A reader, Cannon, writes:
“Follow up this link
and give the video a whirl.”
“Now, I already have a very straightforward opinion on this
matter, and yet I’m nowhere near the horror movie aficionado that you are. So
I’m interested to read the insights of someone such as yourself who has devoted
a good portion of his life to the cultural and sociological study of horror
cinema.”
“Obviously, the news report here is quite dated, from somewhere
back in the mid-1980s, but that’s one reason why I chose it. My question for
you, John, is twofold:
1. How significant is the influence of horror films -- be it negative
or positive -- on prepubescent and adolescent viewers? Is there a good and bad?
Do they overlap?
2. Clearly, the 1980s
saw the rise of home video entertainment that brought horror films of all
kinds-and-quality into the late night living rooms of kids and teenagers,
during sleepovers or when parents were at work. How has such an influence (from
the previous question) changed from the 1980s to today’s home media, if at
all?”
Cannon, that’s a terrific question. I’m glad you asked it. It’s also something I think about almost every
day.
Reviewing the Video:
First, I should acknowledge that so-called “news” segments of this
sort are actually part of the reason I stopped watching network TV
news-magazines some years back.
I don’t remember this segment, specifically, but around 1994, I do
recall seeing all the networks -- Dateline, 48 Hours, 20/20 -- trying
to gin up audience terror for the eventuality of an asteroid collision with
Earth. It was a ridiculous news “fad.” Sure, such a collision could happen, but was
it really so news worthy that all the
networks had to cover it as some kind of impending disaster?
I strongly suspect that the goal of such “news” programming is not
providing important and timely information, but rather stoking fears (primarily in senior
citizens), about the contemporary world going to Hell.
Those young whippersnappers!
With their horror, and their porn, and their VCRs!
At least horror films, by contrast, are up-front about their
desire to terrorize, and don’t cloak their intentions under the guise of “news”
or “important information.”
This 20/20 segment is extremely sensational in tone (far more
sensational than the tone, say, of Halloween), which suggests to me the
program’s desire to provoke hysteria
rather than present the plain facts of the matter at hand.
In terms of strategy, this piece crafts a very questionable link
between horror and porn, and even horror and the mob. It furthermore makes
several false generalizations about the nature and direction of violence in
horror films.
I’ll now debunk each of these points.
In the case of crime, the only fact that this story presents is
that one horror film’s distribution
had ties to a man who was considered a mobster by legal authorities. That single connection -- out of thousands of horror movies -- does
not mean that horror boasts any widespread link to organized crime, and it’s
really despicable to suggest otherwise.
There have been one or two notable cases of plagiarism in the last
year or so, but not all writers are plagiarizers, obviously. Similarly, this 20/20 piece suggests,
erroneously, that because one criminal was involved with releasing one horror
film, the whole genre is somehow
criminal.
This is guilt-by-association, and furthermore, guilt-by-association
done rather poorly.
Secondly, it would also be fair to describe films such as Rambo:
First Blood Part II (1985) as a “graphic
orgy of violence,” but notice how in this segment only horror – not the violent action genre – is
singled out for scorn. The implicit message of this is that it’s okay
to kill a commie for Christ, so-to-speak, but as soon as you actually get into
a genre that seriously discusses the morality of violence, it’s somehow corrupt
or immoral. In other words, there's no depth here, and no attempt to apply a standard equally across all genres. Horror is the target, pure and simple.
Most importantly -- again
and again throughout this segment -- interviewees condemn the fact that
horror films always feature a “female
victim” and “always in a sexual
context.” I believe that’s an exact
quote, or at least a close approximation.
This is a flat-out lie, and easily knocked down.
In fact, the video contradicts this idea itself, showcasing footage from Evil Dead II (1987), a
film in which the majority of the violence is delivered upon the head of the
male character, Ash (Bruce Campbell), not the female characters. In fact, it’s the female characters in the Evil
Dead series that do most of the tormenting and battering.
But let’s showcase some other prominent examples:
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre? Three men under attack; two
women under attack.
Halloween? One male victim, two female victims.
Friday the 13th?
Four male victims, four female victims.
Night of the Living Dead?
Four male victims, four women victims.
A Nightmare on Elm Street? Two
men, two women.
I actually find it difficult to name even one popular, culturally-significant horror film in which all the victims are female.
And furthermore, in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Night
of the Living Dead, Elm Street and Evil Dead II, there is no overt
sexual context to the murders at all.
The linkage between sex and violence that the 20/20 video suggests does not exist.
In TCM, for example, Leatherface and his cannibal clan show zero
interest in the female characters as anything other than meat (the same way
they view the men, in other words).
It’s true indeed that there are some sexualized situations in Friday
the 13th, but generally in that series, the men and women
engaging in sexual intercourse are killed
together, so it’s not as if only the women are being punished or singled
out for sexual activity. It’s equal
opportunity slicing-and-dicing.
As I’ve stated recently, there is indeed a bias in horror films about
women, but the dirty little secret is
that it’s a positive bias.
The “Final Girl” archetype presents the female lead character as a
more insightful, stronger, and cleverer individual than any of her (doomed) male
cohorts. People of both sexes die in
horror movies with regularity, but it is the
smart woman who most often survives the gauntlet. Shouldn't that count for something?
Halloween, Friday the 13th, The Texas Chainsaw
Massacre, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Hellraiser, Scream and even the Alien films are all examples of this
trend.
In fact, the horror genre is so pro-woman that these days the
genre is feted as an entertainment with a larger female
than male demographic in terms of audience.
After such blatant mischaracterization of horror films, this 20/20
piece also makes no effort to differentiate between the average horror film and
something like Faces of Death.
Again, there’s a pretty big distinction, and it isn’t even
mentioned.
The former (your friendly neighborhood horror film) is a fictional
narrative with fictional characters and fictional threats. The latter is a pseudo-documentary ostensibly
showcasing “graphic” depictions of real people dying.
It’s kind of like failing to notice the considerable format distinction
between Platoon (1986) and Hearts and Minds (1974).
The two films aren’t of the same genre or form, so it’s like
comparing apples and oranges.
Kids and Horror
But getting to the meat of your questions: does horror have a significant effect upon children? And is it a positive or a negative one?
I am the devoted father of a five-year old boy, Joel, whom I love
more than life itself. He is the apple
of my eye, and I do not allow him to watch horror films at all because he is not psychologically ready for them at this
point. He’s too little and too
impressionable.
However, I do tell Joel ghost and monster stories on the way to school
and at bed time (from the Twilight Zone, One Step Beyond, Ghost Story,
Night Gallery, The X-Files, and even the Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm
Street and Friday the 13th films).
Why would I do this?
Because scary stories are Joel’s favorite thing in the world, and
I submit there’s absolutely nothing wrong or perverse about that fact. What else is Hansel and Gretel, but a
horror story? What else is The
Gingerbread Man, but a horror story? The same fact is true of Little
Red Riding Hood.
Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty,
and Where
the Wild Things Are all feature powerful horror aspects as well. There’s a long-standing historical link, I
submit, between children and horror, and the kind of stories we tell our
children.
Everybody loves to get up in arms about the things children are
exposed to “these days,” but the fact is that kids enjoy (safely) testing their limits. It's part of their very make-up.
How fast can they
run? How loud can they shout? How scared can they get?
I believe very strongly that it is developmentally important for
children to know and understand that the world is not all sunshine and roses,
or hugs and puppies, but that despite this fact they will -- by and large -- be all
right.
They will survive, even if they get hurt a little, or something
bad happens at school. Scary stories
like Hansel
and Gretel and monsters like Dracula or King Kong thus help inoculate a
child against the scarier aspects of life in general. The
horror or monster film can actually be a “safe zone” for ready kids, because almost universally in horror the monsters are
defeated and the forces of good prevail.
The message of horror, down to its most basic form is, simply: terrible things happen, but you will
survive. You’ll be okay.
So I believe tolerable terror for a young child is just fine. I
would have no qualms about Joel watching the original King Kong (1933) if he
wanted to, or even the 1976 one.
He has already watched all the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad movies…which are
filled with monsters.
Yet I adamantly don’t recommend
letting little ones see horror movies they are not ready for.
That’s what we have a ratings system for: as a useful guideline. When I saw Bride of Chucky (1998) in
the theater, my wife and I were deeply disturbed to see that a woman had
brought her toddler to see the film, and that the child was visibly upset by
the action on screen.
Now, I ask you: whose fault is that?
The movie’s fault?
Or does the blame rest with the parent?
I would suggest the latter. Parents must be responsible in deciding what they allow their children to
see, and be prepared for the consequences if they aren’t careful and vigilant. I
learned this fact the hard way with Joel when he was four. We
were in Target shopping one day, and Michael Jackson’s Thriller came on the
radio. He listened to it and loved the
song. It’s a perfect monster story! So at home, I put the music video up on
YouTube for him to watch…and the visuals scared him. I turned it off quickly, and prepared for my
wife (a therapist) to kill me when she got home from work.
I haven’t repeated that mistake.
For one, I don’t want Joel to be scared.
For another, I like my testicles where they are.
But there are definitely age-appropriate
horror stories for young kids to enjoy. Scooby Doo for example. Right now Joel is thrilled about going to see Paranorman
and Hotel
Transylvania and Frankenweenie.
These are, in essence, the right horror movies
at the right time in Joel’s life. He's ready for them, and I know he will love them.
Adolescents and Horror Films?
Older kids are a different story, but again, I think it’s the
parent’s responsibility to gauge a child’s readiness, and to act accordingly.
By age twelve, I had seen a lot of scary movies, including,
notably, The Funhouse (1981). I
was kind of scared to see it (with my friends, at party), but when it was over,
I felt like I had run a marathon…and won
it; that I had overcome the terror lurking in my imagination. I came through the movie feeling stronger and
more confident. I came out feeling that
the experience was valuable.
Watching R-rated horror movies in the safety of the family home is a good
way for adolescents, honestly, to break out and rebel a little without doing
anything physically or emotionally dangerous.
They aren’t drinking, they’re not driving, they aren’t doing drugs or
having unprotected sex.
Watching a horror movie at night with friends, during a slumber
party, without parents around, thus gives teenagers the edgy thrill of defying
authority, but with none of the physical safety drawbacks.
Again, you must be reasonable about this situation. A twelve-year old kid should probably not
watch Last House on the Left (1972).
But Fright Night (1985), for example, is a different story. There's horror and then there's horror, if you get my drift.
How does this paradigm play today?
I realize that many of the most dedicated horror fans despise
PG-13 horror movies, but in some sense, these PG-13 horrors are a welcome
bridge for today’s adolescence, landing somewhere between the kiddie horror I
mentioned above and the hard horror that may still be too frightening.
We just came through an era of so-called “torture porn” (a really
unfortunate name for the form…), and again, I don’t think anyone at age thirteen
should be watching films like Martyrs or Irreversible – as
brilliant as those films are. But stuff
like
Predators (2010) or Paranormal Activity? Those movies would have been absolutely fine
for me at age twelve, and they are perfectly in line for kids of the same age
today.
No problem, if you feel your child is ready.
I guess underlying all of these questions it the really important
one: do horror movies turn people into killers?
No, of course they don’t.
No more than Little Red Riding Hood, or Hansel
and Gretel do.
The sad fact is it is easier to blame horror movies for violence
in our culture than it is for parents to look in the mirror and be accountable for
what they teach their children.
It’s easier to blame horror movies than to confront the NRA gun
lobby and question why, precisely, it is that people need automatic weapons
with 100 bullet clips for “hunting” and “sport.”
There’s a generational aspect to this equation too. Going back for a long
time, every aging generation seems to hate the younger generation’s taste in
music and movies. So the old people who
sit at home and watch something like this atrocious 20/20 video are the ones already
pre-disposed, alas, to believe that slasher movies are evil, and that things
will never be as good as they were in the good old days. So-called "news" stories like this play into a pre-existing narrative, and preach to the choir.
My final and most significant point is that
children require our attention and our care. If you provide that
attention and care, you’ll know pretty well what the threshold is for your kids
regarding horror movies, or any kind of entertainment, for that matter.
And lastly, that 20/20 video is designed to scare people, and erected upon arguments that aren't even close to being true. In fact, I'll go further. Please pardon my directness. That video is full of shit.
