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:
> --0-144958052-1219693091=:15829
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>
> Hi John,
> =A0
> That is because Horror attaches itself to the primitive psyche, which elici=
> ts highly self conscious protection and preservation response from the subj=
> ects both as observers and partcipents, rather than any contemplative under=
> standing of hidden meaning that is momentarily fleeting the perception.
> =A0
> But as in its repetitious( plot/structure/technique/aesthetics) projections=
> it( horror)=A0looses, what is its primary nature of being unbound and unpr=
> edictable process of destruction.
> For Horror to work to effectively it can rely on any plot, but the codifica=
> tion( yet unknown)=A0aspect has its locus in the subconscious of the self t=
> hat is engaged.
> =A0
> A simple example being that=A0of =A0Frankenstein, who=A0once exposed become=
> s 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=A0as a character and=A0its brand of horror)remains well =A0explained=
> to the participating subjects.=A0
> =A0
> If there is any further creative exploration of any of the known/potential =
> Horror characters, that=A0is basically a clever exploitation of the origina=
> l, which=A0is a clever marketable ploy, based on the potential for a commer=
> cial and creative exploitation.
> =A0
> One of the interesting examples could be that of Chaplin's portrayal of Hit=
> ler in his comedy, where Hitler=A0actually for the viewers stands as dehuma=
> nized/humanized person in a reconstruct of the historical,with out the true=
> reflection( physical and aesthetic)=A0of=A0the tragedy of events.The same =
> can be explained in the case of=A0humanized Frankenstein both as a victim a=
> nd perpetrator, that is because ideology/philosophy is parasiting on the Ho=
> rror=A0 in neutralizing its original nature and also in reshaping/restructu=
> ring it in to a narrative.(Here=A0we can have numerous parallels in our con=
> temporary times)
> =A0
> In the end one can concur that=A0Horror is more of a psychological genre(?)=
> , rather than philosophical or a meaningful narrative, unless it=A0acquires=
> an existential overtone, where for example=A0the notion of being caught up=
> on the planet of apes and be a subject of one of their captive experiments=
> , leading to=A0self awared=A0horrific notion of loosing oneself to the prim=
> itive.( self).( then it can be regarded=A0as belonging to many genres based=
> on plausible intrepretations).
> =A0=A0=A0=A0
> 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=20
>> pire for any philosophical position or identify itself as a (
>>
> meaningful)na=3D
>
>> 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=20
> 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 of=20
> the film experience. Wes Craven's New Nightmare plays with this, and=20
> 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=20
> 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.
>
> 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]
> uk.
> 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]
> **
> =0A=0A=0A
>
> *
> *
> 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]
> **
>
>
>
>
> --0-144958052-1219693091=:15829
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
>
> <table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><DIV id=yiv2000239855>
> <DIV>Hi John,</DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV>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.</DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV>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.</DIV>
> <DIV>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.</DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV>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. </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV>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.</DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV>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 <SPAN><SPAN>parasiting</SPAN></SPAN> 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)</DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV>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).</DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV>regards,</DIV>
> <DIV>Indra <SPAN>Karan</SPAN>.</DIV>
> <DIV><BR><BR>--- On <B>Mon, 8/25/08, John Matturri <I><[log in to unmask]></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid">From: John Matturri <[log in to unmask]><BR>Subject: Re: Horror question extended (to affects of horror)<BR>To: [log in to unmask]<BR>Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 10:41 PM<BR><BR><PRE>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]
> **
> </PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></td></tr></table><br>
>
>
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion 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]
> **
>
>
>
>
>
> --0-144958052-1219693091=:15829--
>
>
*
*
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]
**
|
