The Ohio Sci-Fi and Horror Marathons

Nah - it's a fun topic

Yea, that was exactly my thinking in recommending Blow Out. If Psycho is considered a horror film, for example, why not Blow Out? Crazy serial killer? Check. Incredibly bleak and/or emotionally devastating ending? Check.

Seriously, where do we draw the line between horror and thriller? Supernatural elements? Gore? Both of those (if they are part of your definition of Horror) would, of course, exclude Blow Out - but, then, we'd also be excluding LOTS of films which are often considered Horror, and have been enjoyed at these marathons of ours.

And, also, the fact that Blow Out features the backdrop of the B-horror film industry (and, of course, great screams) is, to me, part of why it would make an appropriate marathon film.

Good question. I just saw Deep End (1970, Jerzy Skolimowski) this weekend and was surprised to find that it's considered a horror film by some (judging by the poster, it seems to have even been marketed that way). The first half of the film is comic (sort of in a coming-of-age vein), but it gradually becomes darker and darker until the ending - which, in turn, alters your viewpoint toward some of what happened in the first half of the film. But you really can't pin it down to any genre - it's part comedy, part drama, part thriller, etc. I seriously doubt that it'd ever be booked at a marathon, but it would be another great movie to see on the big screen.

That's interesting; I've never really thought of DEEP END as a horror film. More of a coming of age story/period piece. But still a great flick.

I had the pleasure of seeing it and Skolimowski's THE SHOUT on a double bill at The Cinefamily in L.A. a few years back. Now THE SHOUT? THAT would be an interesting flick to play at a Horror Marathon...for many reasons.

Bay and DePalma are really apples and oranges. DePalma started off as an underground director of such films as HI MOM and GREETINGS. And, even his early more commercial stuff like SISTERS hardly had mainstream leanings. The more towards the middle that DePalma got, the less interesting. Like his relative contemporary John Carpenter, DePalma began to repeat himself and, one could argue, got progressively more self-indulgent.

Bay, on the other hand started off with rock & Playboy videos and his features have always been crassly commercial.

_________________
Long Live the Orson Welles Cinemas

Yeah, De Palma and Bay is a really strange comparison. It's like comparing, I don't know, An American Werewolf in London to Paranormal Activity. Which a certain poster also did... the two directors have literally nothing in common, just like those two films have literally nothing in common. Film-school freshmen wouldn't make comparisons like that.

I'm not even saying people have to like De Palma's films. If they're not to your taste, that's one thing. But to hate De Palma for not being totally original is just silly. You might as well hate everyone who works in Hollywood for that. There are no totally original ideas.

I don't think horror films even have to be violent necessarily. I think horror is more about atmosphere, a feeling of dread and fear. I was just watching The Haunting again the other night. There is practically no violence in that whatsoever. Only one person dies in the entire film, and it's in a car accident. Yet it's a very frightening film (though it doesn't really work on me any more, just because I've seen it so many times). I'm not saying horror films can't or shouldn't use graphic violence, only that they don't necessarily have to. A lot of people seem to mistake blood and gore for "scary" though, particularly younger people. I don't necessarily find it scary just to see blood and gore. I've never really understood that.

I think the giallo subgenre really confused the line between thrillers and horror films. It's funny that a lot of audience members go to thrillers expecting them to be horror films, and sometimes vice versa. Some people don't seem to know the difference. A few nights ago I was watching the pseudo-thriller The Roommate, a lame college-age remake of Single White Female. I mostly watched it because my Netflix streaming wasn't working. It's pretty bad, but it's quite funny the way it approaches being a horror film at times, then pulls back just when you think something really violent or dangerous (or interesting) is about to happen. It's like they don't want to REALLY make the movie the audience actually wants to see. I found it really hilarious. Why they even bothered to make the movie, I don't know. But it's kind of fascinating.

This is a really good assessment. My interpretation of horror, suspense, thriller is when a distinct "fight or flight" emotional response in invoked. For some, Dress to Kill invokes that exact response...which is why it's so effective, same with Psycho. That's why, personally, any movie that deals in faith or the supernatural (i.e. The Exorcist, The Oman, Rosemary's Baby, Paranormal Activity, etc...) really draw a distinct emotional response of fear. That's probably due to my Catholic upbringing and the guilt I had to endure for 25 years!

But to say these two are one in same, is honestly very puzzling to me. I don't consider myself a huge movie expert but I can hold my own in a conversation and a disagreement. This comparison is, in my view, an argument just to argue. Just because you "tell it like it is" doesn't mean you have to be an A-hole.

Thanks. I was also going to say (but forgot) that thrillers tend to be more plot-driven than horror films. For example, someone's trying to kill the President at a certain time and they have to be stopped. Or someone's trying to solve a series of murders before the next one happens. There's generally a "ticking clock" scenario that you don't often see in horror films. This isn't always the case, but usually. It's about generating tension. "How is this going to be resolved?" Horror films usually don't have that element. It's more about, again, creating an atmosphere of dread and fear in which anything out of the ordinary can happen, be it ghosts, zombies, serial killers, etc. It doesn't necessarily have to be about violence. I think Carpenter's Halloween is a great example of creating that kind of atmosphere. Even before Michael Myers arrives in Haddonfield, you just feel like something's very wrong in that town. The air seems disturbed somehow. You just feel like something terrible is going to happen. I think that's part of the reason the film has held up so well all these years.

I also think Psycho is very much a horror film, maybe the first modern horror film. It doesn't have the sense of urgency that a thriller would have. The story of Norman Bates is very much a psychological horror story. It gets a little bogged down in exposition at times, sure. But audiences at the time weren't used to that kind of story or character and needed it explained to them in no uncertain terms. Now, it would be like, "oh, he's obsessed with his mother. We get it."

Having said all of this, I love a good thriller and I'm not opposed to seeing them at the marathon. The first De Palma film I ever saw was actually Body Double, which somehow I saw theatrically even though I was probably too young. It's basically Vertigo set against the backdrop of Hollywood and the porn industry of the 80's. Still one of my favorites. There are some scenes in that which I think would go over well with the marathon crowd, let's put it that way...