Quoting Katy Stevens <[log in to unmask]>:
> > Recently I caught a glimpse of the old Texas CM, which was just stupid.
>
> Such an astute and nuanced response. </sarcasm> Your following comments
> certainly did nothing to support your already reductive position on horror.

And thank you, Katy, for your reductive judgement.

> I'm not interested in a slinging match here as clearly we are going to get
> nowhere particularly interesting considering your blind bias toward the
> genre (assuming the only valuable elements/films within horror are those which
> "transcend" it) but I wanted to at least be counted as another voice in
> support of the value of horror (and I'm talking 'pure' horror, not 'thriller'
> diversions which water down the viscerality and affect). That you could
> so solidly reject such a large and (aesthetically, politically,
> culturally...) diverse genre in spite of the body of theoretical
> work exploring its significance and import(as diverse as this also is and
> well noted by another member of the list) is a pretty clear signal that
> your preconceptions are unsusceptible to the influence of debate.

Thank you for avoiding "slinging matches" by stating that I have "blind bias"
and am "unsusceptible to the influence of debate."  But then again, I presume
that you haven't actually read what I've written or you would be as willingly
negligent.

For those of you, like Katy, who wish to dismiss my comments again, I will
state them again:

1) I have seen horror films (Halloween, TCM etc). I think they are, by and
large, worthless entries. And why?  Well....
2) The supposed "art" of such films is not to be confused with "craft", that
is, the putting together of such films (the people who work on the sets, etc).
3) People are beholden, in their arguments supporting the study of schlock
horror films, by volume.  It seems to me that if such films were few, they
would end up largely ignored.  They may indeed constitute, by their very
numbers, a genre.  Fine.  Yet that it is a genre and a subject of study does
NOT mean that schlock horror films yet have any merit *simply because of those
academic studies.*  The argument for study-means-merit puts the cart before the
horse.  This ties into the volume argument: one might argue that McDonald's
makes might good food based on "billions sold."  (And indeed, that is what
McDonald's does.)
4) Arguments that mistake the thrill-of-it-all as meaning that it does have
worth is really misleading.  Being able to respond to something emotionally
does not mean that the object of such a response constitutes "art."  I could
get hit in the head by a rock; the pain and anger I would feel does not
constitute the makings of "art."
5) I don't consider "The Exorcist" and "Alien" to be horror films.  I am
speaking largely of slice-and-dice films that attempt to dress themselves up as
something they are not.  They are repetitious, formulaic, and dull.  They are
made solely for profit.
6) I am well aware of theory, as I majored in it.  I am also aware that theory
has a tendency to create objects of study in a fashion not unlike self-
fulfilling prophecy.  Like the repetitious studies of repetitious horror films.

Andrew


Andrew Lesk

http://courses.ece.utoronto.ca/eng252yl0101
http://www.andrewlesk.com