While watching several horror movies on Netflix, many of them seemed to be what I'm going to call "mindscrew horror". Essentially, the narrative is trying to make it as unclear as possible on what the protagonist is dealing with a paranormal entity or simply a manifestation of their own personal problems. Although this is a greatly misleading simplification, quite a number of these movies have their protagonists be either a single mother with one child or a childless married woman. With such works, she will likely start by moving into a new residence with her husband or child, and live in isolation from her surroundings. Over the course of the film, she'll encounter phenomena, like being jumped scared by an apparition screaming in their face before disappearing, a vision of the protagonist being covered with blood before it all vanishes in the flash of a second, or objects moving around the room behind the main character's back, etc.. The narrative is often very ambiguous and on whatever they're facing is a real supernatural enemy or their own mental health problems throughout most of the duration. Many misdirecting clues are thrown in both directions to tease the viewers. However, it will often shove in a twist that the protagonist's husband or child has actually died long ago, and she in such denial that she hallucinates their presence. Whatever direction the narrative sticks with in the end really depends on the movie. There were some that went with the "it's all in their head" approach, a few more had the paranormal force being real after all, and a couple others which simply left it up to the audiences' interpretation. What are your thoughts and feelings towards such movies, if any? What aspects makes them work or not in your personal opinion?
Generally it is a gimmick intended to elevate the film into the serious realm of "psychological horror"; this in turn will allow professional critics to give genre films good reviews without feeling embarrassed. I have sometimes seen it done well but more often it's rather ham-fisted and actually undermines the film.
You seem to start off with the opinion that it's always a cheap gimmick, and your examples are drawn entirely from a certain kind of very shallow modern horror movie littered with jump scares. But if you expand the category (and probably change the name) it would include some of the great horror movies like The Exorcist and Kubrick's version of The Shining. When Friedkin made The Exorcist he very cannily left it unclear whether Regan is actually possessed by a demon (whatever that means), or if she's exhibiting symptoms common to children who have been sexually molested. He was smart enough to recognize that many real-world cases of what's been called demonic possession do exhibit those kind of symptoms. And when Regan's mom goes to a Catholic clergyman and asks him about exorcisms he looks at her like she's a loon and explains that he's also studied psychology, and that exorcisms have all but disappeared since psychology has taken over. What we once gave names like demonic possession (he tells her) we now know to be disruptions of psychology at a deep inner level. And as for the physical manifestations shown in the movie, you're left to wonder if they really 'happened', or if you were being shown the powerful subjective phenomona the way Regan would have experienced them herself, which would feel like an overwhelming supernatural event to her. Plus Friedkin was smart enough to handle it so it can be enjoyed at either level. I've posted this before, but here it is again: Rob Ager's analysis of subliminals in The Exorcist So like everything in writing (or art in general), it comes down to how well it's handled. Sure, if a movie is little more than a bunch of cheap jump scares and modern CGI effects gone wild, that's surface level stuff. But if the writer has drilled down and understands the deep connection between supernatural phenomena and the psychology of the unconscious, then it can be profound. Well, assuming it's also well written (or directed). That part goes without saying.
In good horror the monster/ghost is the vehicle for an idea anyway. So I think the modern 'is it or is it not actually be supernatural' waffling strikes me as a bit insecure. Well all know the antagonistic spirit isn't real, after all, since it's fiction. The rational appeal should be to the theme and its effect on psyche, not its plausibility. That said, if the creator is truly emphasizing self-doubt or sanity paranoia, I suppose it would make sense to highlight the ambiguity of the antagonism right up until the credits. If I recall Babadook correctly, the namesake creature is real as far as the film's internal consistency is concerned, though it happens to represent a simple but powerful concept. It plays it straight, not abashed at all. Great movie. Hah, what do you know, it's 'psychological horror' according to Wikipedia. All freaking horror is 'psychological' for crying out loud.
Just so. I recall liking the Babadook but it did falter a bit in broadcasting, Actually folks this about grief! I'm not just some silly genre movie, I'm psychological horror, serious stuff! Bruckner's The Ritual was ruined by an even more intrusive case of this sort of thing. There is the insecurity of the filmmakers here, but they are also playing to the insecurity of the critics who don't want to give a genre movie a good review unless they can argue that it's "deeper" than that. And since subtext is dead the "deep" aspects have to be blared out loudly.
Yep, that's the problem right there. Is subtext supposedly dead now? For some people maybe, like the intellectual professors who would rather analyze then enjoy a story. To them none of it is 'real', but the willing suspension of disbelief is the whole backbone of a story. None of it has ever been real if you're going to go all meta on it, but that's the destruction of the trust that a story depends on. If you get too clever like those professors do, you ruin all reading pleasure and meaning. Powerful writers let it happen in the subtext, or fully subliminally. If you bring it to the surface and explain it all, it's like explaining the joke you just told. Plus it's important to keep in mind that the psychological was once known as the supernatural, and it still has the same powerful effect on us, even if we understand it's 'only' in our minds. In fact when you're gripped by it you don't realize that at all, you're overtaken by the power of it. When you encounter the uncanny you still drop into the same supernatural dread our ancestors did, even though you don't believe in "focused, non-terminal repeating phantasms, or Class Five full-roaming vapors." Why would it have any less power because we call it a psychotic break now rather than demonic possession?
