even that's got some pretty scary scenes for a kid). I didn't watch the Exorcist until I was older, and I think that film is arguably more frightening for adults, and particularly parents, than children.

There's an element of chasing the dragon with horror - this idea that when you experience the visceral thrill of fear (or perhaps vanquished fear is more accurate?) you want to experience that high again but need something that's at least equal in power to the thing that preceded it. Without going in the direction of ugliness like exploitation films (or even snuff films - the Inside No. 9 episode about the snuff film is truly terrifying) that's hard to achieve. Certainly the only film that's disturbed me in recent years is Hereditary.

 

[Randy M.]

Read this over at CrimeReads -- which covers a surprising amount of horror -- and thought it might be apropos of the subject. It certainly pulls together succinctly some of my own thoughts about what makes for horror:

... Pet Semetary, a haunting story that, to this day, still hammers home what horror truly is and can be, not so much with violence and gore, but in the moral dilemmas and horrifying situations in which the characters so often find themselves.

This is from an appreciation of Stephen King's importance to the reading/writing life of the author J. H. Markert (a pseudonym, not sure who for).