4 Comments

Excellent analysis. I'm too lily-livered to get any enjoyment out of most horror films (I watched one minute of "The Ring" before I was too scared and had to walk away), but I find the genre fascinating. Your point in the footnote was apt; why can't horror movies be simply scary? Why do they have to have some big theme? Why does "The Babbadook" need to be about grief, or "Nope" need to be about modern society's tendency to treat everything as a spectacle, etc., etc.?

Expand full comment
author

The advantage of genre conventions is that they help save overly ambitious writers from themselves

Expand full comment
Feb 7Liked by Kerwin

I quoted this in an analysis of the movie. It was the starting point of an exploration. Thanks. I did put a link in as well.

Expand full comment

This was great. I had never considered the dimensions of analog v. digital in horror, but you’re right: analog static suggests an unseen realm whereas digital is just too damn perfect to suggest anything other than a bunch of coders and computer engineers. The little girl in Poltergeist spoke to the ghosts through that static-y TV screen.

Trying to think of another horror film that relies on the ubiquity of modern technology and can only think of Cell. Didn’t see it but I heard it was a good premise gone to waste.

Expand full comment