I wasn't thinking about how much more disturbing one is compared to another. I was thinking more in terms of how accessible the comedy is to non-horror fans. I'll bet that people who are not familiar with horror flicks will get more of the humor in 'Slither' than 'Scream' (as 'Slither' is less in-joke oriented), but we'd have to show them both to a non-horror fan to know for sure.
My mother is a non-horror fan, and she was still able to "get into the groove" of SCREAM, and appreciate the humour in it, even if the 'in-jokes' didn't apply to her. Since it was a box-office, popcorn movie that was targeted primarily at teens and younger audiences (and I'm not saying that disparagingly), I think there are a lot of comedy elements that are accessible to regular viewers. It's definitely the kind of slasher film that I'd say is ideal for someone who wants to watch an entertaining "scary film", even if they wouldn't classify Horror as one of their favourite genres. The in-jokes would go over their heads for sure, but I don't think that would detract from their enjoyment of the movie's manifold humorous aspects and characters at all, the same way someone can enjoy a Shakespeare play (lol) without being well-versed in the Elizabethan and Jacobean traditions.
I really do think that the majority in the general movie-watching public would be either too grossed out or appalled by 'Slither' though, for the humour to have a significant impact on them. It's only those who are already into "Creature Feature" flicks that would really appreciate and enjoy the comedic elements. Most people have a natural aversion to the kind of physical horrors in 'Slither' - only a minority can remain unfazed by such things, and one would either have to be in that minority, or somehow get past the physical horrors to "get to" the humour.
I suppose 'Scream' and 'Slither' are apples and oranges though, since they both may be fundamentally "scary movies" (as opposed to comedies! LOL), but one is a Slasher film and the other is a Creature Feature.
Don't tell me you didn't laugh at that. Liar.
Ummm.......no, I didn't laugh at Brenda exploding. I thought it was 200% horrible!! Personally, for me to laugh at the very idea of that happening would be like laughing at the Twin Towers coming crashing down on 9/11/01. I guess different people are amused by different things (and believe it or not, some of my school-friends were laughing when we were asked to observe a minute's silence for the 9/11 victims. Guess that just goes to show you!)
In general though, it takes a **LOT** to make me actually laugh out loud even when watching a full-fledged comedy!! I can probably count the number of times I've laughed out loud while watching a movie or a play with one hand! I do giggle and laugh quite a bit in REAL LIFE though. This is not to say that I don't derive a great deal of enjoyment from comedic moments in films and plays, but my approach to Art is much more CEREBRAL, than visceral - and even if I find a character or a situation hilarious when watching something, I enjoy it all *INTERNALLY*, and almost never feel prompted to ACTUALLY laugh. It really annoys me when audiences start laughing and rolling in their seats at theatres and cinemas, in fact - my instinct is to say: "Oh, SHUT up and GROW up!!" :P I find it exceedingly immature. (But don't worry, you're allowed to laugh next to me, since I know you like to take a more cerebral approach to things too).
Shakespeare fan, huh? Anyway, that was just an example of some of the humor that non-horror fans should be able to find in it. There's more comedy in it than that, of course.
Sorry, I keep bringing up Shakespeare for 2 reasons: (1) Because his work is so universal and accessible to everyone, and (2) Because even his Tragedies and History plays are replete with comedic elements/characters/dialogue/situations.
He was probably the first writer to introduce outright comedy into a Tragedy or a Drama (which other playwrights who adhered strictly to the Classical Greek principles of writing apparently thought was crazy) - and that seems to have been the trend ever since, all the way down to present day films.
And let's not forget why she became a fat lady. She was chock full of murderous space-worms! Com'n, how's that not funny?
I don't think it's the least bit funny because she was inhumanly raped, mutated, starved, and made to explode like a balloon - in other words, every last shred of humanity was brutally taken away from her, as though she weren't even a living being (much less a human!) What happened to her was a zillion times worse than anything I've seen happen to ANY character in a horror film!!!!!!
The tragedy of what happened to her is heightened tenfold by the fact that she was a mother, and she inquires as to the well-being of her baby just minutes before she explodes. That alone makes what happens to her tragic, and not the LEAST bit comic, to say nothing of the INHUMAN *TORTURE* AND PAIN she underwent.
Fist, I don't consider tragedy a genre (more of a plot-device or theme).
Are you serious????? Tragedy is the *OLDEST* GENRE IN THE WORLD!!!!!!!!! lol. :)
The oldest dramatic work we have - 'Agamemnon' by Aeschylus - is a tragedy, and for 2000 years since the birth of Western Drama in Ancient Greece, dramatic works were classified as either TRAGEDIES or Comedies.
It's modern Hollywood/American filmmakers who don't feature Tragedy as an explicit genre - the way it had been since the beginning of civilisation - probably because Tragedy is the most sophisticated of all genres, and movies are generally not marketed to sophisticated minds. Up until the 20th century, there were actors who were *TRAGEDIANS*, and those who were Comedians. It's very very sad (pun intended) that an actor can no longer specialise in being a 'Tragedian' - whereas Comedians abound in every nook and cranny because entertainment has been dumbed-down to cater to the lowest common denominator, and there's nothing 'high-brow' anymore. :(
The funny thing about what you said is that it's *COMEDY* that I usually consider to be "more of a plot-device or theme". LOL. Especially in modern American films & plays!!!!!!
Humour is usually a defense mechanism, and Americans are the most notorious people in the world when it comes to adopting this defense mechanism. *giggle*
Second, you can find tragedy in everything, even comedy; 'Married With Children' is something of a tragedy. I know people who are depressed by Laurel & Hardy movies because of how they fail at every turn.
And you can find COMEDY in everthing, even tragedy; even in 'The Oresteian Trilogy' by Aeschylus, or Shakespeare's 'Hamlet', 'Antony and Cleopatra' and 'Romeo and Juliet' as I've pointed out earlier.
And many of the people who attended that screening of 'A Nightmare in Elm Street' were laughing throughout at Nancy's mother, as though the highlight of the film for them was to have a laugh at that character's/actress's expense.
In a way, you'd think that would make 'Scream' more disturbing because it's closer to reality whereas, 'Slither' is sci-fi, creature-feature stuff.
Yes, but we're talking about the HORROR genre. What is literally more "horrific"? The events of 'Scream', or the events of 'Slither'?
The Cambridge dictionary defines the word 'horror' as such:
"A strong feeling of fear, shock, or disgust, or an event that produces such a feeling"
This definition may as well have been written for 'Slither' - which would instill "fear", "shock" AND "disgust" equally in the general public. The same doesn't ring true for 'Scream' *NEARLY* as much.
That's debatable; these aliens seemed to have scared the hell out of you, but may just seem ridicules to others (just curious, what did you think of 'Night Of The Creeps'?) and I know people that were terrified by 'Scream' which didn't effect you. This seems a little too subjective to me to give a proper response to.
The aliens in 'Slither' didn't "scare" me - nothing in a work of fiction can actually "scare" me!! LOL.
The things that they DO to the human characters in the film are absolutely and objectively *HORRIFIC*, nonetheless.
The best analogy I can give you is a heterosexual woman who thinks Audrey Hepburn was absolutely beautiful. Despite not being attracted to Audrey Hepburn, a woman can still be acutely aware of her beauty. Similarly, I wasn't "scared" by the aliens in 'Slither' myself, but I was still acutely aware of the *HORROR* therein.
There will definitely be those who think the events depicted in 'Slither' are "ridiculous" - the way some people think soap operas are ridiculous or over-the-top, while others find them genuinely dramatic and compelling - but I would question why someone would WATCH 'Slither' in the first place, if they think the whole premise is "ridiculous" (the same way I would question why someone would watch soap operas if they find them too melodramatic).
I haven't watched 'Night of the Creeps'. :) And I can certainly appreciate how people could be "terrified" by 'Scream', even if it didn't have that effect on me, since "it's closer to reality" and all, as you noted earlier. That's why I said right from the get go that it's not a 'comedy' - because I knew that it was MADE with all the potential to terrify viewers, in the style of a Slasher film. :)
I thought that complemented the humor as well as the horror. Kind of an irreverent mocking of the notion of marriage being "sacred". It's simultaneously sardonicly funny and sad. (like a Luis Bunuel movie, but with slime monsters!) That's what I like about movies that mix-genres/moods. They have what I'll call "emotional-layers" since its after midnight and that's the best I can come up with, and you can laugh while crying and/or being afraid or feeling whatever other mood they (the filmmakers) have injected into the scene. I appropriate a movie that can do that!
What you said above sums up my theatre professor's point about that play which was perceived as a tragedy in London, and a comedy in New York. You see the marriage theme in 'Slither' as humorous - "an irreverent mocking of the notion of marriage being 'sacred'" and "sardonically funny". I see it as something pretty poignant and ultimately tragic. I've noticed that a lot of Americans tend to see certain things as "mocking" or sardonic in films and plays, especially where themes like traditional values and religion are concerned, where other cultures find them legitimately dramatic and/or "sad". This isn't a criticism of Americans - just a reflection of the fact that Americans are decidedly less traditional in outlook than people in England, many parts of Europe, and Asia. After all, those who founded America as we know it were trying to MAKE A BREAK from the religious and social traditions of England and Europe, so a lot of the things that are still taken very seriously in Britan, Europe and Asia are seen as archaic and comical in America.
Consequently, the "emotional layers" in a movie like this, to use your terminology, would have different impacts on different people, depending on their upbringing, cultural backgrounds, worldviews and individual dispositions. Some will laugh, some will cry, and others will do both, as you alluded to. I think the best filmmakers and writers know this all too well, when they "inject" their work with those different "layers". 'Slither' as a Horror film definitely has both comic layers and tragic layers. The tragic layers are more salient to me, while the comic layers are more striking to you.
I'm actually not a traditional type of person - especially when it comes to human customs like 'marriage' - but from a strictly DRAMATIC/NARRATIVE standpoint, the marriage theme in 'Slither' is one that reinforces a sense of tragedy rather than anything comic to me, although I can see how you might think differently.
To me a 'pure' horror movie is something that doesn't also fall under another genre. For example, some slasher movies like 'Halloween' and 'Friday The 13th 2' would be pure horror films because I don't see what else they would also qualify as, they're just horror movies.
We definitely have different definitions of what constitutes 'pure' horror too. Haha. :) And for me, it's difficult to think of ANY film that ONLY comprises one genre, without invariably possessing substantial elements from other genres too (even when a film is PRIMARILY one genre or the other).
I don't see 'Halloween' and 'Friday the 13th 2' as pure horror, because a Slasher film isn't 'pure' horror the way I define it. I would actually say that 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' approaches my idea of 'pure' horror a hundred times more than 'Halloween' and 'Friday the 13th 2' - and again, I'm not saying this based on how "scared" a film makes me, because nothing in a movie has "scared" me since I was a child. I look at Horror in a more cerebral way, and I think 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' for instance goes well above and beyond the conventions of a typical slasher film.
I get why you picked 'Halloween' and 'Friday the 13th 2' as your examples, however! :) 'Halloween' has so much more by way of ATMOSPHERE, MOOD and SUSPENSE than other slasher films to bring it closer to the level of classic horror (even though I personally don't think it hits the mark) - while 'Friday the 13th 2' is DEFINITELY superior to most of the other sequels in that series, primarily because it touches on the disturbing relationship/dynamic between Jason and Pamela Voorhees, and the presence of Pamela Voorhees is still very strong in the film (psychologically and physically).
Again, it can be both (I'd have to see the play myself to really know what I think the writer was going for).
It can be both, but the point my theatre professor was trying to make was that different people have very different ideas about "what the writer was going for" in cases like this - and sometimes, audiences are split *CULTURALLY*, as we saw with that play (a tragedy in London, and a comedy in New York).
And if we were to speak in terms of inviduals, rather than cultures and nationalities, people will always "project" their own worldviews and dispositions onto the film/play in question, and THINK that's "what the writer was going for" - when it's usually no more than a case of CLASSIC FREUDIAN *PROJECTION*. Only the writer himself/herself can explain what they were going for (and then again, there are subconscious forces at work, prompting writers themselves to 'project' things that they're not aware of. lol)
Comedy and drama are both creative forms of self-expression (art) and can often be used to express the same things in different ways and the emotions expressed are often negative; Jerry Lewis movies always revolve around insecurity. Shows like 'It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia' and the aforementioned 'Married With Children' have the theme of failure and (in MWC's case) hopelessness/depression as the basis for much of the humor. These are things often associated with serious, tragic dramas, but they are very prevalent in comedy so it's understandable that the two should seen as almost interchangeable at times (why do you think comedy/dramas are so common?).
I know that American film genres define 'Drama' as the opposite of Comedy - but I use the word 'Drama' in the age-old sense of a dramatic piece of writing meant for performance, which could be either tragic OR comic (if not both).
The saying goes that CONFLICT is Drama, and if one were to consider the word Drama in the original, NEUTRAL sense (rather than the modern American definition), then it becomes clear how conflict is at the heart of EVERY Drama, be it a Tragedy OR a Comedy, regardless of genre.......which speaks to your point about how it's "often" the "same things" that are expressed "in different ways", depending on the genre, and how "the emotions expressed are often negative", whether it's a comic story or a serious story.
In other words, one could say that ALL plays, films and TV shows are 'Dramas' - and where there's a story, there is conflict and tension, without which there would be NO story, whether tragic or comedic. Certainly, a lot of stories can be both serious and funny, either alternately, or simultaneously - one classic example that comes to mind is Shaw's 'Pygmalion', and the musical based thereon, 'My Fair Lady'. So I definitely know what you mean when you talked about how certain genres are "almost interchangeable at times" in a story - mostly when the characters are PARTICULARLY colourful, I think. :)
With regard to the TV shows you cited, which deal with themes like insecurity, failure and hopelessness/depression in Comedy format - I think THAT speaks to my earlier point about the American tendency to use humour as a defense mechanism in coping with the stresses and strains of day-to-day life, but perhaps that's a topic for a Sociology forum. LOL.
We'll see about that! I can do a damn good Paul Lynde impression! I can't show you over the internet so just take my word for it.
This I gotta see! Paul Lynde was one of the few legitimately/genuinely 'sexy' guys in American entertainment because of his inner essence as a performer. lol
Have you 'heard' him as Pumpkinhead in 'Journey Back to Oz', by the way?
Thanks. Wait, you saw MBTS and you're still effected by 'Slither' (?) or did you not see MBTS and are only aware of it? Either way, I'd say those alien-slugs are pussycats compared to the real-life doctors that worked at unit 731.
No, I haven't actually seen MBTS. Did those real-life doctors do unspeakably inhuman things to people, as the Alien in 'Slither' did though?? lol
I see you're point, but that's just part of being a mixed-genre movie; or course, if they want to make something that falls under both genres, as opposed to pseudo-horror films like 'Transylvania 6-5000' or 'Scary Movie' which are only comedies that use horror as lampoon-fodder, than the filmmakers are going to blend them together as best they can.
All this time, it actually sounded to me like you saw 'Slither' as a film made in the vein of 'Scary Movie' - a COMEDY that only "uses horror as lampoon-fodder", which is what I was vehemently disagreeing with. lol.
While I don't agree that 'Slither' qualifies as a "Horror Comedy" in the style of 'An American Werewolf in London', at least I'm glad to hear that you don't see 'Slither' as just "pseudo-horror" (which is what I thought you meant for a while there).
But I wouldn't put 'An American Werewolf in London' in the Comedy section at a video store, because again, it's first a Horror film and THEN a comedy. :)
I know of some people who are more disturbed by dark material when it's intended to be funny, like this friend of a friend (that's why I said "know of" as opposed to simply "know") who can (supposedly) watch something like 'Eraserhead' without a problem, but finds John Waters' early work eerily disturbing because JW plays his gruesome material for laughs which in a way is a bit more unsettling than playing it straight.
That makes complete sense, and I would totally agree that "gruesome material" played "for laughs" can be "more unsettling than playing it straight".
But are you saying you think James Gunn was trying to do an early John Waters with 'Slither'?? lol.
He hardy seemed to notice me. Oh well, his loss.
Maybe he would have started to notice if you did a Paul Lynde impersonation. LOL
reply
share