So, this is something that I am arguing has a value above its form. Here the form is NSFW, very racy, and has all of the subtlety and tact of an Adam Sandler album. Put more simply, if things of a base, crass, or unrefined nature offend you, then you will get the gist of it from just reading this post. Alternately, I link it because the nature of the video will be an important factor later.

http://www.cracked.com/video_18311_4-terrifying-psychology-lessons-behind-famous-movie-monsters.html?wa_user1=1&wa_user2=Movies+%26+TV&wa_user3=video&wa_user4=cracked_shows

So, focusing solely on the content of the arguments, this is an analysis of horror films based on 4 perspectives:

The first perspective is the internal, fear of the unknown, perspective. As H. P. Lovecraft put it: “The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown.” It hinges on that psychological perspective, and then draws an analogy between films of one type (horror movies) and films of another type (hardcore pornography – like I said, racy). Okay, moderately interesting.

The second perspective. This is about Alien (or actually Aliens, given the description). It posits the theory that fear arises from a combination of sexual inadequacy and fear of rape. Again, a psychological perspective. It continues to give a list of formal and narrative qualities of the films that support that idea.

The third perspective is that zombies are frightening because they are a debased version of ourselves. The fear is a self-fear, which then turns into hatred through the narcissism of small differences (Freud) in that they are just similar enough to make them all the more loathsome. Again, a focus on psychology with the addition of aspects of zombies as a concept.

The fourth, and final perspective is a counter-argument to the third. It poses that zombies are the “other” and that is why they are frightening / repulsive. It goes on to draw an analogy between political alignment and the most popular monsters. It does so by siting historical examples of popular movies, the political alignment of the presidents when those movies were released, and cultural ideas that were associated with those presidencies.

Okay, to sum up this analysis  – this is a conversation between adults dressed like Count Chocula, Malcolm Reynolds, Dr. Manhattan, and Taranga Leela. Maybe not precisely what you are thinking, but some aspect of the absurdity of the situation or the base level of its presentation was probably lingering in your mind. At the very least, while I would argue that these perspectives are defensible, the absence of authoritative positioning in presentation (with the exception of Sartre and Hegel at the end) might have undermined their efforts. Whatever the case, their is a certain mismatch between form an content. Albeit far less severe, this same phenomena is part of Devereaux’s analysis of Triumph of the Will, but reversed. In Triumph, the form is held in high regard, but the content is deemed “evil.” In this, the content argues some valid points, but the form is absurd, base, and flip.

Also, beyond the obvious Alien connection to class, the final argument is ended with a declaration that it has made horror movies boring. Could this be a small part of the concern over expertise reducing enjoyment – a fear that removing visceral immediacy will render films boring?

Advertisements