The Ohio Sci-Fi and Horror Marathons
http://www.scifimarathon.com/phpBB2/

Are movies like "Irreversible" Horror Films
http://www.scifimarathon.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=703		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Jaws3dfan [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Are movies like "Irreversible" Horror Films
This debate has been started in another thread but I wanted to bring it out in it's own topic.

Also this is in no way a slam on Bruce, Joe or Stuart Gordon for showing this movie at the horror marathon I just wanted to get other peoples opinions on this topic:

VitruvianZeke wrote:
Film genre classification is one of the biggest argumentative points you'll ever find among movie buffs. Trust me, try working for a library sometime if you want to know just how confusing categorization can get.

IMDB recognizes 27 different genre classifications, but has the advantage of being able to classify films under multiple categories. They list Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer as "Crime, Thriller, Horror" and Irreversible as "Crime, Drama, Mystery, Thriller." The New York Public Library lists the VHS as "Revenge - Drama" and the DVD as "Murder - Drama."

I too would be disinclined to add "Horror" to the list for Irreversible, but in a Marathon which features Henry it seems appropriate enough. Certainly Mr. Gordon considers its intensity and style horrific enough ... he picked it, after all. :)


Revenge movies certainly have their place in the cinema but what revenge films are horror and which ones are Crime, Drama, Mystery or Thriller? Below is a short list of revenge films (feel free to add to it) and which can be classified as Horror or "other"...

Irreversible
Last house on the Left
I Spit on your Grave
Crank
Death Wish (and all the sequels)
The Exterminator
The Exterminator 2
Author:  rotorueter [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
Perhaps not, but I am still glad that films like this make it in the marathons. If we lived in NYC or Los Angeles, I might feel differently, but in many cases this outlet represents the only opportunity for a person from Columbus, OH to see a film like IRREVERSIBLE. GOZU, I think, falls under this category as well.

Maybe once the new Grandview Theatre gets up and running, and regular screenings of "alternative films" occur, we can make the Horror Marathon a more pure experience genre-wise.
Author:  rotorueter [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
Also,

I sort of view the Marathons through the lens of my only other major marathon experience: the Fantasia Film Festival in Montreal. http://www.fantasiafest.com/2009/

That festival is mostly dedicated to horror, but will deviate from that sometimes to show particularly shocking or avant-guard films that don't fit into any other genres cleanly.
Author:  VitruvianZeke [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
It's an interesting question. The pertinent entry in the Random House dictionary on horror says it is ... "centered upon or depicting terrifying or macabre events: a horror movie"

Films like Crank, First Blood, Walking Tall, The Punisher*, etc. all feature revenge motives, but are clearly not horror. They almost universally fall into IMDB's "quadfecta" of "Action, Crime, Drama, Thriller."

Yet a film like I Spit on Your Grave certainly has a terrifying aspect to its intensity, and a macabre aspect to its story. IMDB judges accordingly ... "Drama, Horror, Thriller."

I think it's largely a personal distinction as to what would make a "revenge" film into "horror." Is it the execution? Is it the style and intensity? Is it the brutality, or the deliberate graphic nature of individual scenes? Certainly Irreversible is intended to disturb, whether most viewers would be disturbed in a "terrifying or macabre" fashion is going to vary from person to person.

But as has also been pointed out, just because it's a Horror marathon doesn't mean that fringe films can't be included, especially if it's something seldom seen, innovative, etc.

I was happy enough to see it shown. And hey, Monica Bellucci's hot.

*NOTE: This is not meant to be an assessment of the quality of these various films, merely an examination of the commonality in their story and dramatic styling. If, indeed, they even have a story. Or a style. :)
Author:  not worldsfinest [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think Zeke makes a very key point and that is intent (and style/execution as well). Irreversible, I Spit and Last House all have a clear intent to shock, disturb and even upset, which, to me, is why I don’t see it as a stretch to label any of those as horror. The most disturbing parts of each of those films are quite horrific. The depiction of rape in all those movies also obviously has a lot to do with my feelings of horror.

But Crank, Punisher, Death Wish (the sequels at least), Revenge, The Count of Monte Cristo, etc., I don’t think are meant to disturb. They’re meant to entertain. You may cringe at points, but you’ll probably still be munching on your popcorn.
Don’t take this as me saying horror can’t be entertaining because we all know it can, but entertaining horror (Raimi, Jackson, Gordon, etc.) all also has traditional horror elements.

Of course this is all in the eye of the beholder. IMDB gets it somewhat right in that many movies are often more than one thing and can’t/shouldn’t be shoehorned into a single classification. If we’re going to pick nits, you could easily call The Thing or The Host sci-fi, rather than horror.
Author:  IamJacksUserID [ Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
We could all argue semantics and classifications until we are blue in the face. I think the real question everyone is getting at is: does something like Irreversible deserve to take up precious space at the Horror Movie Marathon?

Personally, I don't mind. In a 24 hour format, there is room to stretch the definition of a genre film. For 12 or 14 hour marathons, not so much. In this particular case, it was guest's choice. Of course, that doesn't mean that Joe and Bruce were automatically obligated to screen it, but there is enough of an argument to not make everyone scratch their heads.

Two years ago, out here where I live, they had a screening of The Warriors at the genre film festival. The festival is called the "International Horror and Science Fiction Film Festival." Now, let me ask you, which category exactly does The Warriors fit into? I realize it is comparing apples to oranges, but no one in the audience was complaining. I have not seen Irreversible, but had I been priveledged to attend the marathon this year, it would have definitely been a memorable experience I could not get anywhere else. For me, that's all I ask for in a weekend of celebration of film.
Author:  MarathonVet [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:24 am ]
Post subject: 
Just because something is difficult to watch, doesn’t make it horror. To me, a horror film has the standard elements of horror ... spooky music, suspense, the "jump" scene, etc. Irreversible had no horror qualities to it, it was merely a crime/revenge movie and, in my opinion, had no place in the marathon.

Bela Lugosi once said, "Horror should make the hair on your arms stand up, not make you lose your lunch."
Author:  Worldsfinest [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:48 am ]
Post subject: 
MarathonVet wrote:
Just because something is difficult to watch, doesn’t make it horror. To me, a horror film has the standard elements of horror ... spooky music, suspense, the "jump" scene, etc. Irreversible had no horror qualities to it, it was merely a crime/revenge movie and, in my opinion, had no place in the marathon.

Bela Lugosi once said, "Horror should make the hair on your arms stand up, not make you lose your lunch."


Couldn't that same arguement be made for Henry: Portrait of a serial killer? As horrific as it is, is it really horror? Wouldn't this fall into more of, suspene/Thriller/Drama category? Personally, I think if you dub Henry as horror than why not Irreversible?
Author:  Jaws3dfan [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:52 am ]
Post subject: 
Worldsfinest wrote:
MarathonVet wrote:
Just because something is difficult to watch, doesn’t make it horror. To me, a horror film has the standard elements of horror ... spooky music, suspense, the "jump" scene, etc. Irreversible had no horror qualities to it, it was merely a crime/revenge movie and, in my opinion, had no place in the marathon.

Bela Lugosi once said, "Horror should make the hair on your arms stand up, not make you lose your lunch."


Couldn't that same arguement be made for Henry: Portrait of a serial killer? As horrific as it is, is it really horror? Wouldn't this fall into more of, suspene/Thriller/Drama category? Personally, I think if you dub Henry as horror than why not Irreversible?


absolutely! I don't see Henry as a horror film the same way I don't think Natural Born Killers is Horror and Seven is not Horror BUT The Abominable Dr. Phibes is Horror.
Author:  VitruvianZeke [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
From another angle, I find the knifing-at-the-lake scene in Zodiac to be immensely disturbing, and the Charles Fleischer basement scene genuinely suspenseful, arguably terrifying. Still, two scenes don't a Horror Film make.

People often assume that a supernatural element is required for a film to be Horror, but I don't think that's necessarily the case.

Is Psycho a Horror film? IMDB certainly thinks so, and Hitchcock is often lauded as the grandfather of modern Horror. Is The Birds? Again, many would argue that it is. (Is the action of the swarm of birds generally seen as "supernatural?")

Eventually this line of reasoning leads us to Squirm, you know. Be afraid.

As JacksUserId points out, it's largely an argument of semantics, and everyone has their own gut feeling where the line should be drawn. I guess I'm a bit more forgiving of the fringe cases because I prefer a larger pool of films to draw from. (Good, bad, or ugly.)

I'm more than willing to stretch the definition if the film's worth it. Not saying Irreversible was, but that wasn't my call. :)
Author:  IamJacksUserID [ Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
There are excellent points on both sides here.
Enjoyable or not, appropriate or not...the one thing I can say about Irreversible's inclusion in the lineup is that it has made this message board active. I am totally supportive of that.
Author:  MarathonVet [ Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:08 am ]
Post subject: 
Worldsfinest wrote:
MarathonVet wrote:
Just because something is difficult to watch, doesn’t make it horror. To me, a horror film has the standard elements of horror ... spooky music, suspense, the "jump" scene, etc. Irreversible had no horror qualities to it, it was merely a crime/revenge movie and, in my opinion, had no place in the marathon.

Bela Lugosi once said, "Horror should make the hair on your arms stand up, not make you lose your lunch."


Couldn't that same arguement be made for Henry: Portrait of a serial killer? As horrific as it is, is it really horror? Wouldn't this fall into more of, suspene/Thriller/Drama category? Personally, I think if you dub Henry as horror than why not Irreversible?


Yes, I agree ... Henry is not horror. Movies have played at the horror marathon that I don't consider horror and movies have played at the sci-fi marathon that I don't consider sci-fi. But at least Henry had a point. Henry let you see into the mind of a killer. There was no point to Irreversible except to see how much torture and torment the audience can take. I've never nitpicked about genre before ... this is the only reason I've spoken up this time.
Author:  VitruvianZeke [ Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:47 am ]
Post subject: 
IamJacksUserID wrote:
Irreversible's inclusion in the lineup is that it has made this message board active. I am totally supportive of that.

D'OH! Now, see, you've gone and done it. Soon as you bring up the lack of conversation, conversation disappears. ;)

Actually, I've been of the opinion that every time I post in the Forum, everyone scatters to the four corners. You guys were proving me wrong there for a while. Now my complex is coming back.

'Course, I'm still not sure I've recovered from the Marathon anyway. I may still be asleep. In either case ... carry on.
Author:  Dennis [ Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:59 am ]
Post subject: 
I was busy getting the house ready for a party and trying to get some fall stuff done, so I have been away. I enjoyed the comments from both side. I pretty much second IamJacksUserID's comments. I had no problem with it since it was a 24 hour format, but I don't think it is what a regular person would consider a horror movie. I do wonder if it and Henry were a bit much.

It wasn't my favorite movie of the marathon, but it is definitely the one I've thought about the most.
Author:  L.A. Connection [ Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
As I noted before the event, I don't think that pure "shock" qualifies a film like IRREVERSIBLE as horror (and, it seems, much of the audience agreed). HENRY is a closer call as it is a borderline slasher tale.

And, as the Marathon has a limited number of slots per year, I don't that too many borderline titles should be scheduled except for exceptional circumstances.

P.S. The 'Bela Lugosi' quote is attributed to BORIS KARLOFF and it goes like, "The idea of terror is to make the audience's hair stand on end, not to make them lose their breakfast."

http://timeinc8-sd11.websys.aol.com/tim ... -2,00.html
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/