The de-evolution of the horror genre

Written by Alejandro Montalvo

There was a time in film history when horror movies were genuinely scary. Films like “Jaws”, “The Exorcist” and “Psycho” evoked such strong feelings of fear that stuck with the audience. These films produced such a wide response of fear on all age demographics that they’ve become cultural markers of an age long forgotten. It goes without saying that the summer after “Jaws” was released, the beaches were bare. The common fears of the people were manipulated in such a way to create these strong feelings of fear. Looking back on these films, however, today’s audiences are not as afraid of these films as past audiences were. Why? Have the films lost their spark? No, in truth, the films have lost nothing. We’ve lost something. We’ve lost our sensitivity to horrifying scenes and situations.

In most modern horror films there is a distinct pattern which almost everyone is familiar with. The pattern consists mostly of clichés which are satirized over and over again, until they’ve lost their poignancy. For example, the use of music, or even the absence of music, has become a marker as to when frightening scenes are about to happen. Audiences have come to spot such clichés and tend not to be afraid. But that isn’t the biggest issue.

The youth of America have been drastically desensitized to ultra-violence, either real or fake, that to have a fearful reaction to a film is almost nonexistent. Images and videos of real life executions and wars have become the norm on the nightly news. Frequent viewings of such horrific media have slowly desensitized us.

During the 1970s, film rating standards were lowered, allowing much more violence to seep into an R-rated film. This lowering of the bar allowed filmmakers to introduce ultra-violence the likes of which audiences hadn’t seen before. Films like Stanley Kubrick’s “A Clockwork Orange” featured scenes of rape, torture, and beatings which took the violence to a new level.

As a result of this desensitization, the horror films of recent years have resulted to producing movies which play upon “shock value torture porn” to gain responses. Films that bank on “shock value torture porn” effects focus more on showing everything on screen. The goal might be to evoke fear, but the result is often an overload of grotesque and repulsive images which don’t evoke fear as much as just make us turn away in disgust. Eli Roth’s “Hostel” is a prime example of this excess of gore. The film holds nothing back, showing every amputation, gash, decapitation and other sadistic acts. In spite of this pointless surplus of violence, which would deter the average moviegoer, “Hostel” did quite well at the box office. There is a wide demographic of young adults who flock to films like “Hostel” plainly because they offer the blatant violence that is craved by some youth. Films like these, which base their entire appeal around excessive gore and violence, have become the standard for the horror genre. This, of course, is a broad generalization.

There are recent horror films which break the cookie-cutter mold and truly shine as Horrifying. A first-rate example is Danny Boyle’s “28 Days Later.” It practically reinvented the zombie-survival horror sub-genre, offering a shockingly realistic look at a civilization torn apart by a virus. “28 Days Later” might not have evoked much fear initially, but re-evaluating it, the film is truly horrifying: it seeps under your skin, touches a nerve, plays upon a common fear shared by the audience. Sadly, gems like “28 Days Later” are often overshadowed by big-budget studio films.

There may come a time, in the near future, when horror films no longer evoke any kind of response, no matter how much blood and guts they can throw on the screen. However, the horror genre will still exist, and audiences will still go to see the same crass horror films to satisfy their blood lust. By the looks of the horror films on the horizon, I’d say the chances of the genre re-inventing itself are quite small.