indra karan wrote:
> Yet by being temporal in nature, Horror ceases to
> pire for any philosophical position or identify itself as a ( meaningful)na=
> rrative, which also makes it difficult to be defined as a genre(?)
But isn't horror among the most codified of narrative genres? That's
what makes self-aware comedic horror -- from Abbot and Costello Meet
Frankenstein to Scary Movie and Scream -- possible. The audience is so
aware of the conventions that those conventions play an integral part of
the film experience. Wes Craven's New Nightmare plays with this, and
with the blanding down to the Freddie Kruger series, in a very clever
way, with the characters intruding on the lives of the actors of the
original film, playing themselves as those actors. Part of the plot
involves the development of a theory of horror: there are forces about
and embodying them in narrative is a means of controlling them. When the
narratives weaken, for example as the sequels get weaker, the forces
escape until they are recaptured in a narrative. Not sure if Craven
takes this seriously as an allegorical account of the psychology of
horror or whether he just uses the theory as a plot device.
j
*
*
Film-Philosophy salon
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|