Your Top 10 Films of All-Time

I share that sentiment to some extent, but I read a book called Cronenberg on Cronenberg and learned that his body transformations are always supposed to represent psychological transformations, by externalizing them and using the flesh of the body as a stand-in for inner psychological changes. That puts it at a bit of a remove and allows me to concentrate on what it stands for rather than just being disgusted.

He had read—can't remember the name, but the guy who famously said "The medium is the message", and was fascinated with his ideas and used them in many of his movies. One of the ideas is that technology changes us. For instance when the Gutenberg Press, Radio, or Television came along it caused massive changes both sociologically and individually in our psyches. This is what he's trying to represent when for instance part of the telepod merges with Brundlefly, or in Videodrome when the gun merges into Max Renn's body and he becomes partly mechanical.

And then he always has some weird ideas about how people merge and mesh with each other, like how Seth Brundle wanted to keep adding more people into the mix to try to make himself less fly and more human.

It's weird, in a way just as weird as when I thought it was just nasty grotesque body horror, and I don't like some of the ideas he's trying to express, but I do like the way he does it by externalizing inner experience metaphorically, like the way Kafka did it in The Metamorphosis with the character literally becoming a cockroach, but it was intended to represent something metaphorical.

In fact it's pretty close to what I was trying to do in my Beastseekers story, by representing inner psychological complexes etc taking externalized form as strange creatures the boys must then contend with out in the woods. Their first reaction was to fight them (projecting shadow elements out into the world and attacking them to try to rid yourself of them, which of course never works).

 

That's my problem with Tarantino! I like some of his movies, but once you watch enough of the subgenre that inspired him, it literary seems like he just takes entire scenes from other movies and glues them to make his own narrative. It's not a bad thing per se, but I feel like he sometimes misses what made the original movies his spoofing memorable, to begin with. Death Proof is my go-to example. I always found it boring, despite my love for slasher horror flicks, because it takes many inspirations from slashers, but uses them to create a character who is so reminiscent of a real-life psychopathic killer that I see no point in the over-the-top kill scene or the bombastic ending. It's like watching Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer but the climax consists of Henry becoming a cyborg and having a group of stoned teenagers beat him by electrocuting the water he's standing in - there are two concepts for a horror movie here, but combining them seems to miss the point.

 

Imagine Uzumaki with a Higurashi-style opening and a Corpse Party-style animation. Japan really lacks in terms of animated psychological horror tv series. The only one that really comes to mind is Paranoia Agent, which I highly recommend.

 

Body horrors have a specific place in my heart, though there's only one I would never watch again: Tetsuo The Iron Man. One of the best movies I ever saw, never want to watch it again.

 

The ending really sucks. One big problem is that Kurt Russel is just too damn likable, when he starts crying you really feel sorry for him. And then the girls punch and kick him to death. It's ridiculous and seems way out of character for them. It's like it suddenly became a stupid cartoon.

I'm sure what you say is true for Kill Bill, but I haven't seen many of the original inspirations. I do know the yellow jumpsuit is stolen from Bruce Lee's locker, but it looks really cool on Uma.

 

Paul Giamatti is fantastic in Billions. He's the only thing that saves the characters shitty dialogue later on haha.

 

If you like body horror I strongly recommend "Swallow".

"Society" is also a more atune with the older classic body horror.

 

I think I love tarantino because I probably wouldn't enjoy the genres that inspired him. I've tried to enjoy some of his influences, but they are intrinsically mostly bad movies- at least the ones I saw.

Plus I respect that he is one of the few directors that draws influences from the east. Specifically the humour. Most western directors just copy a plot line, but tarantino brings some of the authenticity with it.

 

You make a good point, Tarantino does often use genres that are filled with cheap, corny movies that can be hard to enjoy if the genre itself is not up your alley. That's part of the reason why "Django" is my favorite movie of his - I don't really like westerns, so I barely recognize most inspirations. Still, you must've been pretty unlucky to only come across bad movies - when it comes to martial arts cinema, I'd recommend at least checking the 90's "Dragon Inn" remake.

 

What’s a body horror?

 

It's a horror where the main point of fear is the protagonist's body - usually because it transforms into a monstrosity. There's usually a question of "what truly makes us human" tacked on and a lot of horrific effects showing the transformation/mutilation process.

 

It’s a silly term. Is it new? One of my favourite horror films is American Werewolf in London and I’ve never heard it referred to as a ‘body horror’.

Silly and unnecessary made-up genre.

 

It's used more for stuff like Thinner, The Fly, or Tusk. It's not about transformations like lycanthropy. More like something like The Metamorphosis.

 

It originated in the 80's, as horror movies were becoming more and more diverse, thanks to their newfound popularity. Along it came other horror genres, such as "slashers", "splatter", "Giallo" etc. It might seem unnecessary to label movies like that, but if you stick around long enough in a specific genre, it helps to identify certain sets of tropes with a single term. American Werewolf in London would be considered a "monster movie" because its premise draws inspiration from creatures that were present in human beliefs for a long time.

 

I’m very familiar with all of those genres. Never heard of ‘body horror’.

 

Well, now you have! Body Horror @ Wikipedia

 

It's been picking up speed the last couple decades and is widely acknowledged in the horror communities. Those movies can get especially tough to watch as they are often the most basely grotesque, but that's sort of the point. The themes rest specifically on the metaphorical transformation of a character taking a physical form. Interesting stuff for those with an open mind and a stronger stomach.

 

It first struck me that the mention of transformation is out of place - but I think wikipedia explains well, it's that it's an uncontrolled or unconscious transformation such as from mutation or disease. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_horror

IMO it starts as more of a trend in how special effects were being done than a genre (or sub-genre), but directors began zeroing whole films in on certain violations of certain body parts. What's visually effective in film or on the outside sleeve art becomes the defining logic of the writing underneath.

And it's sufficiently developed as a genre to have produced its own, distinct, metafictional perspectives like Human Centipede (2009) or the (much earlier, and much better) Tetsuo: The Iron Man (1989). I'd have sympathy for the view that Human Centipede might not be any kind of deeper commentary on how horror audiences are always consuming second-hand shit, and that perhaps it really is just about an interesting way to sew two people together... but I won't hear that said of Tetsuo's position on self-consumerization (including that of the film's own audience). For its explicit closing message to work correctly, it relies on the audience's having engaged with a body-horror narrative (as distinct from a general horror one).

 

Oh, you're right, I forgot that transformations in horror movies can be voluntary - I think modern horror relies so much on framing being a monster as a curse or some sort of tragedy that I forgot that there used to be a time when evil people transformed into monster and demons just because they were the villains

When you think about it, I feel like the line between a trend and a genre is surprisingly thin. Before Marvel started their Cinematic Universe, I think most people didn't really acknowledge "superhero movie" as its own genre, despite rather noticeable characteristics of those movies. Going waaaaay back, the same could be said about western - even the etymology of the word "western" can be traced back to "a movie about wild west". And with small subgenres, the line is particularly thick - think about the "found footage" subgenre. For a while, movies like that were considered a trend, but once more worthwhile ones were created, after the success of "blair witch project", it kind of solidified itself as a distinct genre. (Sorry, I like overthinking every small thing )

 

No, I don’t believe it exists. You’ve just made that wiki entry to piss me off.

 

I've infected you with the idea, now you begin to warp and mutate into some horrible creeping monstrosity...

 

No one has a clue about body horror until that moment after giving birth when you look in the mirror and realize you are looking at your new reality.

 

Begin??