+- TalkHorror - Horror Talk For All Horror Fans (http://talkhorror.com/boards)
+-- Forum: Horror Topics (http://talkhorror.com/boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: All Things Horror (http://talkhorror.com/boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Directors and fame (/showthread.php?tid=1026)
Directors and fame - Dr. Briggs - 07-06-2009
It's generally figured that horror is not as glamorous a genre as garden-variety drama, partly due to the fact that horror is oft regulated by Hollywood, and when it's not, people are trying to push an envelope instead of making something truly masterful. The main question I thought of as I wrote this was "are there any horror directors that are renowned in their genre just as well as a Spielberg is at drama, the Coens are at crime-drama or Woody Allen is at comedy?", but eventually I got to thinking of more.
Wes Craven is very highly regarded even among critics, as is George Romero to a point, though the difference between those horror directors and the ones from other genres is that between films, horror directors very often seem to have more flops between their hits. Is it because horror is a harder genre to do? It could be. Or it could have to do with the fact that many times audiences do not take it seriously, and perhaps maybe even directors do not take it seriously? It could very well be that producers themselves see horror as nothing more than a tool to make very quick money in between blockbusters and thus force lower-budget/lower-concept horror on less-than-interested directors... But what about those who truly have a passion for horror? They falter, and often moreso than a Spielberg or Coen, why is this the case?
It could have to do with the fact that in drama, you're forced to have a good script or risk being mediocre whereas in horror many times superficiality is encouraged. Of course, one idea that I endorse is that horror's main priority is to scare us, but often times a good story is abandoned for this (Or even vice versa, wherein suspense is sacrificed to make way for ideas), which sometimes leads audiences to believe a perfectly crafted chiller is nothing more than a popcorn flick...
...However it would be interesting to imagine: If there was a director who consistantly balanced story with scares to make a true series of masterful horror films, would he be as renowned as mainstream-genre-directors, or would the public let prejudice get in the way of thinking about horror objectively? Also, what would happen with other horror directors with such a guy getting popular? Would they fade out, try and step up their game, simply attempt (Or be told to) to copy the guy?
These are just a few things I was thinking about to get some good discussion started again. Does anyone else have ideas or opinions?
Directors and fame - Friday The 13th - 07-06-2009
Nice post. :reading:
Directors and fame - Trioxin149 - 07-06-2009
You brought up some valid points, but keep in mind, as consistent as Spielberg may be, he's had his fair share of flops as well. To me, Lucio Fulci was a flawless DIRECTOR. All of his films may have not been gems, or even good, but his skill as a Director was magnificent. Argento is also a big name in the horror world. But another thing you must keep in mind, Spielberg is mainstream, yes. BUT, do die hard horror fans really care about Spielberg? I know I don't. So, even if there was a perfect Director/Writer who came up with the perfect balance of story and scares in ALL of his films, would someone who doesn't care about horror, care about him? Probably not. Therefore, that makes it hard for a horror director to go mainstream. Right now, I think about as mainstream as a horror director can get is: Craven, Carpenter, Romero (but barely), Aja, Roth, Zombie, etc. Not to say all of those mentioned are good, but they are what I see/hear the most of. Horror, to me, is a harder genre to be original with, because so much has been done in that genre already, which makes it harder to be original. And not to mention, alot of people blame all the world's problems on horror films, and for that, I hope they rot.
Directors and fame - Dr. Briggs - 07-06-2009
You bring up some very, very good points as well. True, I don't really care about Spielberg's work, but then the mainstream/critical audience sees him as a legend. It seems to me almost every genre has someone who even the stuckup critics like, be it drama, romance, comedy, scifi (If Ridley Scott still did shit
), but not really horror, at least not consistantly. You do have an interesting argument in "would someone who doesn't care about horror, care about hypothetical horror director?". It is true that horror has the stigma of being a genre that you either love or you hate, but on the other hand it had an even larger stigma until the late 60s/early 70s, that all or most horror was basically for kids... Black Christmas and TCM changed that. If there was something revolutionary made to make horror a big and consequently more accessible thing again (Like say The Orphanage, on a larger scale), it might perhaps get more recognition... But then at what cost?
I do believe horror films, as tame as they were "back then", were more accessible to more general audiences, so if they somehow became accessible again, they might run the risk of "losing their edge" in order to appeal to the crowd (Sort of like PG-13 rated ones today, but a different change to make their themes less intense as opposed to just being "toned down" in general). Along the same vein and perhaps backing up the point a little, comedy might be losing just a little bit of steam with more edgy stuff coming out. Superbad was big for a good bit, but The Hangover, which is supposed to be a good bit more vulgar is getting more comedy fan acclaim whilst (It looks like) less critical praise.
On a less related note; I think I may disagree about horror being harder to be original with, there has been a lot done, but there can also be many things that still can be done. IMO horror is one genre that a lot more can be done with, as opposed to less. Moreso than romance, comedy or drama, horror can exist in several different worlds, both paranormal and supernatural. All the while, horror can easily mingle with the real world (Unlike a lot of scifi), which can make it easier to generate unique ideas.
Directors and fame - Trioxin149 - 07-06-2009
I agree, horror WAS less graphic in the olden days, and stuff like Frankenstein, Creature from the Black Lagoon, etc.....were no where near as violent as the films we have coming out today. Such films as we have now, would have been REPULSING and resentful in that day and age. But I think you may have taken my argument that horror is harder to be original with in the wrong way. I didn't mean that it couldn't be done, and that there wasn't alot of room for new things. BUT, it's just not being put out there. How many times have we caught ourselves watching a horror film, that reminded us of another horror film? Too many. Comedy has lost most of it's appeal to me, although there are a few here and there that I enjoy, I miss being able to laugh at a film without having the word FUCK, marijuana, or someone getting kicked in the balls.