i think in this conversation/dispute i am much closer to dan's
view than to andrew's -- that is i believe that it is cavalier to
dismiss "horror" out of hand . . . but i'm troubled by martha's
provisional explanation -- or at least one aspect of it
if horror did indeed make us -- or let us or invite us to -- think
about the unthinkable then the case would be easy to make . . . and
there no doubt are viewers for whom [some] horror films do indeed
work that way . . . but i think it's pretty clear, as a sociological
if not formal or "aesthetic" fact on the ground -- that for most
audiences most horror works merely to shock, startle, thrill . . .
perhaps in the best case scenario some of these films get some
audiences to become fascinated with things we normally turn away
from [the way swift sometimes makes us do] and there may be
an argument made that this is of value, but it still seems quite
different than thinking about the unthinkable . . . in fact i think
that if thinking the unthinkable is the point then andrew is
right and THE PIANIST is really the way to go