Why We Crave Horror (A Microcosmic Analysis through Wes Craven)

For at least a generation now, the term “horror movie’ has likely evoked acts of graphic violence rather than subtle constructions of ominous atmosphere. The Man Wes Craven has made through directing, producing, or writing masterful creations of both of these qualities while concurrently created some of the most famous movie villains of all time.

In this week’s blog post, I want to briefly discuss why we as an audience crave the horror genre. What makes us go back time and time again to witness baroque acts of violence and imagery genuinely crafted to make us piss our pants? I wish to address this issue through my analytical and cinematically critical eye; drawing the comparisons of my words to the films of Wes Craven.

As a disclaimer, I will only be referencing films of Craven’s for which he directed.

An important part of the definition is self-evident – it is a movie aiming at foremost to scare us. We experience the anxiety and fright of the genre at a different level than other similar violent films – crime, disaster, etc. Horror is more personal and psychological with the most basic fear being death. Most characters face two unfortunate possibilities; death or damnation. Monsters in horror can be seen as a metaphor for death itself and the screen allows us to see this horrible, amorphous figure in the flesh (so to speak.)

Catch a glimpse of this in action in one of Craven's underrated films, “Deadly Blessing.”

Particular monsters can be thought of us an embodying our own nightmares and fears. The slow ‘bad deaths’ these villains inflict are staples in horror. They are not instant deaths, but are prolonged and allow the audience to witness the suffering. Horror is distinguished by the opposite of restraint. The genre is emotionally charged, overwhelming and not only produces anxiety but revulsion.

This will bring me to my main ideas. Drum roll please!

Every horror film will carry with it three universal tenants; tension, relevance in terms of political, societal, and cultural strife and uncanniness. Tension is fairly obvious for each film. The societal implications of horror have only made the genre more sophisticated. Horror often achieves its greatest impact when it exposes cultural taboos and societal shortcomings. Horror films are set in realistic, familiar settings and introduce a villain out of nowhere to wreak havoc on the protagonists. This emphasizes the ideological barriers of society. The familiar setting is being upset by the outside force trying to disturb the status quo. This will change with each generation, but here is an example of Craven’s “The Hills have Eyes.”

The final of the three is uncanny. If you read my previous post I went into depth on this with Val Lewton’s inspiration for placing Freud’s works into films. Horror is the pipeline to the subconscious. The realm where our deepest repressed sexual desires and fears lay. When may not even know they are there until the horrifying images on the screen bring them out of us with a vociferous scream and flinging of popcorn. Horror gives an expression for the repressed both individual and societal.

Here is the quintessential element of a nightmare fused with our most subconscious fears, where sleep can’t even bring us safety. Craven’s masterpiece “Nightmare on Elm Street.”

I couldn’t make it out of here without talking about the self-reflexive nature of horror. It may not be seen as a typical underpin for why we all crave horror, but it is why the genre continues to be relevant. It tacitly or often times directly references its forebears and acknowledges its place in a larger tradition. It may do this to invert or undercut the assumptions and expectations of those earlier works we became familiar with, desensitizing us to the genre as a whole.

This concept could not be more apparent than in Craven's classic “Scream” but also in an earlier work of similar grandeur, “New Nightmare.”

Lastly, below is a list of the 8 theories we CRAVE the horror genre with a terrifyingly terrific Wes Craven film. Enjoy!

Psychoanalytic – Sigmund Freud himself posited that horror came from the

“Uncanny” – emergence of images and thoughts of the primitive id that were being suppressed by the civilized ego. Jung thought that horror movies tapped into primordial archetypes buried deep in our collective subconscious – images like shadow and mother play important role in the horror genre. For this theory, check out any of the 7 “Nightmare on Elm Street” films – not counting the abhorrent remake and Freddy vs. Jason.

Catharsis– people were attracted to scary stories and violent dramatic plays because it gave them a chance to purge their negative emotions. Horror films allow viewers an escape from on-screen terror, an emotional defense that can be wielded as effectively as a crucifix against a vampire: a social safety value. Although not traditional horror, “Red Eye’ is Wes Craven and the tension in the first two acts finds relief in a fizzling final act.

Excitation Transfer – negative feelings created by horror movies actually intensify the positive feelings when the hero triumphs in the end. Any of the “Scream” movies.

Curiosity and Fascination – Horror exists outside of the everyday existence of normal behavior. Studies by Tamborini, Stiff and Zillmann have shown that there is a significant correlation between people who are accepting of norm-violating behavior and interest in horror movies. Check out the Unrated Version of “Cursed.” Not a great picture, but it fits this category and you see a young Jesse Eisenberg, Christina Ricci, Joshua Jackson, and Portia.

Dispositional Alignment – We enjoy horror movies because the people on screen getting killed deserve it. Like, really? That’s messed up, but Craven did it best with “Last House on the Left.”

Sensation Seeking Scale – WE LIKE ROLLERCOASTERS AND STUFF. That’s my paraphrasing of the theory, but this one is self-explanatory. Try “Serpent and the Rainbow” or “Shocker.” The film “Shocker” is a true guilty pleasure of mine.

Gender Socialization Theory – In 1986 by Zillman, Weaver, Mundorf and Aust considers horror films as sort of a codification of traditional gender roles which is often referred to as the “Snuggle Theory.” Experiments with adolescent boys found that they enjoyed a horror film more when their female companion (who was a research plant) was visibly scared. The opposite was true with girls who found horror films less enjoyable when their male companions were physically scared. The girls enjoyed the film more when their boys were brave and handled their fear. For a movie on this one….Uh, any of them? I guess if you like snuggling watch some Craven. Fuck, watch “Vampire in Brooklyn” for this one.

Societal Fears – Looking at the history of horror you have mutant monsters rising in 50s from our fear of the nuclear bogeyman, Zombies in the 60s with Vietnam, Nightmare on Elm Street as a mistrust in authority figures stemming from the Watergate scandals and Zombies again in the 2000s as a reflection of viral pandemic fears, such as “28 Days Later” ( debate amongst yourselves). Yet again, “The Hills have Eyes.” Or, “The People Under the Stairs.”