It’s been awhile since I’ve been really excited about a movie. You know, what I mean. The kind of movie that you count down the days until opening day. The kind of movie that you will happily pay the nearly ten bucks it takes to see a first-run movie instead of waiting for Netflix to make it available. The kind of movie that is a pure fun, popcorn and candy movie. When I first saw the trailer for the new film Insidious, I was excited. I immediately told my husband to pencil April 1 into his calendar because we would be going to see that movie opening night.
Then, I noticed the film was rated PG-13, and I know I shouldn’t let something that small affect how I rate my movie-going experience, but it did. That kid on Christmas morning excitement that I had felt just moments before had completely dissipated.
Here’s the thing.
I don’t believe in the PG-13 horror movie.
I want to, I really do. It’s not that all PG-13 horror flicks are inherently bad. In fact, there have been a few notable exceptions within the past year. Both Devil and The Last Exorcism were rated PG-13, and both were incredible films. Both films also were attached to master filmmakers, M. Night Shyamalan and Eli Roth, respectively. Here’s the thing, though. Both films had great scripts and great actors, too often a rarity when it comes to the horror film. Some might even argue that these two films don’t even belong in the horror genre—that they are more of character analysis—even a social commentary—with a strong horror element.
For a PG-13 horror movie to really be excellent, it has to rely on spot-on storytelling because it can’t rely on the gore factor. It has to play with your mind and really pull you into the world it’s created. And, even more difficult, the PG-13 horror movie has to make you jump in your seat without actually showing you what is behind the curtain. Not an easy task.
More often than not, when I see a film that is billed as being “horror” yet is rated PG-13, I assume two things: 1) I won’t get to see any of the blood, and 2) the characters are going to be talking in a squeaky clean vernacular. In other words, no guts, no glory.
I’ve heard people argue for the other side, spouting the praises of the PG-13 horror movie, saying that it forces the filmmaker to rely on more sophisticated scares rather than buckets of fake blood and goo. It’s a good theory. After all, I’m all for sophisticated scares. I love it when the filmmakers take the genre seriously, but I also love it when they have fun with the genre. I can see the merits of both Audition and Pirahna 3D (both rated R, by the way), but I don’t think that an R rating equals lazy storytelling. Don’t believe me? Paranormal Activity, a movie that showed nothing in terms of graphic violence, was rated R for language. It managed sophisticated scares and a realistic setting (because what other twenty-something wouldn’t pepper a little R-rated language into his or her day-to day existence? Don’t even get me started about the characters in most PG-13 horror films, who all talk like they grew up watching too many Dawson’s Creek reruns).
What does bother me is the way most PG-13 movies handle their storytelling. Too often, it feels as if these films want to be proper horror movies but are too afraid to cross the border into the dark. Case in point: this year’s Twilight, er, I mean Red Riding Hood. Believe it or not, this film is listed as in the horror genre by IMDB. I, too, was under the assumption, after watching the trailers, that this would be a horror film that went back to the roots of the familiar fairy tale. I was wrong. What I wanted was the original fairy tale in all its Grimm Brother’s glory. What I got was pretty people in a pretty place with a drop or two of bright red blood. (By the way, isn’t blood supposed to be dark red, almost black? Only Argento can get away with the day-glo stuff.)
Maybe it’s just me. But I want an R rating with my horror. I’ll even say I wish they’d bring back the X rating (or is it NC-17 now?), but just give me a film I can sink my teeth into. Is that so much to ask?
I totally see your point. Seems to me that PG-13 films (of horror and other genres) are rated as such in order to cast the widest box office net in hopes of raking in more money. Sadly, movies don't necessarily have to be good to be lucrative. Imagine the unbridled excitement a thirteen year old feels when they find there's a "scary movie" they can go out with their friends to see on a Friday night! Or, hell, a comedy or a an action thriller they can get into. Any movie that's not animated or something they can watch with their kid siblings.
ReplyDeleteWe're at the other end of the spectrum now, so we know a movie with a PG-13 rating that's suitable for kids is probably not gonna be as satisfying for those of us who can actually get in to see NC-17 and R. Then again, rarely are there movies being made now that are of the same quality they used to be. They're being turned out more quickly. It's only when you have a auteurs like Tarantino, Allen, Coppola (Mr. and Ms.), Luhrmann, Anderson, Scorsese, del Toro, the Coen brothers, Nolan, Aronofsky, even Spielberg working on movies that actually take more than a year or two to develop and produce that you can actually count on the quality. Plus, with Netflix and other movie rental services, unless I've gotta really good reason to drop what ends up being close to $30 at the theater, I'd rather just see it when it's released on Blu-Ray/DVD! I mean, I so psyched whenever there's a superhero movie out, but I usually know what I'm getting into if I go to see it. With horror movies, it seems like it's really just hit or miss. I don't envy your frustration!
Do you have a favorite horror film director (or directors)?
Ooh...favorite director. That's a toughie. Of course, first I'd have to say Eli Roth. I have loved him since I saw Cabin Fever, which I loved for many reasons; he only cemented my adoration with the Hostel movies. As for other directors, I like Takashi Miike, Lucky McKee, Tarantino (if you can call him a horror director). I know I'm leaving a few out. I like the classics like Romero and Argento. Too many to name! Good question, though. If you were to press me on this and I could only pick one, then Eli Roth!
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of the PG-13 films in this list? http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/10/13/best-pg-13-horror-movies/
ReplyDelete"Poltergeist" is PG!
Gray, I think it is fitting that you mention Poltergeist...which I love btw. Great movie, but it was also made in 1982. That's a long time to wait for another good PG rated horror flick. Plus, it was directed by Tobe Hooper, who I would argue is a Master of Horror. The Others is on my list of favorites; I can't believe I left it off my list of good PG-13 movies. Those two films help to make my point that PG-13 horror is hard to pull off.
ReplyDeleteAs for the others on that list (Cloverfield, Signs), I just thought they missed the mark. They committed the worst mistake in showing the monster! Not that they were bad films, but they were just kind of forgettable, at least for me. Plus, I don't really get into monster/alien type films usually. I like demon/ghost/supernatural much more.
Oh, yeah, and Gray, you are a rock star for getting Eraserhead to pick up your novel so quickly!! I am jealous. :)
ReplyDeleteNot a done deal yet. I'm just jinxing myself by being overly confident -- because I am a level 100 Warlock who is sick of having to pretend he's not special.
ReplyDeleteIf the intention is purely horror -- which isn't the case for most films in the genre -- then you're absolutely right about not "showing the monster." As far as I can figure out, most horrors depend on the ability of "evil" to get close while undetected. You don't know where the "evil" is. It could be behind you; it could surface at any moment in the water; it could be a family member; it could be an unpredictable aspect of you. It by definition defies the very conception of limits. And to give it an overly determinate form is to give it a limit.
ReplyDeleteBut most horrors have other, sometimes conflicting intentions. For example, M. Night Shaymalan has more interest in human drama (interpersonal relationships) than in human fear. For him, fear is just a catalyst. Other directors are more interested a social statement, humor, or gratuitous T&A. If we discuss their films only in terms of horror -- ahem, Poultrygeist -- then they might argue we're missing the point.
I think the real problem comes from how the marketing teams' previews set up certain expectations that aren't the directors' intentions.
Hi I'm Joseph Rodgers, I read "the Lazarus Effect" on HorrorBound, I enjoyed it very much.
ReplyDeleteYou crafted an interesting tale, there were two minor continuity errors at the end however, the narrator is typing at one point and then lying in bed and the typing is forgotten. Also the little girl is a quadruple amputee and then she has a hand in the next sentence.
Your descriptions of the strange man's gift, and of the lurking shadow were quite chilling.
If you would like to share horror writing ideas or work you can contact me at joseph_rodgers@knights.ucf.edu.
Thanks, Joseph! I always appreciate hearing feedback. I hadn't caught those continuity errors--it is funny how you can read something over and over again until you almost do not even see it anymore! Writing is so much about learning how to revise.
ReplyDelete