“ It’s crazy, all that blood and violence. I thought you were supposed to be the love generation”. Conservative mother, Estelle Collingwood says to her daughter Mari in the beginning of Wes Craven’s cult classic The Last House on the Left (1972). With the war in Vietnam in full swing and the long term effects of the Manson family murders, the peace and love counter culture was at the end of an era. American society had become more violent and corrupt, as were the films Hollywood was starting to release. And with the new generation’s style of filmmaking and recent MPAA rating system, filmmakers were pushing the boundaries of their films and shocking audiences and critics to the core. With new filmmakers kicking down the door of Hollywood every year, it’s no surprise that soon-to-be horror icon Wes Craven would fit perfectly into the new generation of Hollywood. Craven’s early films fall into the exploitation category. They were severely gruesome, repulsive, appalling, and ended up being banned in several countries. Craven would go on to make films that reflect on contemporary society by using a number of recurring themes and formal filmmaking aesthetics that included:
1. Recurring themes of evil as a product of society
2. Recurring themes of corruption of youth and innocence
3. Juxtapositions of setting
4. Subjective point of view camera shots
Early Life
Wesley Earl Craven was born on August 2, 1939 in Cleveland, Ohio. The son of
Wes Craven: Auteur of Exploitation & Violence 2
Caroline née Miller and Paul Craven, he was raised in a strict Baptist household. His parents had a large list of activities that prohibited Craven from participating in anything that would be co-ed, this would include going to the movies. At age five, his p...
... middle of paper ...
...d film aesthetics? Simple, because he asks questions that are still relevant to society today. His views on certain morals and psychological corruption is depicted in exaggerated forms of violence, that perhaps he feels an emotional connection with. It is certain that this could be because of his strict religious upbringing and being told that everything and everyone is evil. And growing up through a period in time where you’re exposed to violence around every corner, can certainly make someone question their faith in what’s and good and what’s evil and is it ok to expose that evil. As Craven states in an interview, “ A lot in life is dealing with your curse, dealing with the cards you were given that aren’t so nice. Does it make you into a monster, or can you temper or accept it and go in some other direction?” (R. Mancini & W. Craven, personal communication, 2004).
I have provided a clear evaluation of his essay in an organized way using the appropriate standards of evaluation. In understanding why humans “Crave Horror Movies” even when some people get nightmares after watching them we find the importance of our emotions and fears. We find those emotions and fears form a body of their own which needs to be maintained properly in order to remain healthy. We see how emotions can be controlled though viewing horror movies. Stephen King’s “Why We Crave Horror Movies” is a well written essay with convincing analogies, comparisons, and urban humor.
1. Sobchack’s argument pertaining to on -screen violence that she wrote thirty years ago was that any violent acts portrayed in movies back then was to emphasize the importance of an element in a story, an emphatic way of engaging the viewers and forcing them to feel what the movie was about. It gave them a sense of the substance of the plot which would allow them to feel for the characters and yearn for good to overcome evil. In other words, the effort made to engage audiences through depictions of violence created violence that was artistic and well done, or as Sobchack writes, violence was “aestheticized.” Violence was incorporated into film in a stylistic way, and even though violence in all forms is offending, twenty five years ago when it was seen in film, it had a greater impact on audiences because it had meaning (Sobchack 429).
...d traditions, but also blending two distant genres together. The blending of genres gives us ideas about common conventions in films that we do not usually pay attention to, and how they can be manipulated to change the way we think about individuals and groups. Edward Scissorhands dives deeper than just a “Beauty and the Beast” narrative, and influences audiences to explore topics of how the gentlest of souls can be misjudged by their appearance, a seemingly normal community can be the “bad guy” if it only has its personal intentions in mind and no one else’s, and that true love is not about what is on the outside, but rather, what is on the inside. Edward Scissorhands can be considered as one of the most appealing films of the 20th century as it keeps audiences guessing, surprises them at the most unexpected times and breaks conventional film boundaries.
The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao focuses on gender and the role gender has on the characters lives. The characters of this book are also one way or another impacted by the dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo. The major themes of this book were topics we have focused in class. The themes of machismo and the effects of Rafael Trujillo affected the latino population even in the United States.
Aside from its acting, the other major influence which Mean Streets had upon American film-makers was through it's use of a rock n' roll soundtrack (almost perfectly integrated with the images), and in its depiction of a new kind of screen violence. Unexpected, volatile, explosive and wholly senseless, yet, for all that, undeniably cinematic violence. The way in which Scorsese blends these two - the rock and roll and the violence - shows that he understood instinctively, better than anyone else until then, that cinema (or at least this kind of cinema, the kinetic, visceral kind) and rock n' roll are both expressions of revolutionary instincts, and that they are as inherently destructive as they are creative. This simple device - brutal outbreaks of violence combined with an upbeat soundtrack - has been taken up by both the mainstream cinema at large and by many individual `auteurs', all of whom are in Scorsese's debt - Stone and Tarantino coming at once to mind.
The article Why We Crave Horror Movies by Stephen King distinguishes why we truly do crave horror movies. Stephen King goes into depth on the many reasons on why we, as humans, find horror movies intriguing and how we all have some sort of insanity within us. He does this by using different rhetorical techniques and appealing to the audience through ways such as experience, emotion and logic. Apart from that he also relates a numerous amount of aspects on why we crave horror movies to our lives. Throughout this essay I will be evaluating the authors arguments and points on why society finds horror movies so desirable and captivating.
While Hanke's thesis is logical, I think the real reason these pictures get such acclaim is (you guessed it) their aesthetic distance. Both The Silence of the Lambs and Seven are considered to be more psychological in nature, as they present killers whose motivations are explainable. The unexplainable is infinitely more terrifying than the explainable so in elucidating the motivations to their gruesome behavior the audience is given an easy out. Believing that evil has a root cause, the audience does not have to accept the shocking hypothesis that evil can simply exist without rhyme or reason. Even in the masterpiece Halloween (1978) we are tossed a half-hearted psychological explanation as to why Michael Myers does what he does. The psychobabble that Donald Pleasance spouts is simply that Myers is "pure evil," and there are some vague connections made between Myers witnessing his sister engaging in premarital sexual activity and his slaughtering tendencies. Director John Carpenter then gets to have a killer who seems like a force of nature, yet is still explainable within the realm of psychology.
Overall, in Stephen King’s essay, “Why We Crave Horror Movies”, his suggestion that we view horror movies to “reestablish our feelings of essential normality” (562) and there is a “potential lyncher in almost all of us” (562) has brought forth many aspects that I have never really thought about. Why do we have so much excitement when it comes to horror films? Everyone has their own opinion, which will never end with one definite answer. Stephen King thinks there’s and evil in all of us, but I don’t think so. The evil only comes out if you make it, we do not need horror films for psychic
Modern day horror films are very different from the first horror films which date back to the late nineteenth century, but the goal of shocking the audience is still the same. Over the course of its existence, the horror industry has had to innovate new ways to keep its viewers on the edge of their seats. Horror films are frightening films created solely to ignite anxiety and panic within the viewers. Dread and alarm summon deep fears by captivating the audience with a shocking, terrifying, and unpredictable finale that leaves the viewer stunned. (Horror Films)
Qualities like violence were extremely limited back then in the 1950s, but it is more widely accepted in today’s society in gruesome amounts. I remember reading about this one movie that had been banned because the audience believed that the horrific acts in it were realistic and that the actors were hurt or killed off in the making of the film, but it was just accurate representation of what would occur had the violent act had been done in real life. Another quality that caught the interests of the audience was indistinctive or abnormal characters. Characters like Heath Ledger’s Joker who have joy of torturing others for the sake of fun deviates from the typical person and is surprising that these type of people do exist in our world in silence. Interestingly enough, these characters catch our eye the most often because we wonder why they think differently from “normal” humans.
One could easily dismiss movies as superficial, unnecessarily violent spectacles, although such a viewpoint is distressingly pessimistic and myopic. In a given year, several films are released which have long-lasting effects on large numbers of individuals. These pictures speak
Film scholar and gender theorist Linda Williams begins her article “Film Bodies: Genre, Gender and Excess,” with an anecdote about a dispute between herself and her son, regarding what is considered “gross,” (727) in films. It is this anecdote that invites her readers to understand the motivations and implications of films that fall under the category of “body” genre, namely, horror films, melodramas, (henceforth referred to as “weepies”) and pornography. Williams explains that, in regards to excess, the constant attempts at “determining where to draw the line,” (727) has inspired her and other theorists alike to question the inspirations, motivations, and implications of these “body genre” films. After her own research and consideration, Williams explains that she believes there is “value in thinking about the form, function, and system of seemingly gratuitous excesses in these three genres,” (728) and she will attempt to prove that these films are excessive on purpose, in order to inspire a collective physical effect on the audience that cannot be experienced when watching other genres.
As stated, he has a clear use for violence in his film. He likes to incorporate an anti-hero that justifies his actions through a mental imbalance. In the Wolf of Wall Street you will see that the main character has a major drug and behavioral problem, however he is looked at as a hero throughout the movie. You will notice that it seems like he likes to stick with certain characters throughout his movies. He likes Leonardo Dicaprio. This is probably because the actors fit the character that he wants well. If it isn’t broke, why fix it? Martin has a way of making the violence in his films fit into the storytelling process. It is obvious that Martin likes to explore the immoral side of us. He tries to get us to follow characters that do not conform to society. The things about having immoral characters is that the audience can sometimes relate
Have you ever had one of those days that were so bad that you desperately needed a night at the ice cream or candy store? The 1970’s was that really bad day, while the night of self- indulgence was the 1980’s. Americans love to escape from our daily stress, and of all the products that allow us to do so, none is more popular than the movies. Movies are key cultural artifacts that offer a view of American culture and social history. They not only offer a snapshot of hair styles and fashions of the times but they also provide a host of insights into Americans’ ever-changing ideals. Like any cultural artifact, the movies can be approached in a number of ways. Cultural historians have treated movies as a document that records the look and mood of the time that promotes a particular political or moral value or highlights individual or social anxieties and tensions. These cultural documents present a particular image of gender, ethnicity, romance, and violence. Out of the political and economic unrest of the 1970’s that saw the mood and esteem of the country, as reflected in the artistry and messages in the movies, sink to a new low, came a new sense of pride in who we are, not seen since the post-World War II economic boom of the 1950’s. Of this need to change, Oscar Award winner Paul Newman stated,
Of all the 1980’s films, that can be described as “Eighties Teen Movies” (Thorburn, 1998) or “High School Movies” (Messner, 1998), those written and (with the exception of “Pretty In Pink” (1986) and “Some Kind of Wonderful”(1987)) directed by John Hughes were often seen to define the genre, even leading to the tag “John Hughes rites de passage movies” as a genre definition used in 1990s popular culture (such as in “Wayne’s World 2” (1994 dir. Stephen Surjik)). This term refers to the half dozen films made between 1984 and 1987; chronologically, “Sixteen Candles” (1984), “The Breakfast Club” (1985), “Weird Science” (1985), “Ferris Bueller's Day Off” (1986), “Pretty In Pink” (1986) and “Some Kind Of Wonderful” (1987) (the latter two being directed by Howard Deutch). For the purpose of this study, “Weird Science” and “Some Kind of Wonderful” shall be excluded; “Weird Science” since, unlike the other films, it is grounded in science fiction rather than reality and “Some Kind of Wonderful” as its characters are fractionally older and have lost the “innocence” key to the previous movies: as Bernstein states “the youthful naivete was missing and the diamond earring motif [a significant gift within the film] was no substitute” (Bernstein, 1997, p.89). Bernstein suggests that the decadent 1980s were like the 1950s, “an AIDS-free adventure playground with the promise of prosperity around every corner … our last age of innocence” (Bernstein, 1997, p.1). The films were very much a product of the time in terms of their production (“suddenly adolescent spending power dictated that Hollywood direct all its energies to fleshing out the fantasies of our friend, Mr. Dumb Horny 14 Year Old” Bernstein, 1997, p.4), their repetition (with the growth of video cassette recorders, cable and satellite with time to fill, and also the likes of MTV promoting the film’s soundtracks) and their ideologies.