#and I don't like exploitation-style horror/gore

[wanderingmind867]

I think it was only recently I learned Plastic Man could be used for body horror purposes. And christ, i think i want to forget that. Imagining it may be too much for me, seeing as i'm incredibly easily frightened. But then again, Man-Thing counts as body horror, but Ted Sallis/Man-Thing is oddly cute and doesn't really scare me. But I don't want to see any modern art adaptations on these themes. Because i don't need nightmares for months because i saw a character suffering horrible nightmarish conditions. So i want to pretend i never learned about the plastic man - body horror connection. I want to think of plastic man as a fun comic relief style character. I don't want to think of the dark stuff.

Funnily enough, I can draw comparisons to The Thing on the Fantastic Four. The fact that Ben Grimm is stuck in a rocky body he never wanted feels like it could be exploited for horror in the same way Plastic Man could be. But my bigger question (as someone who's easily scared and hates horror): why would you do this? Why would you take these fun characters and ruin them with horror and gore influences? Why?

[unpopularhorroropinions]

It's okay to like both arthouse and grindhouse horror

Gonna start off with an opinion that isn't so much of a hot take as it is just something that many horror fans choose to disregard. I'm in a Terrifier fan group on Facebook, where, on a semi-regular basis, people share screenshots of other people on the Internet bashing Terrifier or complaining when someone says they like Pennywise better than Art the Clown. Some of these people have argued that horror needs to go back to its roots and be bloodier and gorier and not (what they perceive as) pretentious artsy-fartsy shit like A24. Which... uh, horror's "roots" are probably closer to being "artsy-fartsy" than all-out gorefests, especially seeing how gore in movies were practically non-existent before the Hays Code was abolished, so that argument in invalid. Films like Nosferatu, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, The City of the Dead, Vampyr, and Black Sabbath all managed to do plenty without being gory, and made use of elaborate sets, costumes, and props, and relied heavily on atmosphere, which is much more in line with being "artsy". Certainly at least some of these remain influential on horror cinema today. But I'm getting dangerously close to feeding into the arthouse vs. grindhouse war, which is not my intention.

What I'm getting at is that there seems to be people who think you can only like one style of horror and not the other. First, I would like to define the two. When I think of arthouse horror, I think along the lines of the filmography of Lars von Trier, David Lynch, or even A24 releases, although their output is often less abstract or surreal than the former examples. They are, for lack of a more sophisticated word, more showy than your average horror movie. Experimental and atmospheric rather than excessive (though there are exceptions), oftentimes with some underlying message. Grindhouse (I guess the technical term is "exploitation film"), on the other hand, usually relies on extreme violence, gratuitous sex and nudity, and off-the-wall premises. Now, not all horror movies fall into either of these categories. Plenty of them don't, especially not the ones that get nationwide theatrical releases. Relying mostly on atmosphere or having pretty scenery don't make an arthouse movie, nor does having ultra-gory death scenes make a grindhouse movie. If that were the case, then Blumhouse would be considered both. Heh, continuing with the "house" theme. That being said, there are times where the two overlap, and extreme horror is certainly all-encompassing, but I'm getting off-topic.

The way I see it, there's validity in all strains of horror. It is almost a union of opposites. As with most things, it's essential to not dismiss either of them. Both have plenty to say. Both, in their own way, speak to our propensity for irrationality. I was going to go off on a lengthy, philosophical diatribe to back my arguments, but have decided against it. All I'm gonna say now is that as with most things, balance is key. To say you can only like one or the other, or that horror is supposed to be a certain way (and that goes beyond either arthouse or grindhouse; I've heard people trying to argue that horror needs to have points where you root for the villain, which makes no sense), is asinine. If you aren't a fan of one of these styles, that's fine. Just don't act like horror has to be either/or. It's gatekeeping, and it's obnoxious.

[reachexceedinggrasp]

wondering if you heard of 'Mrs. Davis' show? I just finished it and enjoyed the romance aspect, although it's not the central focus (it's pitched as zany AI hijinks but is more about spirituality/interpersonal relationships, IMO). It's not BatB themed or anything and pretty silly on occasion, but the character arcs are earnestly handled and it wasn't cynical, so wanted to mention to you just in case you might be interested :) warning, there is some 'gore' but in a more comic fashion, and is basically 3 scenes that aren't essential to witness.

I have never heard of this! What do you like about it, anon?

[cumulativechaos]

having seen jordan peele's three movies at this point im pretty sure the way on-screen gore and violence is used pretty sparingly is part of his style. and i like his style a lot, but the way so much of the gore is kept off-screen works SO well in Nope (2022) specifically

like for one thihg, having some of the most gruesome/terrifying parts of the movie happen just outside of the camera or blocked by something in the shot definitely elevates the horror. gordy attacking jupe's co-stars is all blocked by the set, we only see the shadows of everyone getting sucked into jean jacket, and even tho we see them inside jean jacket a little bit, it's more to show us how they were being kept alive. we don't actually see them die/get digested. and because none of these things happen on-screen, our brains connect the dots and come up with the most horrifying shit we can imagine

but even outside of just how Not Seeing The Scary Thing Makes The Scary Thing Scarier, it fits fucking thematically with the whole movie. we don't need to see the gory gruesome details of someone's death to know what happened to these characters, showing these things on-screen wouldn't add to our understanding of the plot. it would just be a spectacle of gore and pain and the whole point of Nope is condemning the act of pointing the camera at suffering to exploit people's pain

[playingwithgore]

Gummo was an excellent drama but while watching I ran into the same problem I experienced with dogtooth where like, I went into it believing these were "disturbing movies" like in the sense of horror and ‘challenge’ films and stuff, which I think is a super unfair portrayal of these two dramas. A good, hard-hitting drama with one or two really intense scenes does not an extreme cinema film make! And I love what both of these films did absolutely, but I originally sought to watch them because I’m a gorehound who enjoys shock value films, but neither portray their subject matter at all in the way people online suggest they do.

Gummo is more or less a kind of distorted slice-of-life, an exercise in depression surrounding an entire community, and  naturally it is very slow and (not in a negative way) fairly uneventful. There is also the point that it does not follow a linear story with one set of main characters. On the other hand, Dogtooth... It's a really unique piece of cinema. I haven't seen a single other Greek film, and I don't know much about the culture, so I'm not particularly qualified to discuss it at length or talk about whatever genre I think it fits-- but I think labeling it as "one of the most disturbing films ever made" (as I've seen it listed in articles on the topic) both 1. Draws an extreme cinema crowd who will be disappointed by the lack of overt horror in the directing style and the lack of gore, and 2. Discourages more general audiences from giving it a shot. It would hit them harder than it hit me and viewers like me, because they would go in with proper expectations and no background in other disturbing cinema, therefore making it a more effective piece of art!

Besides, plenty of other non-extreme films handle subject matter like (spoilers) sexual abuse, child abuse, and gaslighting, plenty of them reach mainstream audiences-- by which I mean audiences who aren't extremely sensitive to the topics themselves, like victims of that kind of abuse, of course.

So um. Basically all of this is to say absolutely watch these two movies! But don't go into either expecting crazy gore or extremely exploitative depictions of the subject matter they individually tackle, whether that's a plus or a minus for you, because that isn't what you'll find.

[cumulativechaos]

I posted 10,682 times in 2022

That's 8,487 more posts than 2021!

128 posts created (1%)

10,554 posts reblogged (99%)

Blogs I reblogged the most:

@arklaysmountains

@meanmisscharles

@sabertoothwalrus

@chuplayswithfire

@kermitlesbian

I tagged 10,042 of my posts in 2022

Only 6% of my posts had no tags

#f - 1,385 posts

#p - 1,110 posts

#animals - 652 posts

#l - 435 posts

#wwdits - 366 posts

#hs - 335 posts

#iwtv - 300 posts

#h - 288 posts

#n - 270 posts

#s - 259 posts

Longest Tag: 139 characters

#my review: it’s sweet and it doesn’t taste bad. but if i’d randomly tried this drink with no context i wouldn’t have thought anything of it

I sent 6 gifts in 2022

My Top Posts in 2022:

#5

i never know when the met gala is all of a sudden everyone just starts posting abt it and im like oh shit! it's my favorite night of the year!! Get Mad At Rich People For Having No Style night!!!!

255 notes - Posted May 2, 2022

#4

wait can we talk about how oj punched one of jupe's kids in the face

503 notes - Posted August 8, 2022

#3

i always fucking forget how funny paranatural is until shit like this has me cackling out loud for like 5 entire minutes

628 notes - Posted November 8, 2022

#2

having seen jordan peele's three movies at this point im pretty sure the way on-screen gore and violence is used pretty sparingly is part of his style. and i like his style a lot, but the way so much of the gore is kept off-screen works SO well in Nope (2022) specifically

like for one thihg, having some of the most gruesome/terrifying parts of the movie happen just outside of the camera or blocked by something in the shot definitely elevates the horror. gordy attacking jupe's co-stars is all blocked by the set, we only see the shadows of everyone getting sucked into jean jacket, and even tho we see them inside jean jacket a little bit, it's more to show us how they were being kept alive. we don't actually see them die/get digested. and because none of these things happen on-screen, our brains connect the dots and come up with the most horrifying shit we can imagine

but even outside of just how Not Seeing The Scary Thing Makes The Scary Thing Scarier, it fits fucking thematically with the whole movie. we don't need to see the gory gruesome details of someone's death to know what happened to these characters, showing these things on-screen wouldn't add to our understanding of the plot. it would just be a spectacle of gore and pain and the whole point of Nope is condemning the act of pointing the camera at suffering to exploit people's pain

2,614 notes - Posted August 7, 2022

My #1 post of 2022

so blessed to live in a time when saying "the gay vampire show" does not immediately clarify which show you are referring to

21,631 notes - Posted October 5, 2022

Get your Tumblr 2022 Year in Review →