From: John Matturri <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Horror question extended (to affects of horror)
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2008, 1:49 AM

I while I wouldn't hold with a psychoanalytic vocabulary of the 
subconscious I think I'm in at least vague agreement that there is 
something primitive about the reactions behind horror. Gut reactions, to 
use Jesse Prinz' term for the emotions rather than the propositionalist 
based theory put forth by Carroll. We may not believe in monsters or 
superficial but the films  but  on some level we fall for the films  
despite these beliefs, just as we perceptually fall for the Muller-Lyer 
illusion despite retaining our belief that the two lines are the same size.

j

indra karan wrote:

Hi John,
 
That is because Horror attaches itself to the primitive psyche, which elicits highly self conscious protection and preservation response from the subjects both as observers and partcipents, rather than any contemplative understanding of hidden meaning that is momentarily fleeting the perception.
But as in its repetitious( plot/structure/technique/aesthetics) projections it( horror) looses, what is its primary nature of being unbound and unpredictable process of destruction.
For Horror to work to effectively it can rely on any plot, but the codification( yet unknown) aspect has its locus in the subconscious of the self that is engaged.
A simple example being that of  Frankenstein, who once exposed becomes a stereo type, where a
 parody of comic horror as an off shoot is possible for entertainment purpose.As the explicit( exposed) notion of Frankenstein( both as a character and its brand of horror)remains well  explained to the participating subjects. 
If there is any further creative exploration of any of the known/potential Horror characters, that is basically a clever exploitation of the original, which is a clever marketable ploy, based on the potential for a commercial and creative exploitation.
One of the interesting examples could be that of Chaplin's portrayal of Hitler in his comedy, where Hitler actually for the viewers stands as dehumanized/humanized person in a reconstruct of the historical,with out the true reflection( physical and aesthetic) of the tragedy of events.The same can be explained in the case of humanized Frankenstein both as a victim and perpetrator, that is because
 ideology/philosophy is parasiting on the Horror  in neutralizing its original nature and also in reshaping/restructuring it in to a narrative.(Here we can have numerous parallels in our contemporary times)
In the end one can concur that Horror is more of a psychological genre(?), rather than philosophical or a meaningful narrative, unless it acquires an existential overtone, where for example the notion of being caught up on the planet of apes and be a subject of one of their captive experiments, leading to self awared horrific notion of loosing oneself to the primitive.( self).( then it can be regarded as belonging to many genres based on plausible intrepretations).
    
regards,
Indra Karan.


 --- On Mon, 8/25/08, John Matturri <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 From: John Matturri <[log in to unmask]>
 Subject: Re: Horror question extended (to affects of horror)
 To: [log in to unmask]
 Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 10:41 PM

 indra karan wrote:
   
 Yet by being temporal in nature, Horror ceases to aspire for any philosophical position or identify itself as a (
 meaningful)narrative, which also makes it difficult to be defined as a genre(?)
 But isn't horror among the most codified of narrative genres?

what makes self-aware comedic horror -- from Abbot and Costello Meet=20
Frankenstein to Scary Movie and Scream -- possible. The audience is so=20
aware of the conventions that those conventions play an integral part
ofthe film experience. Wes Craven's New Nightmare plays with this,
and with the blanding down to the Freddie Kruger series, in a very clever=20
way, with the characters intruding on the lives of the actors of the=20
original film, playing themselves as those actors. Part of the plot=20
involves the development of a theory of horror: there are forces about=20
 and embodying them in narrative is a means of controlling them. When
the narratives weaken, for example as the sequels get weaker, the forces=20
 escape until they are recaptured in a narrative. Not sure if Craven=20
 takes this seriously as an allegorical account of the psychology of=20
 horror or whether he just uses the theory as a plot device.
 
 

That is because Horror attaches itself to the primitive psyche,
which elicits highly self conscious protection and preservation response from
the subjects both as observers and partcipents, rather than any contemplative
understanding of hidden meaning that is momentarily fleeting the
perception.
But as in its repetitious( plot/structure/technique/aesthetics)
projections it( horror)&nbsp;looses, what is its primary nature of being
unbound and unpredictable process of destruction.
For Horror to work to effectively it can rely on any plot, but
the codification( yet unknown)aspect has its locus in the subconscious
of the self that is engaged.