"Fun" Horror vs "Dread" Horror

The Witch totally kicked my ass! Such a powerful depiction of how hard and mysterious life must have been for the Puritans, submerged entirely in religion and superstition, with no really rational framework to view the world through. Reminded me in many ways of The Crucible.

And speaking of movies removing one scene (or 2) that would completely skew the entire movie in an undesired direction, Let Me In handled that very well I think.

 

Indeed, the Witch is an important film. It announced A24 to the world and showed there IS a market for atmospheric slow burn horror. It also has become a blueprint for use of sound in horror movies. There's something innately scary about the isolation of early settlers, I'd love to see more movies set in a similar time and place. Talking about A24,w hat did you think of Saint Maud? I thought it was decent, and the ending stays with you, but at well under 90 minutes it's too short to be anything more than a 7/10. Most of the 2010's was a wasteland for straight up horror but I really enjoyed Sinister.

 

Urrgh, Sinister starts out so good, and then just fumbles incredibly hard in the last, what, 10 minutes? Maybe not even that, maybe 7 minutes. The ending was just soooo unfulfilling!! The entire movie before that is worth watching, though! The suspense is palpable.

This movie rules. Pasketti!

 

Just saw Netflix is getting a new ominous horror called "The Block Island Sound". Looks like it has potential.

As far as fun: I started watching Crazyhead but got upset when I realized it's only six episodes and was cancelled. First couple episodes were hilarious though. About a couple of young women who can see demons.

 

Babadook was good, I'll check out he Wailing and Train to Busan, thanks for the rec. Conjouring is a prime example of blah 2010's horror which plagues the genre, and they still keep releasing ever diminishing sequels. Sinister is a far better movie, but even that had a crappy sequel. Yeah maybe the end isnt so hot but watch it on your own in the dark and you'll get yer monies worth! Helps having a decent lead in Hawke. When it comes to serialised Horror it usually misses the mark. I enjoyed first season of Castle Rock and the early AHS before it became a farce. The Outsider was good too, but Horror works best in movie or book form.

 

Although what makes each of use afraid is purely subjective, I agree with you in the sense that "serious horror" is often intended to disturb. When I think of disturbing horror in literature, the name that comes to mind is Jack Ketchum, who often based his stories on true crime. The Girl Next Door, for example, is based on one of the worst cases of child abuse in U.S. history, and it may be the most disturbing thing I've ever read. By contrast, however, it contains scenes of beautifully descriptive pose, pulling the reader into the mindset of kids in a small town (though it's something I don't care to read again). And fun horror--most other works of fiction come to mind, as writers rarely go to the dark places Ketchum goes. Even in Stephen King's work, there's often a wall of melodrama standing between the reader and those deep macabre places, which makes the experience more fun and insulated from human depravity (or non-human depravity). Thus King's popularity.

To use an example from film: Lars von Trier's The House that Jack Built goes into some depraved territory. Although there are fun moments, particular where the titular character battles his OCD, you quickly realize you're on the journey with a character who doesn't possess a molecule of empathy (excellent film, by the way, if you're into something that blends depravity and philosophy). An example of something that fun is Ready or Not. I had a great time with this one at the theater, and enjoyed it just as much on blu-ray. It's funny, though it can be visceral at times. Though maybe that's the point, striking a balance, no matter the approach. An extreme film, no matter how dark it gets, ought to offer at least something for the viewer to grasp on--or to laugh at. To throw out a few more examples: Martyrs (2008), an infamous French-Extreme film, runs through its story with a poker face, and for this reason, I don't rate it in my top 100--there are moments that, because of the deadpan nihilistic tone, just feel deeply unpleasant (maybe that was the director's point). On the other hand, Takashi Miike's Audition is a damn effective extreme film, and its sense of playfulness, at least midway through, that puts the viewer at ease--then hits them with a sledgehammer in that final scene.

In my mind, the most effective horror books and films strike a balance between comfort and darkness.

 

My personal preference is horror without humour. I prefer character-driven horror that deals with a protagonist's descent into existential dread, or an inevitably tragic ending. The theme of terrible things that happen to otherwise good people is powerful, and engaging. For movies that illustrate these personal likes, I'd name Candyman, Martyrs (original), Hereditary, A Serbian Film. There's a lot of popcorn horror movies that are successful because they're light on humour too - Halloween, The Thing, The Fog - lots of classics in that sub category. Sometimes horror is successful for me even when it doesn't fit into either category, because of the overall mood they create: Pyewacket, A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night, The Witch, The Lighthouse.

 

It's also my own favorite kind of horror, and I would add to your list The Shining and Mulholland Drive.

 

Mulholland Drive is actually my favourite movie of all time, but i stop short of calling it horror, though it has moments of existential dread. I see it as more of a psychological thriller, just because there's a clear break between what was filmed for TV and the extra material Lynch filmed for the theatrical release.

The Shining is a movie that I like just fine, but Nicholson's performance has always seemed like "A Jack Nicholson Performance" full of his trademark bluster - just seems less effective from a character-driven horror feature for me because of him.

 

I see your point, though ironically it's one of the most horrifying movies ever made. In my late teens/early 20's it was only that and The Shining that could make me afraid to walk through the house in the dark.

 

I find The Blair Witch Project to be a terrific example of dread handled well in a horror movie. In terms of literary horror - ironically I don't read extensively in my own genre - but Nathan Ballingrud is terrific at this. when he isn't writing comic-booky work like Skullpocket and the Butcher's Table (stories I both really like, by the way). The Visible Filth (much better than the movie adaptation), and most of his North American Lake Monsters anthology is full of this kind of vibe.

 

I've since read a decent amount of horror since this thread started. Fun vs dread... But what about things that are niether? Like a book whose main character is a [villainous] vampire (Anne Rice), or just a book with dark themes that's niether scary nor fun (The Luminous Dead). It seems like horror is a genre of fiction that has some of the loosest definitions these days.

 

Yeah, can't argue with that. I'm very particular about horror, as my posts might have inferred, but even within my narrowly-defined range there's Stephen King, Ramsey Campbell, Clive Barker, and Nathan Ballingrud - not to mention Lovecraft. All very different "types" of horror. Horror is a very broad catch-all term - I mostly use it because everyone has an idea what elements are identified with it, regardless of sub-category.