|
|
On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 05:10:30 -0700, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> In my own interpretation of horror however I have an entirely
>different point of view. I expect to see monsters, disfigured humans,
<snip>
>etc...
I've seen about two dozens of horror movies. The only one that
horrified me (read: gave me two nights of hard sleep) was "The
Exorcist". It's about a little girl being obsessed by the evil one. It
was the idea behind it and the way she played her role (there should
be an Oscar Jr. for such cases) was what was scary.
The line between horror and gore is almost as thin as the one between
erotica and pornography or bewteen thrill and disgust. I remember
reading an article which compared gore to porn, and I must say the
author had a point. I also remember what my psychoanalysis teacher
told us, that the primary sexual organ weighted about 2-2.5 kilos and
was called brain. I also remember that I wasn't disgusted at all when
doing dissections in Biology but I get the goose-bumps at the mere
thought of a knife penetrating my skin. Lastly, I recall my Creative
Writing teacher who said "Show, don't tell" as opposed to my Fine Arts
teacher who said "tell, don't show."
It's all a matter of imagination. Art is about perceiving,
contemplating and relating. A horror picture doesn't necessarily have
to show gore or monsters. Giving a hint and leaving the rest to the
audience's imagination will not only achieve the desired effect better
but will also spare you the trouble of being accused of showing bad
taste.
One last thing. Life offers such dreadful pictures that no one can
ever reproduce them. I once hit a site which had real photos of things
so disgusting that I almost threw up. Car accidents, autopsies,
executions... (if anyone is interested, let me know by e-mail; I'll
never post the url here). I certainly don't want to see such things in
the IRTC.
Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700
Post a reply to this message
|
|