Has horror shaped society or vice-versa

Has the horror genre helped shape society by it’s escalated breaking of taboo’s?

Or does societies behaviour inform the horror genre giving it the necessary taboo’s to break?

Paul Phillips B A Hons Graphic Design Tutor: Mike Bilam

ECTS6001 Word count: 9635.

1

CONTENTS

Page 3. INTRODUCTION Page 6. LITERATURE REVIEW Page 10 WHAT DEFINES HORROR AND WHAT DOES IT REFLECT? Page 17 PSYCHOS IN THE SIXTIES Page 24 THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE Page 30 FUNNY GAMES Page 35 CONCLUSION Page 39 BIBLIOGRAPHY

2

INTRODUCTION

Have you ever cowered behind the sofa when you were a child, quivering because you were sure the malevolence on screen would spill out into the room and come to get you? Or have you ever covered your eyes with just enough of a gap that you could see what was unfolding on screen regardless?

These are horror moviegoer clichés but are nevertheless true for a large majority of people. Why is it that we put ourselves through something we naturally want to run away from? Do we unknowingly crave the feeling of fear or are we predisposed toward a fascination with the darker side of life, the unknown and the fascination with the boundaries of human behaviour?

Few genres of film can be said to cover all these topics, for horror truly is the auteur’s vehicle for extremity. When was the last time somebody walked out in disgust at the latest romantic comedy, or when was the last time religious fanatics picketed cinemas because of the release of the latest Bruce Willis action spectacular?

It’s undeniable that as a genre, Horror is the crowned king of controversy.

3

It is true that this has not always been the case though as controversy has been a part of the movie industry long before the horror genre really developed into the dark subconscious it is today.

Sex seemed to be the main taboo broken prior to horror’s uprising and the controversy was sparked from risqué comedies or topical dramas like Jack Clayton’s ‘A room at the Top’ (1959) which was chastised for its sexual content but nonetheless went on to be a success.

It wasn’t really until the 60s that the genre’s uglier side began to emerge. Prior to this Horror had a more Gothic and fantastical tone and was bathed in mystery and monsters so did not strike a chord with the consciousness of the general public. The suspension of disbelief was necessary in order to be submersed in the movie and the unrealistic nature of the content was not considered a real outside world issue.

In fact in horror, arguably it was not until Alfred Hitchcock’s ‘Psycho’ first released in 1960 that audiences felt that the depictions on screen had the potential to happen in real life. Due to this benchmark in cinema history a precedent had been set to which the horror genre has stuck undeniably since and has even shaped the way we make and interpret films of this nature today.

One has to wonder-given the struggle Hitchcock faced in making the picture, due to its graphic (for the time) nature and what the studio deemed at the time to be limited appeal, especially after his previous few pictures had under achieved-wether the genre would be in the same position it is in today. Perhaps if Hitchcock had not been bold and put the majority of the money up himself for the production or had not

4

so diligently persevered with the project, then all the taboos that were broken would not have paved the way for future film makers to follow suit.

One also has to ask the question, how this may have affected society? After all if one is to believe Oscar Wilde when he wrote ‘Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life’, then we have to believe that they influence each other, and although the balance will never be equal there will always be a discourse between the two, thus making a continuum inevitable.

For everything we do will inform the arts and the arts will always have an impact on and shape society. Maybe it is society’s awareness of the fact that ‘life imitates art’ that makes society so concerned with the horror genre and all its violent and macabre content. But should this be the case? Another side of the coin could be that maybe we should be more concerned with the fact that the art is imitating life and that Horror is our savior and is reflecting what needs to change. This is not a case of what came first: the chicken or the egg’, however, as people pre-date the movie as an art form.

So with this in mind, is censorship even valid anymore? Are the movies in each new generation of filmmakers that become controversial and villainised justly so?

After all it is true to say that if ‘Psycho’ were released today it would be considered tame by our standards. Thus if the movies pushing the boundaries today such as

Srdan Spasojevic’s ‘A Serbian Film’ (2010) had been released, there would have arguably been riots due to its intensely subversive graphic nature and its socially unacceptable subject matters.

So if we can become accustomed to the horrors of movies past without exception, then surely today’s standards are just as condemned to relaxed views in the future?

5

It almost seems inevitable that movies like ‘A Serbian Film’ that have garnered so much negative press, have received bans in several countries and have had over four minutes cut by the BBFC before its British release, will in time become just as inoffensive.

It may seem hard to believe that the atrocities on display within this particular movie will ever be accepted by society, but surely that would have been the feeling in 1960 when movie patrons cast their eyes upon Janet Leigh’s semi-naked body, while she grasped hopelessly at the shower curtain as Anthony Perkins swung stab after stab?

In this essay I shall start by defining horror and what is considered exploitation in order to set the boundaries for discussion. I will then take a selection of movies from three periods in time, the 60s, 70s and over the past ten years. These periods seem to mark pivotal changes in the boundaries being broken within cinema and by society’s reactions to these boundaries being broken. I plan to discuss what makes these films so controversial and analyze the controversy surrounding them and their impact within society, to hopefully come to a conclusion as to whether or not censorship is a valid format in today’s more liberal times.

6

Literature Review

Cythnia Freeland talks about what defines feelings of horror and the fears they evoke, she explains how the terminology of ‘art-dread’ and ‘art-horror’ can be used to streamline our ideas of the emotional effects horror has on us. She also refers to the level of impact that is possible within the confines of the development of horror over the years. I will use this as a basis for the reasons horror stands out from other genre’s and potentially why this may be a reason for people’s varying perceptions of horror.

This will hopefully give some grounding to the different reactions horror receives from society.

Thomas Fahy talks about horror’s history and explains how horror has a firm grounding in social behaviour, backing up Freeland and giving further insight toward the idea that horror is part of a cyclical discourse within society.

Lorraine Russell is quoted by Fahy in line with the theories toward the metaphorical social parallels within horror. Elaborating on Fahy and Freeland.

Jay McRoy adds the similarities between horror and porn as genres, giving further insight to the public’s perception and definition of horror and what it stands for.

Stephen Thrower gives a more encyclopaedic definition of the exploitation genre to enable us to define clearly not only what exploitation is but its place in horror. He

7

also backs up the theory that Hitchcock’s Psycho is a form of exploitation, making a good argument against the negative impact of the term exploitation.

R. P Kolker refers to Hitchcock’s methods as a director encompassing his techniques along with his personal history and a look at his social standing. This can help us understand Hitchcock’s motivations and social influences.

A. Walker supplies some background knowledge into the events of cinema and the history of sexual depiction and subsequent reactions, this is important to the perception of Psycho within the era it was made.

Adam Lowenstein helps disambiguate Hitchcock as a director and helps shed light on how the public may have perceived his movies considering the era they were made.

Peter Wollen backs up the argument that Hitchcock was a product of his surroundings which leaked into his filmmaking, helping the argument of society defining the output of an artist.

P McGilligan talks about some of the reactions from the public toward the controversial topics covered for the time. Showing us the negative impacts of the release of groundbreaking cinema. Also subsequently the change in opinion over time.

8

Brooke Talks about the key ingredients in psycho to which the public had not seen at the time helping us identify the true causes of social reaction.

M Rogers talks about the role of the ‘monstrous-body’ and its returning presence within horror and gives an example of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre’s reach as far as influence and implied influence stretches.

Mikita Brottman looks at Horror from a more intellectual perspective showing us the hidden depths which can be analysed, she looks at the horror film from an academic perspective relating it to anthropology which is helpful whilst discussing the social aspects and she also talks about culture allowing us to compare the influence with the origins.

T. D. Matthews quotes Ferman the head of the board of classification at the time, giving Fermans arguments against The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and allowing us to see perhaps the most important/influential, reaction from an individual.

McCann, Sorfa give an overview of some of the reactions to Funny Games showing us the controversy first hand.

A. Gerbas deconstructs Funny Games allowing us to see the inner workings and concepts within the movie making it possible to compare McCann and Sorfa’s catalog of reactions with the intent of the narrative.

9

S Liebman takes a look at Haneke himself showing us potential social influence in both film and society. Liebman also looks at the way Haneke has been critiqued making it possible for us to see the differing views both academic and mainstream.

Susan Sontag talks about the psychological effects and potential reasons for audience reactions.

Chapter One

What defines horror and what does it reflect?

Horror as defined by the Collins English Dictionary as ‘extreme fear, terror and/or dread’ but there is far more to the genre than just this definition. For what defines horror goes beyond these basic emotions and runs deeper philosophically than these would imply. The first thing that comes to mind when thinking about Horror is the reaction it provokes not just on a societal level but also on an emotional level. Are the emotions themselves to be considered real? After all what we view, we know to be fiction, so do we not have just as fictitious emotional reactions?

Cynthia Freeland discusses this concept, otherwise known as ‘art – dread’. A terminology used when discussing the horror genre is art – horror’, giving horror a

10

more defined title, a title designed to create more clarity in a world where the term horror is used for real life events so regularly. ‘Art – dread’ is the feeling or emotion we experience when watching a horror movie. Some academics have debated that because we know the movie to be fictitious it cannot successfully conjure genuine feelings of fear but instead gives us a sort of mock fear. Cynthia Freeland argues this theory by stating:

‘I can feel fear at the thought of a terrorist attack on my airplane, sadness at remembering my grandmother’s death, and delight at the thought of winning the lottery, though these are not present now.’ Freeland (2004, 195)

So the feelings we feel during and sometimes post viewing are genuine enough to be considered ‘real’ feelings, and these will undoubtedly differ from person to person due to our differing interpretations of not only what we view, but also how well we suspend disbelief. After all if you view what’s happening in the film to be unlikely or implausible then you will find it hard to become emotionally involved as these implausibilities will only serve as reminders that you are immersed in fiction. This is a point worth remembering when arguing the toss on censorship, as it shows us that the influential hold a movie has on an individual is only as deep as the individuals’ belief in the movie.

The plausibility of a horror does seem paramount to its impact and there are many things that contribute to this: the acting, the set, the events themselves, the character development, the sound design and many other contributing factors. These all serve to make the experience as realistic as possible. There are a number of these things that over time will become less convincing, as techniques move on and new ways are

11

found to convey the realism of a scene. Freeland quotes Stephen King talking about ‘Cat People’ (1942). She states:

‘Stephen King has written that even though this is “almost certainly the best horror film of the forties,” he cannot respond to an important scene where Alice is chased at night by Irena as the panther, because he is distracted by the scene’s no-longer-convincing soundstage version of Central Park. On the other hand, he finds the movie’s other famous scary sequence, in which Alice is trapped at night in the swimming pool, still convincingly spooky.’ Freeland (2004, 197)

This shows us that Cat People has become a victim of its time and the inadequacies of the production such as having to use a sound stage rather than filming in the real Central Park, something which would not be a problem these days due to better budgets and the use of CGI. Another way in which horror has moved on and a way that more successfully integrates the believability of a plot is by making the viewer part of the plot. The viewer becomes the third party within the story and is necessary for the interpretation of the plot to be successful. Freeland writes about ‘The Sixth Sense’ (1999) where young boy Cole has been talking to psychiatrist Dr Crowe throughout the film with us being under the assumption that Dr Crowe is just his psychiatrist and not as it turns out just another roaming spirit that Cole interacts with.

“The movie treats Cole’s unique ability delicately, since nothing is shown of what he sees or knows until after he has confessed his secret to Dr Crowe, who regards the confession as a sign of psychosis.’

12

She goes on to say:

‘With its now-famous twist at the end, The Sixth Sense also unnerves viewers by making Cole’s ability seem more convincing, since we too have for some time now been watching a dead person, we finally realize - in the leading role, no less.’ Freeland (2004, 200-201)

With this technique we are drawn in and become part of the plot as the plot only works dependant on our perception of Dr Crowe being alive during the movie. This technique serves well to evoke feelings of dread as we realise that not everything is what it seems and it is this unpredictability that creates the necessary tension that in turn develops into dread the closer the viewer gets to finding out the truth.

This is a third dimension to horror and one that is effective in making the genre’s impact more direct and immersive. These are things that are key to the public’s susceptibility to be shocked or potentially offended and a bridge to allow the argument for censorship, for it shows the mechanics of how people may become too immersed and therefore potentially psychologically affected. This provides a good explanation as to why people leave theatres during horror movies and why certain films inspire similar reactions in certain demographics.

So we know that Horror is a highly emotive form of filmmaking. But what else does horror have to offer? A good place to start is the multitude of subgenres within horror: home invasion, alien invasion, psychological, slasher, chiller, zombie, social, comedy, diabolique, French extremist and super natural and many more. One reason

13

that Horror has so many subgenres is that due to the appeal of horror being what we have decided as emotional and reactionary, it is forced to re-invent itself regularly in order to keep being effective in its goal to scare.

Another reason is that horror films by nature are inspired by our own fears, of which we have many, and most are inspired by the world around us. In ‘The Philosophy of Horror’ Thomas Fahy refers to Eli Roth’s ‘Cabin Fever’ ( 2002) by saying:

‘The young protagonists of Cabin Fever become victims of a flesh eating contagion. Roth uses horror here to explore modern-day fears about biological terrorism in post 9/11 America’ Fahy (2012, 3)

Another example cited by Fahy is Lorena Russell’s interpretation of both The Hills Have Eyes (1977) and its (2006) remake of the same name:

‘While on the surface The Hills Have Eyes rehearses the time worn theme of a family under siege, thus seemingly reiterating American family values, on another level the films radically revise assumptions about the legacy of the ‘nuclear family’ and its uneasy place in American history’ Russell, L (2012, 8)

Both are good examples of how socially and culturally informed the Horror genre is, how it is informed by the current events and events of the past, and this may go some way to explaining why it raises controversy so easily. For if filmmakers are quick off the mark to use film as a vehicle for reflecting current social paranoia then it will in some cases serve to heighten these paranoias upon release. In some cases this

14

may seem inappropriate hence the controversy but in other cases it can have an opposite, more cathartic effect.

During the sixties, especially in America due to the Vietnam war and a slew of high profile assassinations, for example those of Martin Luther King and the Kennedys, society was in a state of shock and justified paranoia. This acted as a catalyst for horror filmmakers to reflect the very real atrocities being shown on the news. In the documentary ‘The American Nightmare’, Tom Savini talks about his experiences in Vietnam as a soldier before moving on to be a special effects/prosthetics expert spanning many horror films. He talks about how his personal experiences in the Vietnam War as a soldier have directly influenced his work. Having first-hand experience with real corpses has allowed Savini to accurately portray the gruesomeness of violent carnage, thus thrusting the genre into a new level of realism. This is a true case of society shaping horror directly. Sometimes this high level of visual aggression can mean the messages at the core of these films can be overlooked and the films can be unjustly at times subject to allegations of exploitation.

What is it about the genre that makes people brush over the intellect and focus on the surface? It could be lazy journalism or it could be the reputation of horror preceding itself. It certainly has gained notoriety for its visceral nature and thus comparisons have been made with Pornography, another genre of film closely associated with themes of exploitation. In the book ‘Horror Zone’, Jay McRoy quotes Steven Shaviro on an interview with Novella Carpenter:

15

‘[Pornography and horror films] are both visceral. They both are about things happening to human bodies, [and about] having bodies on an intense sensoral level. Part of the point of those films – often precisely because they are exploitative – is to get the audience to react in the same visceral manner as [the bodies] depicted on scene.’ (Shaviro, cited by McRoy, 2010:192)

So what is to be considered exploitative and what is to be considered genuine art?

According to Stephen Thrower in his book ‘Nightmare USA’:

‘They are independently made non-studio films produced either: a) to exploit the financial possibilities of a popular genre; b) to respond quickly to current interest in a contemporary topic; or c) to milk an existing market success.’ Thrower, S (2007,12)

So if we are to take this as the sole meaning then exploitation is nothing more than opportunism. This would certainly explain why the public are so quick to villainize the genre. Due to the low production costs giving the movies a tacky almost tasteless look so far removed from the Hollywood sheen, and the opportunistic nature of the narratives, it seems that at a surface glance very little thought has gone into these movies.

Also it could be that the cheap aesthetic quality and the subconscious links with pornography also potentially pre-empt any genuine interest. Would we be as likely to watch James Cameron’s ‘Titanic’ if the budget had been the size of ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre’? Or what if an exploitation movie had a bigger budget? Would it then be easier to stomach? One such movie that could be said to have done this is‘Psycho’. Thrower points out:

16

‘For those concerned with the issue of bad taste in exploitation’s response to reality, it’s worth pointing out that Alfred Hitchcock was there very early with Psycho (1960), based on the crimes of Wisconsin necrophile and murderer Ed Gein. From a 21st Century standpoint, it’s remarkable that Psycho, a studio picture by one of the industry’s most respected directors, was released only three years after Ed Gein was apprehended in November 1957, making it something of an ‘exploitation’ film in its own right.’ Thrower, S (2007,22)

Exploitation therefore is a definition that is not chained to the cheap thrill-seeking flicks that the majority of us assume. Exploitation can be used in tasteful, well thought out movies that not only have social discourse but also artistic merit both visually and within the narrative. It can be considered another subgenre of horror with its own merits as the comparisons and parallels that have garnered the genre such negative rhetoric- are seemingly not based on thorough investigation but more on surface-level speculation.

Chapter 2 Psychos in the Sixties

Now that we understand the limitations of Exploitation as a label, we can examine some of the first horror movies that were responsible for kick-starting the socially conscious Horror filmmaker and the start of what would become an ongoing relationship between the creatives and the consumers.

Alfred Hitchcock is referred to as ‘The Master of Suspense’, a title coined from a career of changing the rules and shocking audiences with the unpredictability of his

17

pictures. It was inevitable that eventually this tactic of shock was going to stir controversy and with his (1960) picture ‘Psycho’ he certainly did.

One of the reasons that Psycho was so effective in its ability to scare was the anxious apprehension that Hitchcock managed to build with his early teaser for the movie, where contrary to the choppy trailers of today, he shot separate footage to that of the movie, of himself walking around the now infamous ‘Bates Motel’ giving an almost guided tour, within which he proceeded to almost warn the audience against the movie.

He talks about the shower when giving the tour:

‘They’ve cleaned all this up now. Big difference. You should have seen the blood. The whole place was. . . . Well it’s, it’s too horrible to describe, dreadful.’ Hitchcock (1960)

Giving this warning alerts the audience to the potential horrors they may witness but without showing any actual scenes from the movie. This leaves audiences open to imagine what may come and is considered a necessity as far as Hitchcock is concerned.

‘The publicity dreamed up by Hitch for Psycho becomes a major constituent of the film: The audience must want to be afraid.’ Kolker, R, P (2004,65)

This is a trick that has been used in various guises since, in movies such as ‘Texas Chainsaw Massacre’ and Michael Haneke’s ‘Funny Games’.

18

This technique of talking about the movie as if it were a real event is also a subtle tactic preying on the same basics of human psychology and voyeurism that have successfully marketed many exploitation movies, for instance Snuff’ (1976). Thrower writes:

‘Originally shot in 1971 as Slaughter by Michael and Roberta Findlay, [Snuff] features a Mansonesque cult, but the film was unreleased at the time and only came to notoriety when Allan Shackelton and Simon Nuchtern added a fake snuff sequence to the ending, thus tapping into rumours of the Manson family’s own supposed 8mm snuff atrocities.’ Thrower (2007, 23)

This is further evidence that parallels between fiction and reality make movies more interesting to the public eye, and threats that are alluded to rather than shown in graphic detail, spike the audience’s interest as they tense up not knowing what will be shown and what grotesques they will be saved from. This is a form of audience manipulation that is also used elsewhere within cinema and by the cinema outlets themselves, proving that exploitation is not just confined to the director.

Walker writes:

‘Certain cinemas even make a practice of plastering their marquees with graffiti or pejorative press quotes – ‘Disgusting’, ‘Sickening’, ‘Perverted’, etc., to lure in audiences who wish to partake of the promised feast.’ Walker, A (1966:180)

Hitchcock was a master at generating this kind of publicity due to his penchant for ‘moving the goal posts’. Adam Lowenstein states:

19

‘Frenzy answers this question by figuring the relation between film and everyday life not in terms of competition, but of modes of perception.’ Lowenstein, Adam, (2004: 190)

Here he is acknowledging that the differing perceptions of the public toward film and the lines that blur for some people between fiction and the real world; these are the types of people that are heavily susceptible to the above-mentioned form of hype.

Lowenstein goes on to say:

‘If the “master” is the “maniac,” then Hitchcock’s name can no longer divide the trustworthy “thriller” from the untrustworthy “horror film”. “Untrustworthy,” in this sense, might finally translate as “alive to the anguish of history”.’ Lowenstein, Adam, (2004: 190)

This tells us that Hitchcock was not afraid to show audiences what had not been shown before and thus becoming untrustworthy, and he was not afraid to reflect the horrors of real life, perhaps his own life. Hitchcock, as we all are, was a product of his surroundings and this inevitably found its way into his movies as Peter Wollen points out:

‘His Orwellian view of murder as one of the fine arts, and his fascination with sexuality as forbidden fruit. No doubt these are qualities rooted in his childhood as the son of a Catholic shopkeeper.’ Wollen. Peter, (2004: 18)

This shows not only Hitchcock being influenced by his upbringing but by another famous director, showing us the full circle of influence that is prevalent within the movie world. The themes of sexuality as forbidden fruit and of murder murder as art

20

are both evident in ‘Psycho’ with the inspiration coming not only from society but from film as well. Wollen adds:

‘Hitchcock was always already drawing on a whirlpool of paranoia, sadism, voyeurism and schizophrenia triggered by the very English obsessions and fears that Hitch brought with him from Leytonstone.’ Wollen. Peter, (2004: 18)

A lot of the heavily featured themes of Hitchcock’s movies are symptomatic of the culture surrounding him in his home country. Wollen talks about the differing styles in which Hitchcock worked and how they are categorised by many as ‘British Hitchcock’ and ‘American Hitchcock’. These clear links that have been adopted between style and location prove it is very difficult for any artist not to be heavily or even subconsciously driven by their surroundings not just on a societal level but also on a geographical and cultural level as well.

But what of the public’s reaction to this unforgiving method of filmmaking? What was the change in societys perceptions of what was a taboo-breaking movie at the time?

McGilligan quotes Stephen Rebello:

‘Letters to the New York Times debated wether the film was” morbid” and “sickening” or “superb” and “truly avant-garde.” There were “faintings. Walkouts. Repeat visits. Boycotts.

Angry phone calls and letters,” wrote Stephen Rebello. “Talk of banning the film rang from church pulpits and psychiatrists’ offices.” McGilligan, P (2003, 600)

Also in another article, Stephen Robb quotes Michael Brooke the Screenonline curator at the British Film Institute:

21

“"They [audiences] had never seen anything quite like it before - the total shock of killing off a lead character a third of the way in, and just the complete feeling of disorientation," Brooke (2010)

This shows us the huge range in the general public’s perceptions at the time and is clearly a testament to the phrase ‘Even bad press is good press’. But what of the critics? And how have their opinions changed over time? McGilligan talks about the backlash and the changing of minds:

‘Time thought it was “gruesome,” a heavy-handed “criek-and-shriek movie,” but by 1965 was praising another film, Roman Polanski’s Repulsion, as in “the classic style of Psycho.”

Similarly, Bosley Crowther of the New York Times, who had been qualified in his reaction to Hitchcock’s films over two decades, initially described Psycho as unsubtle and even “oldfashioned”; but the controversy over the film led him, as he had done with Lifeboat almost twenty years earlier, to reappraise the Hitchcock film in a Sunday piece - this time upgrading his opinion (Psycho was now “fascinating” and “provocative”).’ McGilligan (2003,600)

Clearly here we can see that over time people’s perceptions of movies change: what people seem disgusted by they later seem to revere as virtuoso, showing us that the level of understanding is dictated by the moral and social climate of the time.

These changes in perception are perhaps a symptom of the years of influence the film has over other filmmakers and in turn the influence those films have on future directors.

Brooke talks about these influences: ‘Psycho "opened the floodgates" for screen violence, says Mr Brooke, paving the way for the slow-motion bloodshed of Bonnie and Clyde and The Wild Bunch in the late 60s, up to today's torture porn of Hostel and the Saw films.

Though "watching the film, you think it's a lot more graphically violent than it actually is".

It is a mark of the shift in levels of violence in cinema that Psycho, given an adults-only "X" certificate in the UK in 1960, now carries a relatively tame "15" rating.’ Brooke (2010)

22

Here we see Brook acknowledge that Hitchcock had now raised the bar of what was tolerable within cinema. He did this by making the film black and white thus nullifying the effect of the gore and by using his knowledge and experience gained from previous pictures of having to use careful editing and subtle manipulation in order to get round the board of classification. Also there is the fact that over time the classification has been lowered to keep in line with current levels of acceptability.

This is not however where the influence ends. Brooke also talks about humour and sexuality:

‘The overt sexuality of the film's sightings of Leigh in her underwear, the shocking violence - even a shot of a flushing toilet - were radical in commercial cinema at the time.

And while there had usually been varying amounts of humour in Hitchcock's films, it had never before been combined with such dark, violent material as in Psycho. Today, that pioneering blend of shocks and laughs is notably evident in the films of Quentin Tarantino.’ Brooke (2010)

The financial reception of Psycho was a success, again proving that controversy can act as good publicity. McGilligan writes:

‘Despite controversy everywhere (British censors, for example, gave the film an “X”), Psycho set new attendance records around the world, grossing over $9 million in the United States and another $6 million overseas. In 1960 that remarkable figure was second only to Ben-Hur and since that film’s budget was $11 million, Psycho was really the year’s most profitable film.’ McGilligan, P (2003, 600)

So this is seemingly a turning point in cinema, when a small budget exploitation film gripped a nation and stirred the cauldron of what was at the time acceptable. This was achieved by averting censorship through clever editing and the manipulation of a system with which the director was all too familiar, leading it to ultimately become one of the most influential movies in cinema history.

23

Chapter 3

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

We have spoken about the real life atrocities of Ed Gein and his influence on the making of Psycho but this influence did not end there. An example of society directly and indirectly shaping horror is the conception of Tobe Hooper’s ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre’ (1974). In the documentary ‘The American Nightmare’ (2003), Hooper talks about the day he came up with the concept of the movie which is also partly inspired by the Ed Gein murders. He refers to one day being stuck in a crowd in a hardware store while standing by a rack of chainsaws, the frustration of being stuck in the dense crowd brings him to realise he could get out quite easily using a chainsaw.

This may seem ridiculous on the surface but this kind of frustration can manifest itself in violence and quite often does in various forms in the real world.

Sceptics of the genre have in the past used this demographic of people with mental instability as a tool to vilify horror by connecting events such as the Columbine High School shootings with horror films and rock music, but the influence of real life horror seems to be more frequent and prevalent in comparison. A testament to this is the sheer volume of inspiration for ‘Texas Chainsaw’. Hooper talks about influence:

24

“Get togethers, reunions, holidays. I’ve seen more dysfunction and more hell, in riddled through families than I would like to have, you know I wish I hadn’t seen that much weirdness in family behaviour, so I kind of always wanted to do something that’s about a dysfunctional family.”

‘The Shocking Truth’ (2008)

He also talks about his own upbringing in Texas and how that had shaped his view on the world and was thus transferred into the movie: “ I saw a lot of really eccentric behaviour around me and in particular the local news in San Antonio was broadcast in Austin, its like seventy miles away and part of the films inspiration came from their news, and it was so graphic, I mean it was unbelievable, I mean it was like a car accident and the aftermath, you know the camera moving across brains and bones, god almighty.” ‘Flesh Wounds’ (2008)

This is an example of how media such as the news shows real life atrocities without watershed and how this can also have an impact on young minds. It is however considered essential that people are aware of current events in the world in order to stay educated and so is justified. In this case it had served to provide a young filmmaker with ammunition to make a movie that would later be condemned for its viscera.

Both Hooper and Kim Henkel talk about inspiration directly within the characters of the film, perhaps the most intimate level of influence. In an interview, Henkel talks about Elmer Wayne, and tells the story of Elmer who would procure young men for an older man, Whom they would both then rape and murder.

He comments about the duality of Wayne’s reaction to being prosecuted, in which he claimed proudly he was going to “take his medicine like a man”, to that of his prior murderous behaviour, saying that he incorporated elements of this duality into characters in the script.

Hooper mentions the idea behind the character “The Hitchhiker”:

25

“He was just out there, he had just lost it, he went over the edge, it was during a period of time in the country where we ran out of gas, and it was that gas shortage where people lined up, so that and Watergate was going down, there was a lot of political things that were just happening in the country that just helped fix the film. I think what I was trying to say was you know, this is America, this is my view right now.” Flesh Wounds (2008)

Gunner Hansen who plays the movie’s central villain, speaks about spending several days in a state school for the disabled, using their mannerisms and behaviour as inspiration for the speechless hulking murderer Leatherface. Edwin Neal who plays the role of “the Hitcher”, one of the other villains, has also said in the documentary ‘Flesh Wounds’ that his character is based on his nephew who is a diagnosed schizophrenic.

It seems there is no end to the societal influence with this movie but what about the movie’s influence on society?

An interesting irony which serves to prove how far influence can stretch and just how cyclical this can be, is a scene in Mary Harron’s (2002) film adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis’s novel American psycho which is itself a social commentary on the influence of society on an individual and how his disgust with society drives him to murder.

‘The film nevertheless "adapts" the novel's oblique invocation and complication of video-horror and the presence of a monstrous-body by briefly including iconographie images of horror film in its mise-en-scène: after one of the early murders, Patrick compulsively exercises in his apartment, skipping rope and then performing a seemingly torturous amount of crunches in front of a television playing Tobe Hooper's 1974 The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.’ Rogers,M (2011): 231-244

Here we see how influence comes full circle, as Ellis’s novel which itself garnered controversy due to its method of mixing banal passages of consumerist ideology

26

juxtaposed with graphic violence, has been turned into a movie that depicts a character who commits murder that has an obvious penchant for horror movies. A similar scene can be seen also in Martin Scorsese's ‘Taxi Driver’ (1976).

‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre’ itself was banned in Britain in 1975 and the ban was not lifted until 1999 so why was it banned? It was considered separate from the slew of Mary Whitehouse coined ‘Video Nasties’ along with William Friedkin’s ‘The Exorcist’ (1979). Potentially it could be that there is a moral lesson to be learnt from these movies that they have sociological value? Thus making it wrong to term them ‘Video Nasty,’ even by Whitehouse’s staunch values.

Brottman talks about values and the idea that Horror is essentially urban myth, a title that is very appropriate as, due to their respective bans, for many, these movies reached a mythical status and ironically became all the more talked about and popular, showing that in fact the banning of these movies was ultimately counterproductive. The bans themselves acted in the same way that Hitchcock’s first teaser for Psycho did, creating a buzz of mythology. Brottman explains how these movies work as cautionary tales to the youth of today.

‘Based on an Anthropological definition of myth, this function involves a ritualized and systematic exploration of a culture’s founding values. According to anthropology, a culture is compelled to repeat, through its mythic narratives, the symbolic tale of its origins. These stories generally deal with the particular series of semiotic and iconographic elements that represent a culture’s value systems.’ Brottman M, (2005, 96)

She concludes by saying:

27

‘Most traditional horror films share the functions of the fairy tale in that they serve to teach their (mainly adolescent) audience of the dangerous consequences of inappropriate sexual (and other) behavior, thereby working as a ritual process of acculturation for the modern adolescent, just as the fairy tale helps the child come to terms with many of the psychological problems of growing up.’ Brottman. M, (2005, 97)

One of Texas Chainsaw’s legacies born out of this fairytale format is that of ‘the last girl’. This was a concept that became a staple of horror from then onward emulated in the majority of ‘slasher’ movies all through the 80s and up to today; a concept that has spurred much feminist debate and controversy about the depiction of women as victims, proving that the stretch of influence from the movie still affects society today.

So how do the boards of classification justify banning films that have evidence of moral imperative?

The BBFC’s Director at the time, James Ferman, who banned the movie twice, is quoted by Mathews as saying the worrying aspect is:

‘How good it is, It’s very persuasive all the way through, and you do feel you are watching reality.’

Mathews elaborates:

‘Such statements are, in fact, an echo of the BBFC’s perpetual attempt to remove social comment from films because the board believed – and still believes – that the cinema should be a place for entertainment.’ Mathews (1994, 228)

Dr Julian Petley of Brunel University also talks about Ferman:

28

‘Ferman said at the screening of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, that this film is fine for middle class intellectuals at the national film theatre, but imagine its effect on the average car worker in Birmingham.

‘James Ferman actually went through the film, to see what could or should be cut, and discovered that there was no one individual scene or image that was unacceptable, that it was the massive kind of cumulative frenzy of the TCM that wasn’t acceptable and therefore the whole thing had to be cut.’ ‘The Shocking Truth’ (2008)

The actual scene in the documentary where Dr Petley talks about Ferman banning TCM shows the footage of him talking, interspersed with footage of Nazi book burning, showing the censorship in a negative light. Moments later it also shows footage shot at a convention for the movie where two young children are interviewed and asked what their favourite part of the movie is. Their response is Leatherface, showing evidence that at a young age children see villains in horror as some kind of anti-hero and that horror is available to them regardless of classification. This is a strong argument in the case for censorship but at the same time shows that not all children are disturbed by the movie.

However upon Texas Chainsaw’s eventual release it was met with praise, being hailed as a classic of the genre, generating massive profit and with the New York Museum of Modern Art owning a copy. The success, ironically, in an interview with Henkel (2008) gets partially attributed to the fact that because of the ban, the movie was not cut excessively by the process of being put the through the Hollywood system and by the time the ban had been lifted society’s tolerance for violence had changed so much, cuts were no longer necessary.

29

Chapter 4

Funny Games

Michael Haneke is probably the director who most deserves to be mentioned regards to social commentary as the Austrian born filmmaker has made this a staple of a thirty-year career. Whilst many may not regard his films as horror films (of which many are not) Funny Games (1997) and its subsequent remake Funny Games U.S (2007) arguably contain all the aspects that make horror effective in its most psychologically intrusive form. He is the last prominent director from the German “art house” movement’, known mostly for the films of Rainer Werner Fassbinder, and has steadily built a career making films that critique the breadown in communication that runs through Western society.

One could almost describe Haneke’s movies as the purest of horror as they do not glamourize the heinous aspects of human behaviour rather they show them with realistic vigour. There are no happy endings, no winners or losers, no ‘last girl’ there is only a stark reflection of society. This to some is more terrifying than the ghouls presented in conventional horror and has gained him a reputation almost bordering on infamy.

Unlike Hooper who talks openly about his influences, Haneke is coyly dismissive.

Here he explains that it is an inevitability that he and his movies are shaped by his nationality, that this is a given and that it is almost a moot question:

30

‘Well, I've inevitably been affected by the climate which exists here, though I've never taken it upon myself to represent Austrian culture. But it's not for me to answer your question. Some have said my work bears a similarity to the novels of Thomas Bernhard. Maybe; I can't tell. But I've never set out to make Austrian films. I just make films about what interests me, and since I'm a product of this country, there must be things in them that could be deciphered as being Austrian. But that's for others to do.’ Haneke (2012)

So Haneke’s films serve to pose certain questions to the audience thus involving them, dragging them kicking and screaming into areas the general public refuse to confront. With Funny Games, especially, picking apart what it is about society that makes us gain enjoyment from ingesting violent images and absorbing threat as a form of entertainment but making us sit through extremely confrontational themes without giving us the relief of atonement, as pointed out by McCann and Sorfa:

‘Combine sex and violence to an almost unbearable degree and, more or less, implicate the – usually bourgeois – protagonists and audiences as being the guilty architects of their own misfortunes.’ McCann, Sorfa (2011: 3)

Here they are saying that by going to see the movie you are tantamount to being one of the villains, for you are there for the same reasons. He achieves this effectively by using the technique of addressing the audience, much like Hitchcock’s first trailer for Psycho, as explained here by Gerbas:

‘The use of direct address in Funny Games. . . is employed as a device to interrogate the sometimes pleasurable viewing of images of other people’s suffering Haneke uses direct address not only to deconstruct the formulaic family taken hostage scenario common to the horror and thriller genres, but also in emphasizing the spectator’s responsibility to examine the appeal of watching others in pain.’ Gerbas, (2011:163)

Haneke uses a lack of on screen violence much like Texas Chainsaw’ and is just as effective. Whilst many of the modern Horror films use gratuitous violence and gore to 31

shock, it is the realism of Haneke’s movies that shock, the long takes and the concentration on mundane tasks that lull us into a false sense of security before without warning (and very often without music) - bursts of violence and psychological torment. To which, as we have read, we are a party. Liebman writes:

‘The physical brutality meted out to innocent haute-bourgeois victims during the agonizing long takes of the first, German version of Funny Games (1997) underscored Haneke’s mastery of camera movement, mise en scène, and his astute direction of actors (a skill that receives remarkably little attention in these texts under review), even as it highlighted his clear taste for provoking controversy, indeed outrage, from some spectators. (Consider but one of his shockingly flamboyant, though highly calculated, remarks expressing his intent “to rape the spectator into autonomy”.’ Liebman (2012: 25)

Here Hanake seems to be using society against itself to promote his almost antihorror, in which he is ironically using some of the techniques spawned by violent movies. For this he has received heavy criticism.

‘Mark Kermode’s review in sight and sound demonstrated particularly well the criticisms that were aimed at Haneke. Kermode characterizes Haneke’s position in Funny Games as a belief that ‘sanitized media violence has inured us to the realities of pain’ and that this film is designed to appall, revolt and traumatize those who have come to watch a violent film’ (1998:44) ‘Kermode argues that Haneke wishes to punish those who have come seeking visceral pleasure in the pain of others.’ McCann, Sorfa (2011: 3)

So here we see juxtaposition between our argument. Kermode is criticising Haneke for making a movie designed to be shocking and create controversy whereas Haneke has made a movie specifically to show his own misgivings about society’s want for such films.

‘Kermode asks the question: ’Why would anyone wish to continue to endure an intentionally unendurable work of art? Why would anyone wish to stay when the film so explicitly challenges them to leave?’ McCann, Sorfa (2011:3)

32

Kermode answers his own question by watching the film in its entirety himself.

The morbid curiosity of having to know what happens next, the kind of curiosity only conjured by a film not following convention. Could Kermode’s review be a testament to the surface glances of the genre we were talking about earlier? Liebman points out the deep-rooted nature of the film’s concerns: ‘Haneke’s signature concern at the beginning of his career—the failures of human relationships in cold, modern urban societies where the ability to communicate has (supposedly) radically atrophied—has been a staple of sociological concerns since the late nineteenth-century publication of Ferdinand Tönnies’s famous tract, Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft.’ Liebman (2012: 25)

With this we see that the social issues catered to within Haneke’s movies are symptomatic of an evolving society and will always be present, therefore always a part of artistic output. He goes on:

‘He conceives of his narratives as relevant allegories of current historical, social, and political concerns, and of his techniques as crucial vehicles to convey them.’ Liebman (2012: 26)

Liebman points out that Haneke’s work is potentially better viewed as a whole and his “oeuvre” should be taken into consideration when viewing his work, rather than one individual film set out to shock.

‘Haneke is not the first—nor will he be the last—filmmaker to be embraced by academic critics who, unlike daily reviewers, have the ambition, time, and training to attempt to comprehend individual films, or an entire oeuvre for that matter, in larger cultural terms.’ Liebman (2012: 29)

Gerbas quotes Susan Sontag in her Regarding the Pain of Others where she gives an analytical appraisal of the concepts and techniques that Haneke uses to evoke the

33

dichotomy of using violence to abhor violence and the reasons it is effective in drawing us in and ultimately pushing us away. She first acknowledges the parallel between Horror and Pornography as discussed earlier:

‘The appetite for pictures showing bodies in pain is as keen, almost, as the desire for ones that show bodies naked’ (2003:36); the viewer of pain becomes as much a voyeur as the viewer of pornography.’ Gerbas, (2011:164)

Sontag acknowledges the differing reactions that are possible upon viewing such subject matter, covering the range of emotional potential.

‘There are two ways in which we usually respond to the spectacle of pain. One is to look away (or cover the eyes); the other is to keep looking. Sontag notes that torment is ‘often represented in painting as a spectacle, something being watched (or ignored) by other people’ (2003:38).

Why would we look at an image of horror or pain? For Sontag, we have ‘the satisfaction of being able to look at the image without flinching’, as well as ‘the pleasure of flinching’ (2003:37). On the other hand we may feel shock, and shame at watching (ibid). That is when someone sees us looking at pain and doing nothing about it, we feel ashamed. Gerbas, (2011:164)

Sontag then talks about our distaste toward the subject, which could go some way to explaining why some elements of society shy away from such viscera:

‘Being seen a spectator of pain is ethically problematic. Although not inflicting the pain ourselves, gazing impassively at it suggests indifference to – and perhaps even enjoyment of – the suffering of others. When somebody turns to face us (either the person in pain, or a third party), catches us in the act of looking, our morality comes into question.’ Gerbas, (2011:164)

Again Sontag is confirming that the direct acknowledgement of us the audience within the film, pulls us in and makes us part of the plot, like Hitchcock, like The Sixth Sense and like many horror films that use audience participation as a tool for

34

sensory emersion. In thie way making Haneke’s work not just a critique of society but an invitation to society to look upon itself and come to its own conclusions.

Conclusion

The first thing that one thinks about when broaching the subject of censorship and the Horror genre is the violent and macabre nature of it, as naturally that tends to be what initially turns people off. People turn their noses up as a knee jerk reaction to what they consider to be a lowbrow form of art and general pre-conceptions seem to rule out any kind of intellectual depth.

One of the biggest conclusions I have come to regarding this topic is that the depth of horror and its social discourse has far more span than the general public are seemingly aware of. In addition, due to the nature of Horror being such an emotive form of delivery, it seems as if society as a whole has trouble accepting the truths that potentially lie within the message. We are almost back in that childlike cycle of covering our eyes just to peek through the cracks in our fingers, for we know what awaits us yet we struggle to accept it. Just as we are aware of the issues raised in Haneke’s Funny Games, the irony there that the very people he is aiming at are the very people that won’t have a problem with the ferocity of the movie. Also he has himself unwittingly raised the bar and added a new approach.

35

One can’t help but think that Horror is such a niche form of entertainment, regardless of popularity, because it will always appeal to the same types of people and is thus preaching to the converted.

When we examined Psycho and the reactions to its release we found that regardless of initial critical panning it went on to great success and eventual critical praise. The controversy surrounding it only served to heighten awareness amoung the general public, creating a buzz. It was then that human nature took over and people’s curiosity sheep herded them into the cinemas. Whilst some people found the picture to be abhorrent, it did nothing really, but play on our already existing fears created by the horrors already going on in society. Those that were shocked in the beginning came round over time, having been able to put the movie into context, which was made easier by the release of similar films and themes that were made as a direct result of Psycho’s influence.

We found a similar course of events with

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. This

time however it was the movie being banned that created the catalyst for the public’s fascination with the film. Again though, years later it is considered a masterpiece and has spawned many copycats and generated huge revenue. The demographic of people that view this film as having a purely negative impact, again seem to be made up of the people that have not taken note of the depth of influence and the sources of this influence that are prevalent throughout the movie. The themes of family, poverty, war, disability and class were all symptomatic of America through the 60s and 70s.

These themes are either not acknowledged or are acknowledged through gritted teeth.

36

The proof being that neither Ferman nor Kermode could give any solid reasons for their disapproval and in the end relied on very basic arguments of taste and the potential damage to society. But as we have seen, taste is objective and the damage done is due to society itself not the films. The films merely serve to educate and reflect the ugliness.

With Haneke we found out that even if you are looking at it from the perspective that violence is glorified unjustly and that these films used in the realm of entertainment serve as just another symptom of a slowly degrading society, that misinterpretation can still critically override you. One of the pitfalls of infiltrating the enemy wearing their uniform is that your own troops may shoot you, metaphorically speaking.

In fact it seems that the whole debate over censorship is one without end, but maybe that is the way it should be. There will always be two sides of the argument as long as there is a gap between new ways of presenting the information and the old ways of interpreting it.

It seemed in the beginning to me that we as society should accept the fact that times move on, things change and we should just roll with the punches and accept the inevitability of confrontational material that will be disseminated freely. But I now realise that the process itself of having the discourse between the two sides of the fence is integral to society’s understanding, for if we were to accept without question, things may move too fast and we may not be forced to analyse what we have in front of us. It is the critics and their opposition that force us to look more closely at what we are defending and why we are defending it.

37

And what of the question ‘is society informing horror or is horror informing society?’ It is clear now that it is neither and both. The equilibrium between the two is in constant fluctuation and in many ways immeasurable, for the interpretation of what is socially acceptable will always be down to the individual and, as we have seen, individuals change their minds over time and our minds are heavily dictated by our surroundings. The most intelligent conclusion to come to is that this is a stalemate, but it is a necessary stalemate that is essential for the progression of not just Horror but society as a whole and it reminds us that we are the ones responsible for our own behaviour just as we are the ones responsible for what we chose or don’t chose to watch.

38

Bibliography Literary Sources:

Brottman, Mikita, (2005) Offensive Films, USA, Vanderbilt Press.

Fahy, T (2012) The Philosophy of Horror, Kentucky, The University Press of Kentucky.

Gerbas, A (2011) The Cinema of Michael Haneke: Europe Utopia New york Columbia university press

Haneke, M. (2012). Sight and Sound; 22 (12) , p54-58, 5p

Kolker , R P (2004) Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho: A Casebook. ,Oxford University press

Liebman, S., 2012. Haneke, Inc: The Auteur in the Academy. Cineaste - America's Leading Magazine on the Art and Politics of the Cinema, 37(2), pp. 24-29.

Lowenstein, A, (2004: 190) Hitchcock: Past and Future, London, Routledge

39

Mathews,T.D. (1994) Censored: The story of film censorship in Britain. London, Chatto and Windus

McCann, B, Sorfa, D, (2011) The Cinema of Michael Haneke: Europe Utopia New york Columbia university press

McGilligan, P (2003) Hitchcock: A life in Darkness and Light. New York, Harper Collins

McRoy ,Jay (2010) Horror Zone, London/New York ,I.B Tauris and co Ltd

Rogers, M., 2011. Video Nasties and the Monstrous Bodies of American Psycho.

Literature/Film Quarterly, 39(3), pp. 231-244.

Russell, L (2012) The Philosophy of Horror, Kentucky, The University Press of Kentucky.

Thrower, S (2007) ‘Nightmare USA’ Surrey, UK, The FAB Press

Walker,A (1966) Sex in the Movies, Penguin Books, Middlesex England

Wollen. Peter, (2004: 18) Hitchcock: Past and Future, London, Routledge

40

Internet sources:

Freeland, C (2004) Horror and Art Dread. [online] At: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=a0ZgaAcKJ9sC&lpg=PA195&ots=d0gFKRdE2 O&dq=cynthia%20freeland%20horror%20and%20art%20dread&pg=PA195#v=onep age&q=cynthia%20freeland%20horror%20and%20art%20dread&f=false “Psycho, teaser trailer’ (1960) Hitchcock, Alfred [online Trailer] at Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps8H3rg5GfM Robb, S (2010) How Psycho changed cinema. In: BBC News Magazine [online] At: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8593508.stm The American Nightmare’ (2003) Savini, Tom [online] At: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLcbgz1oJJs&list=PLA09A68AA802FBD55

Documentary:

‘Flesh Wounds’ Truth’ from ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre’ 3 disk seriously Ultimate Edition (2008) directed by Michael Felsher DVD. USA. Dark Sky Films.

“The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Shocking Truth’ from ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre’ 3 disk seriously Ultimate Edition (2008) directed by David Gregory DVD USA. Dark Sky Films.

41

42