Category: Horror

Humanity has always sought to capture certain moments and feelings and that way give it immortality. Hence film, bearing the features of an art form operating within the narration of time and space seemed to be a perfect medium. The world of film seems to support the illusion of immortal and immutable reality in the likeness of artificial sleep and rule the subconscious instincts of the viewer. Sleep, consciousness and subconsciousness are the first intuitively found psychoanalytical threads in cinema, from which cinematography drew and still draws. At the end of the 19th century, many revolutions were taking place, not only in the field of cinematography. In the field of psychology and psychiatry, the Viennese doctor Sigmund Freud came to a new a perception of the functioning of the human mind. In 1895 two new disciplines were born. The Lumiere brothers invented the film projector marking the beginning of cinematography, while Freud and Breuer published ‘Studies on Hysteria’, which marks the emergence of a new set of theories regarding human nature and behavior called psychoanalysis. Since then, film and psychoanalysis have remained inextricably linked, which seems to be perfectly illustrated by Glen Gabbard, an American psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who recalled the words of a famous French director Claude Chabrol, while Chabrol used the psychoanalyst’s consultations when writing the screenplay for ‘La Ceremonie’ (1995): “It is very difficult to think about characters without considering Freudian perspective. This perspective is made up of meanings that also apply to cinema” (Winer and Anderson, 2001).

Horror is a film genre that reaches back to the most hidden human fears and dark desires. It represents the repressed elements of culture that cannot be easily explained and showed directly, and what constantly controls our emotions and actions. Horror was born in the era of silent cinema, Paul Leni by many is considered as the precursor of the genre, the director of such films as ‘Waxworks’ (1924) and ‘The Man Who Laughs’ (1928). The birth of the genre was also influenced by German film expressionism, e.g., the movie ‘Cabinet of Dr. Caligari’ (1918). Inspirations for the artistic means of horror also largely come from Romantic literature, especially the Gothic novel, e.g., the works of Horace Walpole. The flourishing of horror happened at the turn of the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, many kitschy, bloody images were shot, with the British label Hammer, e.g., ‘The Revenge of Frankenstein’ (1958), taking the lead. On the other hand, adaptations of the works of Allan Edgar Poe and horrors expressing fear of madness, such as ‘Psycho’ (1960) by Alfred Hitchcock or ‘Repulsion’ (1965) by Roman Polanski, were also considered as outstanding achievements in the field of cinematography. Psychoanalysis focused on the demons of the human subconsciousness also had a great impact on the creation of this genre. One of the tasks of various film theories is to explain first of all what happens to the viewer during a screening. Where is the beginning of the fascination with ‘moving pictures’ and how do psychoanalytical threads in horror relate to this.

Psychoanalytical threads in cinema had developed not only through the filmmaking itself, but were also shaped through mutual rejection and then understanding, to finally cooperation, as both cinematography and psychoanalysis developed. The creators of the first recording and screening device, brothers August and Louis Lumiere seem short-sighted in retrospect. They thought that their invention is and will forever be only a gadget that could potently find its use in science. They did not agree with the role played by cinema at that time, i.e., the source of entertainment for the masses, the role in which cinema is at its best today and where it shaped the experiences of generations of people who now quote film dialogues, hang posters on the walls and wear T-shirts with favorite movie stars. On the other hand, it was for this reason that attempts to recognize the film as an art form were suppressed. The same problems had previously applied to photography, which was compared to painting, or rather defined as its less impressive version, which did not require an ‘inspired hand of the artist’ (Newhall and Rosenblum, 2000). Today, the division into artistic cinema (mainly Europe) and entertainment cinema (Hollywood) is observed, and the number of trends defining the ways of experiencing film has undeniably increased. To better understand the nature of the relationship between a viewer and film from the perspective of film studies theory, including from the perspective of psychoanalysis one has to move away from the intuitive and empathic approach to film. From a formalistic approach the most important function was played by the screen frame: “its borders give shape to the images appearing on it” (Newhall and Rosenblum, 2000). From a realistic point of view, the screen was a window on the world: a window from which the view satisfies the eternal human desire to stop the passage of time and mummifies past experiences. An interesting look at the function and development of cinema, film and the role of the viewer and the process of shaping film material was proposed by one of the fields of psychology, psychoanalytic theory.

The basis of psychoanalytic theory in the first wave was the concept of Jacques Lacan and its reinterpretation undertaken by Christian Metz in the second half 70s of the last century. Lacanian theory pointed to the illusion of identifying the viewer with the image. He emphasized the subject’s longing for completeness (child – mother, viewer – unconscious desires) that the film can offer through false identification. According to Jacques Lacan, language (symbolic order) deprives the subject of his autonomy, expropriates him from himself. In Lacan’s theory, language performs the function of the unconscious, Symbolic Other, which on the one hand prevents an individual from expressing themselves truly, offering them only a string of cultural signifiers known to him, and on the other hand constitutes a necessary stage of acculturation. The French psychoanalyst states that in scientific civilization we are dealing with the deepest alienation of the subject – the subject does not speak, but is spoken about. A different view was proposed by Laura Mulvey, who mainly dealt with the attention of the male audience through fetishization of the female body. The second wave of psychoanalytic film criticism in the 1980s and 1990s was related to the work of Jacqyeline Rose, who drew attention to the search for the missing object of desire from the viewer. Psychoanalytic point of view suggests a fundamental change and shift of accents: the white screen on which the streaks of light are projected is no longer a window or a frame – it becomes a mirror. Therefore, the subject, although not specific as to the experience, thoughts and emotions, but rather being a construct of a person, is the focal point of most trends in psychoanalytical theories and the key subject of film studies in many respects. The basic premise of psychoanalysis is the existence of the unconsciousness. A large part of our mind is never and will never become conscious. Conscious experiences can also be forgotten, or denied and repressed, and yet remain active and affect the content and quality of life. Psychoanalysis as a method of examination and treatment assumes that the way personality forms, apart from innate and hereditary factors, is influenced by relationships with parents, as well as important experiences; birth, sexuality, love and hate, loss and death, which we experience from the very beginning, and which are often the source internal conflicts (Davis and Santos, 2010). These experiences and fantasies about them create patterns that remain unconscious and define relationships we have with ourselves and other people later in life. Psychoanalysis allows for people to learn about their conscious and subconscious mechanisms and conflicts and to better understand their lives and actions. Psychoanalysts use various techniques in their work, including free association analysis, dream analysis, resistance analysis and transference analysis. And although Freudian psychoanalysis is not known today in its pure form, theories about the Oedipus complex, narcissism, castration, unconsciousness and hysteria are still used as means of expression and as subjects of horror films, as well as elements of film analysis.

At the beginning, psychoanalysis was used in the cinema directly as a method that allowed us to look into the human mind and project it on the screen by adopting a certain narrative that through hidden symbolism and objects would reflect the psychological experience and state of the characters or the general theme of the film. This approach that was often used by the creator of the surreal movement, Andre Breton. He treated cinematography as a tool to look into the subconsciousness. He created motion pictures reminiscent of dreams or visions using the method of superimposition (overlapping images). He used slow motion, drew inspiration from the works of expressionist artists and dance choreographies. His approach was so different from romantic concepts because they refer to the psychical, not metaphysical sphere of human nature. What is real and what seems to be an illusion blurs perfectly in the film ‘Jacob’s Ladder’ (1990) directed by Adrian Lyne. The main character, a veteran of the Vietnam War, has nightmares. Due to traumatic experiences, lack of sleep and a series of unfortunate events, he begins to lose his mind and can no longer recognize the difference between reality and dreams. The title ladder is part of biblical mythology. Is a road connecting two worlds, the world of the living and the dead. The audience may question the hero’s visions and the unbelievable monsters he encounters. However, at some point one may realize that this is a story in which we participate every day, and thanks to which one can recognize the value of life, reconcile with loss or with the inability to overcome the fear of death. This film leaves the viewer with the following message: when the right moment comes, let go of the pain.

Stephen Neale, a British philosopher and specialist in the philosophy of language, recognizes that the pleasure associated with watching a narrative of a film unfold are caused by the fact that film images reflect human impulses and desires as well as deviations. Neale devotes considerable part of his work ‘Genre and Hollywood’ to the horror genre in particular. To explain the popularity of this genre he uses the theory of fetishism as an analogy. Every horror film introduces the viewer to a monster, in some horror films the monster is a literal beast and in other cases it is more of a metaphorical being. Neale says the diligence with which the monster is being created and later slowly introduced to the audience and how much attention is paid to its birth and death means that the monster is a fetish. He calls it a fetishist desire to know everything about cinema and film especially horror as its subliminal messages and themes speak to the human desire to have a clear vision of the beginning and the end as well as the desire to see the good overcome the evil (Neale, 2000). ‘North by Northwest’ (1959) directed by Alfred Hitchcock contains some excellent examples of fetishes. At the very beginning of the film, we are being introduced to a lifestyle typical to large busy city. It has its own rhythm and conventions, everyone there seems to be focused on working and making money. The main protagonist is used to that lifestyle and leads a successful life. When he gets kidnapped, he does not lose his temper and does not cease to provoke the fate and his smooth talking and cleverness helps him avoid death. This portrayal fetishizes men who by the majority of society are expected to always find a way out of a situation and never lose control. Man wants to act ‘manly’ and the protagonist is someone they can look up to and fetishize. That’s when both the audience and the main protagonist are introduced to yet another fetish, fetish of female adoration. The woman he meets is a cold and unscrupulous. She seduces him causes his downfall. In the end it doesn’t bother him at all. They are a good match. They team up, overcome the last obstacles and move towards a happy-end, the fetishized ‘they lived happily ever after’ (Neale, 2000). Many men would like to find themselves in the hero’s place, where their fantasy finally comes true. A strong and independent mother who mocks her son’s lifestyle, addictions and numerous divorces and does not want to believe nor help him is quickly replaced by a new strong but equally inaccessible woman, whom the hero meets on the train. She, however, seduces him and treats him like a hero, the dream of most men, that’s been portrayed on film for decades. At the end our protagonist is the one who saves the woman. The romantic plotline in Hitchcock’s movie highlights that his actions and behavior got rewarded (Mulvey, 1975).

Concept of the monster is similar to the concept of the Other. Robin Wood in his ‘The American Nightmare: Essays on the Horror Film’ argues that horror films repress desire within the self and disavow it by projecting it outward as a monstrous Other. Thus, the monster usually may be understood as a ‘return of the repressed’, representing the re-emergence of that which we’ve sought to deny in disguised horrific form. “American horror adopted exploitation as its new manner of presenting the Other, leading to a popular following of distinct social groups rather than mainstream audiences” (Wood, 1986). Horror always takes the side of a conservative vision of the world. What is different (e.g., forms of sexuality) must be punished and alienated. At the same time, however, evil is never defeated in an absolute way, but remains hidden. Sigmund Freud used the story of the mythical Sandman to determine the unconscious mechanisms operating in this form of horror. It’s about the ‘disturbing weirdness’ (Dawson, 2012), that makes known things strange or strange things more familiar. And sometimes both of these realities occur simultaneously. Sandman embodies these unexplained and often unaware recesses of the human soul. Based on the story of Sandman, Freud shapes the concept of horror and eeriness, the concept of uncanny. He starts with the linguistic analysis of this concept. In this way he first states that this is the extreme opposite of what is intimate and familiar. He also realizes that the word refers to something hidden or secret and at the same time to the word ‘home’. “The uncanny is something that seems familiar, but its familiarity is unsettling, troubling, and frightening. The German word for uncanny, ‘unheimlich’, means ‘un-home-y’. As Freud notes, the English term ‘canny’ also denotes coziness (home/familiar), and a second (supernatural) sense” (Horden, 1985). Freud states that in the phenomenon of eeriness is a mechanism by which something familiar becomes strange. This happens, for example, when someone dies. Earlier it was someone close, and now it is a corpse, which is in a state incomprehensible to us. Hence the sinister demons and ghosts appearing ‘from the underworld’. In the story of Sandman, the main character is afraid of losing his eyes. Freud associates this with the fear of mutilation associated with the castration complex. He also discovers a clear convergence between the concept of repression and the matter of eerie. The latter would be an expression of repression, repressed repression that is coming to light. He concludes, therefore, that threatening takeover is a condition that leads to anguish resulting from the children’s castration complex.

To conclude, horror is a genre that attracts people as it very often is a conscious attempt by the author to establish a dialogue with the viewer. Dialogue which is based on shocking unparalleled and brutal breaking of fundamental cultural taboos, human desires and fears. I dare to say that nowadays there is a tendency where the film shapes reality, while the nature of the broadly understood film art and film language have developed to the point where they explore the depth of the human psyche and use it as both an inspiration and a message. When referring to Freud’s legacy, certain hypotheses explaining horror often seem very clichéd and tailor-made. In this context, the simplest, fairly banal explanation would be the hypothesis of the subconscious pursuit of sublimation of drives suppressed by superego identified with culture. According to this interpretation, the abomination and disgust are nothing more than Id trying hard to break free from the shackles of a repressive culture suppressing original tendencies. In this spirit, the interpretation of the need to experience a specific catharsis also remains, which is ensured by communing with content that goes far beyond what shapes the Western culture on a daily basis.

Bibliography

1. Clover, C., 1996. Men, Women, and Chainsaws. London, Eng.: British Film Institute.
2. Davis, L. and Santos, C., 2010. The Monster Imagined. Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary.
3. Dawson, T., 2012. Enchantment, Possession and the Uncanny in E.T.A. Hoffmann’s ‘The Sandman’. International Journal of Jungian Studies, pp.41-54.
4. Freud, S., 1919. The Uncanny.
5. Hoffmann, E. T. A. The Sandman Tales. Trans. L. J. Kent and E. C. Knight. NY: Contiuum, 1982. p.277-308.
6. Horden, P., 1985. Freud and the Humanities. London: Duckworth.
7. Jancovich, M., 2002. Horror, The Film Reader. London: Routledge.
8. Mulvey, L., 1975. Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Methuen & Co. Ltd Routledge, p.57-60.
9. Neale, S., 2000. Genre and Hollywood. London: Routledge.
10. Newhall, B. and Rosenblum, N., 2000. History of Photography. [online] Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/technology/photography
11. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2011. Psychoanalytic Feminism. Available at: plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-psychoanalysis
12. Stevenson, B., 2019. Us, Pet Sematary, and the Horror of the Uncanny. The Oxford Student. Available at: www.oxfordstudent.com/2019/05/28/8780
13. Winer, J. and Anderson, J., 2001. Sigmund Freud and His Impact on the Modern World. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press, p.72.
14. Wood, R., 1986. Hollywood from Vietnam to Reagan. New York: Columbia University Press.

If there is a narrative genre on which a lot of preconceived ideas weigh, that is terror. Many people think that both terrifying literature and cinema are not art or, in the best case, it is not important, and that nothing good and even respectable can come from there; that the authors of this genre only set the goal of frightening readers and giving championship scares to the public of their films, something childish or trivial in short. And there are even those who blame usually violent narratives such as those of terror for generating crimes in the real world, of giving bad ideas, as if the motivations of the violence did not always exist outside of fiction and this was nothing more than their reflection.

Carrie is a movie about the chilling case of a young girl of insignificant appearance who became a being of abnormal powers, sowing terror in the city. With a magical pulse to maintain the tension throughout the book, Stephen King narrates the tormented adolescence of Carrie and envelops us in an overwhelming atmosphere when the girl makes a series of discoveries until reaching the terrible moment of revenge. This novel was taken to the movies with the immense success of the public and critics.

Stephen King is essentially recognized for his horror and suspense novels. More than any of these, Carrie is an excellent combination of suspense and fantasy, combined with a personal drama. His documentary narrative adds a touch of tension to the story. He proposes an interesting game of reality and fiction by telling fantastic facts as if they were truthful through media that tell news that we would consider true.

In terror, little is touched on the issue of women who instill fear unless they are spirits, and this is where the difference lies since Carrie is a common girl, insignificant, but full of anger, and unleashing all her feelings creates unstoppable chaos.

I find it interesting how Stephen handles different voices during the story. Since he had to write journalistic notes, witness testimonies of the events, intimate letters, and even inscriptions that were on the walls of the Ewen School (where Carrie studied). The main narrator is omniscient. Know the thoughts and actions of all the characters. It is sometimes placed from the perspective of each of the characters showing us a different angle of each event. During the first part of the story, the narrator shows Carrie’s interior mainly, which allows the reader to immerse himself in the mind of the protagonist and create empathy. Later let’s meet Susan Snell, Tommy Ross, Christine Hargensen, Billy Nolan, and other characters.

Stephen uses anachronism to constantly show past events, as well as leaps forward in time, printing more suspense in history. At the end of this novel, we find a curious Death Certificate of Carrie White with the date, time, and causes of his death. We also find a journalistic note a few years after the tragedy of Chamberlain and a letter that leaves the reader wanting more. It turns out that the letter is sent by a small-town woman to her sister in the city telling her that her little daughter is manifesting strange telekinetic powers.

In this movie, we see children abused by their parents, stepparents, or a relative with whom they live, which is immersed as a secondary plot, but of equal importance. Many neighbors of Carrie White for years turned a blind eye to the irregularities they saw at the White’s house, never reporting to justice what they saw.

In the horror movie Carrie we can feel like the worse the protagonist goes through, the more we enjoy, and this happens in most horror movies even though we do not realize that. In this way, meanwhile, the difficulties that appear in Carrie’s path, the discomfort we feel are also increasing, and the fear that he will not have a happy ending. However, our hope in that remains. In this way we are reacting to the anguish of the contradiction of both paths: we want good things to happen at the same time that only bad things happen. When the end is reached in the case of Carrie we get a sad ending, that leaves us with a feeling that nothing of that should’ve happened, even though we felt scared most of the time we were watching the movie.

Watching Carrie already casts doubt on its end. Well, many horror movies have happy endings, but others like Carrie have tragic ends. Therefore, uncertainty is added to the tension over expectations. But the fact that at the beginning we don’t know if he will have a happy ending, increases tension and physiological activation, as well as pleasure after the end.

Introduction

In the classic short story “The Monkey’s Paw” by W.W. Jacobs, the element of foreshadowing plays a crucial role in building suspense and foretelling the tragic events that unfold. Through carefully crafted hints and subtle clues, the author masterfully guides the readers’ expectations and sets the stage for the haunting consequences of the fateful monkey’s paw. This essay will explore the various instances of foreshadowing in the story and analyze their significance in creating an atmosphere of impending doom.

The Introduction of the Monkey’s Paw

Right from the beginning, the introduction of the monkey’s paw foreshadows the forthcoming troubles. Sergeant-Major Morris, who possesses the paw, warns the Whites about its potential dangers and urges them to throw it away. His tales of wishes gone wrong and his reluctance to speak of his own experiences serve as ominous omens, foreshadowing the misfortune that awaits the Whites when they decide to disregard his advice and keep the paw.

The First Wish

When Mr. White makes his first wish, asking for £200, the author uses foreshadowing to create a sense of unease. The paw’s peculiar movement in Mr. White’s hand, as if it had a life of its own, hints at the supernatural powers at play and the potential dire consequences of tampering with fate. This foreshadowing raises questions in the readers’ minds, intensifying their anticipation of what lies ahead.

The Appearance of Herbert’s Mangled Corpse

After the tragic accident that claims their son Herbert’s life, Mrs. White’s reaction and her insistence on seeing their son’s body foreshadow the dreadful outcome that awaits them. As Mr. White hesitates to unlock the door, his wife’s determination to see Herbert reveals her deep-seated belief that the monkey’s paw has the power to bring him back to life. This foreshadowing signals the growing desperation and delusion that will drive the Whites to make their final wish.

The Mysterious Knock

As the Whites sit in anguish, contemplating their final wish, they hear a series of ominous knocks at the door. This recurring motif of knocking serves as a powerful foreshadowing device, building tension and anticipation. The knock on the door, associated with supernatural occurrences and impending doom, hints at the terrible fate awaiting the Whites when they use their final wish to bring back their deceased son.

The Final Wish

When Mr. White makes the final wish, asking for Herbert to come back, the author employs foreshadowing to convey the dreadful twist in the story. Just as Mr. White’s wish is granted, the knocking abruptly stops, leaving an eerie silence in its wake. This cessation of the knocking foreshadows the chilling revelation that the resurrected Herbert might not return as they expected. The absence of sound symbolizes the abrupt end to the Whites’ hope and the arrival of a horrifying consequence.

Conclusion

In “The Monkey’s Paw,” W.W. Jacobs skillfully employs foreshadowing to create suspense and heighten the sense of impending tragedy. From the introduction of the monkey’s paw to the haunting knocks at the door, each instance of foreshadowing serves to prepare the readers for the disastrous consequences of the characters’ actions. By utilizing these literary techniques, the author effectively builds anticipation and engages the readers’ emotions, leaving a lasting impact on their understanding of the story’s themes of fate, greed, and the consequences of tampering with supernatural forces.

“The Monkey’s Paw” stands as a timeless example of how foreshadowing can enhance the reader’s experience and create a sense of impending doom. Through the carefully woven web of hints and clues, Jacobs effectively guides the readers toward the tragic outcome that awaits the Whites. This literary device not only adds depth and complexity to the narrative but also serves as a reminder of the inherent dangers of tempting fate and the irreversible consequences that can follow.

Horror is a genre that has evolved into a broad umbrella with multiple portrayals of the original works underneath, this allows for diversity and appeals to a wider range of audiences. The horror genre began in the Romantic Movement in the beginning of the 19th century and encompasses many types of horror literary works and films. These include science fiction with Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and supernatural with Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Horror as a genre has continued in popularity with supernatural novels and films such as Stephen King’s It. The horror genre can differ with the types of monsters described, but the works all have had one thing in common for over 200 years, the monster exists.

Mary Shelley’s, Frankenstein is one of the most noted horror genre classics. Frankenstein was published in 1818 and has been made into many film adaptations for nearly 200 years. Frankenstein is the story of a scientist who creates a mismatched assembled creation in his lab. The creation is depicted as grotesque and is as seen as a monster. “By forcing us to face the monster’s physical repulsiveness, which he can never deny or escape, and which aborts his every hope of gaining sympathy, film versions of Frankenstein prompt us to rethink his monstrosity in terms of visualization” (Heffernan 131). In the novel, Shelley described Frankenstein’s monster as an “8-foot-tall creature of hideous contrasts” and while his limbs were proportionate, “his yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but this luxuriance’s only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same color as the dun-white sockets in which they were set, his shriveled complexion and straight black lips” (Shelley 42). This description allows for the reader to know the basics of the monster’s appearance and encourages him/her to use their own imagination to formulate what the monster looks like. Often, what is written is an outline for what the reader uses to create the monster visual in their mind. This allows for the audience to input their vision into the story and have more engagement with the literary work.

Long, after the book’s release, the first film adaptation was released in 1931. This film gave the first visual to how the monster was created and what the monster itself looked like. The film version of Frankenstein was a giant figure in the film with limbs of proportion, however, Frankenstein was a black and white film, so the skin tone appears as extremely pale instead of yellow (Whale 1931). His facial features were as such as conveyed in the novel: long black hair, sunken eyes, and shriveled complexion and thin lips.

In one of the many Frankenstein film versions since the original Bride of Frankenstein, Karloff portrays the monster in a way that would become the stereotypical depiction. The creature is almost certain to appear as a towering undead-like figure, often with a flat-topped head and bolts on his neck to serve as electrical connectors. He wears a dark and torn suit and heavy boots, causing him to walk with an awkward, stiff-legged walk (Whale 1935). His skin tone is usually a shade of green and gray and his body appears stitched together at certain parts, like the neck and joints. This portrayal of the monster has become one of the most iconic depictions of monsters and has even influenced other genres, such as Marvel’s Hulk.

Dracula is another example of a classic origin horror genre work of literature and film. Dracula is a supernatural horror literary work and film. Although this category of horror differs greatly from science fiction, the monsters involved are still as impactful. In the 1897 novel, Dracula is described as a tall old man, being clean-shaven except for a long white mustache, and dressed in black from head to toe and “without a single speck of color about him anywhere”(Brahm 16). This description is vague and lacks the monster vibe that was given by monsters like Frankenstein. Later in the novel, his description goes more in-depth illustrating that “His face was a strong, a very strong, aquiline” meaning like an eagle. “The mouth, so far as I could see it under the heavy mustache, was fixed and rather cruel-looking, with peculiarly sharp white teeth that protruded over his lips” The visual effect of Dracula was one of “extraordinary pallor,” or an unhealthy pale appearance (Bram 18). While the description of Dracula is more detailed than Frankenstein’s, the reader still maintains some control of the visual in their mind.

In the 1931 film, Dracula, the portrayal of the vampire has a more human quality. In the film, Dracula has facial structure features but lacks a long mustache and massive eyebrows. Dracula’s teeth did not protrude over his lips and were unseen until his mouth opened (Browning 1931). This version was largely based on the stage play, rather than the book. The 1924 play was the first adaption of the book and was widely successful. Basing the film off the play made economic as well as entertainment sense, and almost guaranteed similar success.

However, not all adaptations were as Bram envisioned his beloved monster. “The transformations of Dracula, who has become the vampire in the popular imagination, however, are different. In Bram Stoker’s novel, Dracula is a white-haired Eastern European patriarch with bad breath and hairy palms. He is also a powerful aristocrat who dominates both men and women. However, in the film adaptations of Dracula, the primary source of vampire legend and lore for twentieth-century vampire followers, the character shifts shapes constantly, creating in the public imagination a composite Count Dracula who has become a universally recognized icon” (Holte 110). In the 2012 film, Hotel Transylvania, horror monsters such as Dracula, Frankenstein, werewolves, the Invisible Man come and stay in a hotel located in Transylvania. The portrayals are intended to accommodate a young audience, so the characters themselves are cuter than what was originally intended in the novels. Dracula has a tall stature and fangs but is portrayed as a recluse after the loss of his wife. Frankenstein is an animated version of 1935’s stereotypical portrayal and can fall apart and then be placed back together (Genndy 2012). Dracula and the other monsters have reversed their roles and are now afraid of humans. This is a twist, unlike their original works, allowing for a new audience to enjoy the characters and allow for the characters to continue living for generations to come.

Stephen King is known as one of the best horror authors of all time, writing multiple horror category works including previously mentioned science fiction and supernatural. King has created some of the most recognizable monsters of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, including Cujo, Gage Creed and Pennywise. Stephen King’s, It, is a modern supernatural horror work. King’s novel was released in 1986 and in its 33 years has enraptured generations of admirers. Stephen King uses his belief in monsters to fuel his literary works and in turn, has added his name to the horror genre’s successes.

It is the story of a group of kids in the town of Derry, who must band together to fight a monster known as Pennywise, an eternal entity that can shapeshift and change forms but is best described as It. Pennywise is primarily depicted as a clown, which is a rational fear in of itself but can transform into more forms than shown in the film adaptations, including werewolves, bats, leeches, and sharks, embodying any of a child’s worst fears. “It itself, which is multiple, fractured, and inconsistent, functioning as a kind of meta monster. Where readers are familiar with a single monstrous trope being treated as a focal point in the Gothic narrative (we gasp, it’s a vampire! it’s a ghost!), It is, amongst other things, a werewolf, a monstrous bird, an enormous disembodied eye, a mummy, a large plastic statue, voices in the moon, violence, the ‘deadlights’, a giant spider, and, most frequently, Pennywise the clown” (Jones 168). The first visual encounter portrayed in the book is when George “Georgie” Denbrough loses his paper boat in a storm drain during a storm. Georgie, like most children, ducked down and peered into the drain in hopes of finding his boat, instead, he saw Pennywise. “There was a clown in the storm drain. The light was far from good, but it was good enough so that George Denbrough was sure of what he was seeing. It was a clown, like in the circus or on TV” (King 13). Pennywise is a significant monster because adapts to his audience feeds on fear, and by becoming whatever people fear most, has an unlimited food source until his time is up. “Then the clown’s face changed. And what little George Denbrough saw next was terrible enough to make his worst imaginings of the things in the basement look like sweet, angelic dreams; what he saw destroyed his sanity in one clawing stroke”(King 13). Pennywise is the monster we all fear most, the monster who knows are fear and uses that to his advantage.

In the film’s 1990 adaptation, Pennywise’s appearance is true to the book. Pennywise looks exactly like a stereotypical clown. “The face of the clown in the storm drain was white, there were funny tufts of red hair on either side of his bald head, there was a big clown smile painted over his mouth…The clown held a bunch of balloons, all colors, like gorgeous ripe fruit in one hand. In the other, he held George’s newspaper boat…” (King 13). Once Pennywise transforms into his demonic form that feeds on fear, however little changes. His eyes change colors, his teeth sharpen, and this makeup becomes more dramatic with the addition of some smudged red lipstick and blue eyeshadow surrounding his eyes (Wallace 1990). This portrayal also is true to the final appearance given my Pennywise in the book, It transformed into that of an enormous spider and refers to this spider-like embodiment as “deadlights” (King 522). This film version allows for comprehension of the multiple transformations of Pennywise and allows the audience to get a sense for what the being would look like.

In the film’s 2017 adaptation, Pennywise’s appearance differs from the original. Advancements in technology and film visual effects contributed to this factor, as well as the need to make Pennywise as terrifying has he is portrayed in the book. Pennywise still resembles a clown, only now he has more elaborate face makeup: a white face and red lips with the appearance of red lipstick continuing from the outer edges of the lips making a line across the cheeks and past his eyebrows (Muschietti 2017). Pennywise now has a less-than-perfect smile during the original encounter with Georgie. He has buck teeth and then they become long, sharp teeth that extend from his jaw when he opens his bite. These visual effects allow for a more accurate depiction of the original book, as well as engage a new generation of audience members.

In conclusion, horror has been a popular genre since its origin with Shelley’s Frankenstein and Bram’s Dracula. The genre is still popular today and is only growing in popularity with novels and blockbuster films like King’s It. The genre spreads across many subcategories, but the storylines all have one thing in common, that the beast is real. The horror genre ignites our fascination with the belief of other possible life forms among us and fills our adrenaline-seeking desire. Stephen King in The Shining writes, “Monsters are real, and ghosts are real too” with the possibility of this being true, we become enthralled with the stories (King XVII). In every horror novel or film one of the main characters, if not the main character, is the monster itself. The horror genre began over 200 years ago but will continue to engage future generations in literature and films for years to come.

Works cited:

1. Browning, Tod, director. Dracula. Universal Pictures. 1931.
2. Genndy, Tartakovsky, director. Hotel Transylvania. Columbia Pictures and Sony Pictures Animation. 2012.
3. Holte, James Craig. “A Century of Draculas.” Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, vol. 10, no. 2 (38), 1999, pp. 109–114. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43308376.
4. James A. W. Heffernan. “Looking at the Monster: ‘Frankenstein’ and Film.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 24, no. 1, 1997, pp. 133–158. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1344161.
5. King, Stephen. It’s Stephen King. Sevenoaks, 1987.
6. King, Stephen. The Shining. Doubleday, 1977.
7. Muschietti, Andrés, director. It. ABC. 2017.
8. Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, 1797-1851. Frankenstein, Or, The Modern Prometheus: the 1818 Text. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Print.
9. “Stephen King, Affect and the Real Limits of Gothic Practice.” The Gothic and the Carnivalesque in American Culture, by Timothy Jones, 1st ed., University of Wales Press, 2015, pp. 151–178, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt17w8hdq.10.
10. Stoker, Bram. Dracula. 1897. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990
11. Wallace, Tommy Lee, director. It. ABC. 1990.
12. Whale, James, director. Frankenstein. Universal Pictures. 1931.
13. Whale, James, director. The Bride of Frankenstein. Universal Pictures. 1935.

My early exposure to cinema was not unlike that of most American children. At the age of eleven, I still watched the movies that premiered on the Disney Channel and still felt slightly rebellious when watching any movie with a PG-13 rating. My parents had, for the most part, done a thorough job in shielding me from all the evils of the world. However, my older siblings were equally determined in their job to corrupt me. When they suggested we watch ‘Hostel: Part III’, a R-rated horror movie, without the supervision of my parents, I admittedly doubted whether or not I was ready for it. I hesitated, but agreed, in a misguided attempt to appear more mature than I was – a desire held by most preteens. I wanted to be cool and ‘grown-up’ like they were; part of me still does. I find that this is often the context in which most young children would tell a similar story. All children want to be seen as mature.

Of all the obscene images in the movie, it is difficult to pick the one that is the most graphic. The one that stuck with me the longest, however, was the first. There is a scene in the movie where a character named Mike has his face violently removed by a doctor as a form of grotesque entertainment for the wealthy and sadistic. Mike is buckled to a chair, and I remember that sense of helplessness resonating with me. The scene draws out the anticipation of the coming violence for a long time while the doctor picks out his preferred tools. I felt fully immersed in the scene. I felt as if I were trapped like Mike in front of the screen, doomed to watch this movie. This depiction of torture was jarring to me, not because I didn’t anticipate the content of the movie would be horrifying, but because I had failed to realize that I was not ready to confront it. Subsequent scenes in the movie could be described as even worse than the face-ectomy (e.g., a woman murdered by suffocating on a swarm of cockroaches), but it became difficult to register them in the same way I had registered the first. I was filled with a fear far deeper and more visceral than I had ever experienced before. It was a fear I had to hide to look cool in front of my brothers, even though I was sweating and shaking underneath my plush throw blanket. It was a fear I couldn’t even share with my parents, for fear of being punished for watching a movie I knew I was not allowed to watch. I was paranoid for weeks following the movie – paranoid that I too could be kidnapped and tortured. The lines between fiction and reality were blurred for me as they often are for children. I assumed that ‘Hostel: Part III’ was the norm and that my inability to handle it was indicative of some immaturity on my part. I was afraid that, by the time I was an adult, I still would be unable to deal with the same content that all adults were expected to consume and enjoy.

Being far enough removed from the incident, I don’t believe it has had any lasting effects on me, but if I could go back in time, I would stop myself from watching it. I did not magically become more mature or enlightened by that potentially traumatizing incident. I do not believe that anyone under the age of eighteen should be exposed to anything that graphic and furthermore I do not believe that anyone of any age should watch movies of this particular sub-genre. The plot of the movie was created to showcase violence, so the violence in the film was not introduced as a means to further the narrative, but rather, the narrative was structured around the violence. That is the primary way in which those graphic images have affected me today. In the terror I felt as a child, paralyzed in front of my television screen, I lost all my appreciation for violence for its own sake. Without reason, violence in film becomes a shallow parody of the grotesque show it portrays. In that same sense, we the viewers become that same sadistic audience, paying for the thrill of watching a man’s face be removed.

Abstract

What is the psychological science behind why horror films appeal to us, despite having such a negative notion to cause anxiety and fear? Even individuals who do not like the horror genre, find themselves captivated and glued to their seats in a torturous and excited manner. Why does this happen? How does it affect viewers? And why is it important? The world we live in is complex and illusions of safety cause us to be on edge at times. The wonder of why we would enjoy watching something that uplifts our cortisol levels is strange. I hope to be able to provide clarity about these questions to the best of my abilities.

Intro to horror

Fear is one of the most basic and important human emotions. Despite the negative connotations behind feeling fear, most of us are attracted to the idea of being scared but would be uncomfortable if we were in the actual situation like in horror films. For the most part, it is an unpleasant emotion we usually try our best to avoid. So, why do some people enjoy being scared in cinematic settings? What are the psychological reasons behind this?

Let’s investigate this further by reviewing this from a filmmaker’s standpoint. For a long time across the world, people have been drawn to horror films of all genres. For many years, filmmakers have exploited this strange allure as not only a medium in which they can send a message but also to trigger physiological and psychological responses of fear in an audience. Why do this? What do they hope to accomplish? The answer is simple, it is a different form of medium in which they can practice and produce their craft. Remember a time when the only fear an individual would feel was through a story or superstition told, but times have changed. We live in an age in which media has transferred from a physical mode and print to virtual screens. Furthermore, the change in the late 20th century has presented new utilizations of digital techniques which have helped people to perceive the world in an unexpected way. In turn, filmmaking in the genre of horror has become a form in which film artists can refine these techniques of sound, lighting, time, motion, and other stylistic devices. They can use all these different techniques to deliver a message that is relevant to the time period, and issues in society, and of course to intensify the feeling of fear for the audience’s enjoyment.

About fear

What about fear? So far, we’ve gone over the aspects of why these sorts of films are made, but not over the actual term itself. According to google dictionary, “fear” is an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain or a threat.

The emotion of fear is common throughout our lives. We fear many things, such as natural disasters, this includes tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, and floods. Different encounters in which we meet danger and fear are when we see hoodlums, killers, and carnivorous animals. It is natural to exhibit these sorts of emotions because it is the body’s chemical and mechanical reaction to urge us to escape or fight before any actual danger occurs. Despite knowing all this, why do people still go out, buy a ticket to a horror movie, and watch to experience feelings of horror, terror, and disgust? It is believed that they enjoy the movie-watching process. To sit in the dark with other fellow movie-goers who have made the same choice and suffer as a whole. However, that isn’t enough proof of the reasons why people make this decision.

There are two types of feelings that arise when an audience sits in a movie theater to watch a horror flick, enjoyment, and fear. A major reason for this could be the fact that a horror movie isn’t real life. This gives an audience the opportunity to feel joy during viewing. But if, let’s say these dramatic fictional stories were to become reality, individuals would feel immense fear and less joy. What this means is that a cinematic environment provides a safe distance for people. Another manner in which an audience might feel excitement or unpleasantness is due to the successful or failed struggle between human characters and evil. The feelings of triumph or defeat could explain the paradox of why people like to feel fear, which will lead us to the psychological effects and theories behind the horror genre.

Why enjoy?

Of all the explanations or reasons people come up with as to why we enjoy the horror genre, there are several theories that might be able to explain this phenomenon. From the point of view of psychoanalysis, there is a paradox that the uncanny is something familiar but incongruous. Because of this paradox, creates cognitive dissonance in an individual’s psyche. Horror films draw on archetypes hidden deep within the subconscious. Shadows, the dark, and mothers are some examples. And people may be attracted to this dark, unknown familiarity for this reason.

Another theory might be that violent films and plays provide an opportunity for the audience to purge themselves of the negative emotions formed in everyday life, so they enjoy this process called catharsis. This is not always a good thing, though, because watching violent films and playing violent video games can make people more dangerous.

You know that feeling you get when the hero finally triumphs over evil? This is called excitation transfer, the negative feelings of the audience in horror films intensify the positive feelings when the hero finally wins. Unfortunately, this theory is unable to explain the enjoyment of films in which the hero fails.

A popular theory is sensation seeking, in other words, individuals are attracted to horror films because they want the feeling of experience. Some examples of this are people who are looking for excitement, such as bungee jumping, skydiving, climbing, and others. Sensation seeking, however, does not always have a significant relationship to interest in horror movies.

Could it be possible that horror movies reflect societal fears or concerns? Remember when the rise of yuppies, serial killers, and feminism in the 1990s made The Lambs ‘ Silence popular? This might also include reflecting fears of a 2000s virus pandemic that made movies and series like Resident Evil and The Walking Dead fun to watch among many. Many cycles of horror fit this theory, but more do not.

Perhaps dispositional alignment could be an explanation. This is the theory when an audience enjoys seeing evil characters given the punishment they deserve on screen. But the same objection as excitation theory can be applied, because what if the hero doesn’t triumph or what if the evil-doer is not punished?

Another theory called gender role socialization, could be that some young males enjoy horror movies when their female companions are scared by the movies. However, the opposite also holds true, when the film scares their male companions, young females will feel less enjoyment during the viewing. So that rules out that theory.

So how about just curiosity and fascination, we like to be in a state of horror as long as we’re in a safe environment, but experiencing horror in reality would be an unpleasant state to be in. This seems to make sense, but it is believed that there is no horror outside the normal everyday behavior in the society we live in today.

How’s this important?

Human beings have been attracted by the unknown of monsters for a long time and tolerate monsters’ disgust, but what does that mean to us as a society? There is an importance to fear and our reactions to it. It is a survival mechanism during the start of humanity, it kept us alive during times of danger. But since the world has grown safer, there is less need for it in modern society. However, this is still important, because it could represent a reason as to why we enjoy the horror genre in today’s time. It may as well be a play-off of our past natural instincts. The majority of horror films are based on fictional tales of monsters or evil and watching these movies, could in a sense help us come up with creative and interesting ways to develop our survival skills for other situations. For example, let’s say someone were to try and rob or attack you in real life. By watching a slasher film, you might gain an advantage in what to do in that situation, whether it be to fight back or flee. These instincts are hardwired in us from the start and the mind is a powerful energy that will aid us in escaping harm at all costs.

To conclude.

While people don’t like anxiety and fear of being scared in real life, many audiences love and are even obsessed with horror movies. Many theories have been suggested to attempt to clarify this phenomenon, but none can be applied to all genres of horror. A seat in a judgment-free environment in which everyone feels the same emotions, there’s nothing more fun than being scared of others. It may never be explained exactly as to why we find enjoyment in horror films, but that’s what makes the movie-going experience so spectacular and unique. That’s what truly matters!

References

1. Fu, Xiangyi. (2016) Horror Movie Aesthetics: How Color, time, space, and sound elicit fear in an Audience. Boston, Massachusetts: Northeastern University
2. Ryan, Ó. (n.d.). ‘Fear is an essential part of who we are’: Here’s why people watch horror films. Retrieved from https://www.thejournal.ie/psychology-of-horror-films-3667778-Oct2017/
3. The lure of horror. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-24/edition-11/lure-horror

‘In general, little attention has been given to the filmic representation of race in film genre criticism.’ (Mark A Reid). Making detailed reference to one or two discuss the ways in which a genre of your choice uses discourses of race.

This essay will analyze the horror genre’s approach to race in a variety of ways. Depictions of race in horror have changed and developed over time, one of the most influential modern interpretations being Jordan Peele’s Get Out (Peele, 2017). The film displays how the genre has moved in recent years to improve its racial depictions and Peele’s work uses the genre’s conventions to effectively approach modern racism. The premise of the film surrounds a black man meeting his white girlfriend’s family, inspired by the classic Look Who’s Coming to Dinner (1964, Kramer). Unlike its inspiration, however, Peele’s Get Out takes a sinister turn and becomes a commentary on race in modern society.

Consistently within the horror genre, there has been a lack of representation of black people as leading or even prominent characters. This is supported by the 2019 Hollywood Diversity’ Report where Darnell Hunt claimed that most horror films are “not about the humanity of the black characters, it’s about the humanity of the lead, who’s typically white, and everyone else in the film is there to sort of support that lead character in his or her story.’ (Hunt, 2019). Hunt’s claim amplifies the need for more representation of black people within horror. This is also confirmed historically by the genre, due to the famous trope “the black character dies first” (Ebert, 1997). Ebert identified a recurring trend in the genre in which black characters are deemed expendable and are often sacrificed the earliest in the film therefore prohibiting substantial characterisation. One notable example of this trope can be found in The Shining in which the only death is a black janitor Dick Hallorann who also dies for his white counterparts (Kubrick, 1980). Another example is Scream 2’s black character Phil Stevens (Craven, 1997), who dies before the opening credits. Peele’s Get Out, however, entirely subverts this genre trope (Peele, 2017). The film’s protagonist Chris is anything but expendable, despite being a black man in a horror movie, instead he guides the audience through the film. Due to watching the film through Chris’s eyes, the audience recognizes racism more coherently in contrast to if it were a white protagonist. Textually this is shown through the dialogue in the party scene, in which partygoers approach Chris with racially charged comments. Peele uses music with ominous undertones and close-up shots of Chris’s face, displaying uncomfortable reactions to create a sinister atmosphere. Comments such as “is it better” (referring to having sex with a black man as opposed to a white man), “black is in fashion” and “I do know Tiger” may seem harmless, however, it display that this is a gathering of people who cannot see Chris as a person past his race. The film makes it clear these comments are an example of necrophilia which is defined as an obsession with black culture in a way that fetishizes it (Landsberg, 2018). The partygoers are tokenizing Chris hidden behind the guise of white liberal acceptance. Additionally, Peele claims he views Get Out as a documentary and that these comments are based on real comments that people have said to him, displaying that we are far from a ‘post-racial society’(Sangkadila and Fadlilah, 2018). The device Chris uses to escape these interactions is his camera, he claims in response to a comment “Pardon me, I’m going to take some pictures”(Peele, 2017). Yet again the audience is placed watching the film through Chris’ lens, and using that same lens he uncovers the racist plot around him. It is his camera that exposes the body snatch plot by taking a photograph of Andre. Landsberg comments that Chris’ camera, is the instrument that will break the trance and make visible to Chris and to us, the audience, the reality of what is happening at the Armitage house, and by extension, metaphorically, in liberal, ‘post-racial’ American society (Landsberg, 2018). The camera plays an influential role as through its use racism in contemporary America is exposed. A further metaphor is that watching through the lens of black people, both metaphorically and through more representation will uncover the horror of racism within society.

It is widely noted that the horror genre is commonly used as a vehicle to reflect societal issues at the time. Therefore, Peele’s utilizing the horror to discuss modern race issues is befitting of the genre. Peele effectively uses the ‘rehibition of bodies’ horror trope in Get Out (Peele, 2017). The trope is commonly in horror films, including The Invasion of the Body Snatchers (Kaufman, 1978). However, the most comparable use of the trope can be seen in The Stepford Wives (Forbes, 1975), which is a horror film telling the story of housewives being turned against their will into robots. It largely represented the second wave of feminism which was thriving at the time, expressing the message that women were losing their own identity by becoming slaves to their family. This is shown by the robotic nature of the wives after the operation, which symbolically expresses that in society wives and mothers are pushed to sacrifice their own needs for their families leaving them without an identity. Peele uses this trope in a similar way instead highlighting racial discourse at the time. The takeover of black bodies further highlights black tokenism, the characters view the bodies as “cooler”, “stronger” and “trendier”. It also highlights the use of black bodies through the decades by white people through slavery as well as the current and rising Black Lives Matter movement, which was also thriving during 2017. During the body swap the body’s rightful owners remain in the “sunken place” (Peele, 2017). This means that while the white perpetrator uses their body to operate to their own wishes, the black owner remains in the background unable to speak or participate as their body is used. This is a wider metaphor for the silencing of African American voices by white people, by many means ranging from slavery to overall lack of representation. Textually there are links to slavery as Rose’s mother places Chris in the sunken place by running her spoon around the inside of her teacup, creating clear slavery links with tea production. Also, Chris is only able to escape this fate by stuffing his ears with cotton wool this being yet another clear product of slavery. Peele claims “The sunken place means we’re marginalized no matter how hard we scream, the system silences us” (Ryan‐Bryant, 2020). The sunken place represents the regression of racial issues, their bodies being used as a vessel while their thoughts and voices remain muted. Basto Da Silva claims that following ex-President Trump’s election in 2016 we are now living in a sunken place, where racial prejudice is being recognized more but due to that people believe that society is now ‘post-racial’(Bastos da Silva, 2019). Overall, it is clear that the body-snatching trope is a wider metaphor surrounding society’s view and use of black bodies.

Monsters are another common convention within the horror genre to induce fear in the audience and add stakes to a plot line. The horror genre has demonstrated that racism can create monsters on several occasions, an example being Candyman (Costa, 1992). Candyman is a ghost who has a hook for a hand and murders those who say his name three times in a mirror. While the film displays his graphic murders, it also characterizes him as a monster born out of racial injustice. He was once a black man who fell in love with a white woman and was brutally lynched for it (Costa, 1992). Georgina and Walter can be similarly displayed as the monsters of the film. Georgina appears almost as a Stepford wife, appearing robotic and, at a few points, as if she is malfunctioning. Textually this is shown when she comes out to the deck to pour iced tea for Chris and the Armitage’s, in this moment her face registers anguish and she overfills a glass, as if she is glitching (Peele, 2017). Walter’s overall depiction is monstrous as he seems to have an inhuman quality to him however, his monstrosity is quite literally a result of what allegedly ‘liberal whites’ have done to him. Despite this, the monster in Get Out shockingly appears to be the character the audience would least expect. Furthermore, she turns out to be the most diabolical of all; Rose, sweet, anti-racist, young, and liberal is revealed to lure black people to her parent’s sadistic laboratory. Due to this Georgina and Walter’s lives were taken at the hands of a racist society, much like Candyman’s. Georgina’s and Walter’s appearances are clearly a representation of modern-day slavery displayed effectively in a monstrous light. Through setting the enslavement of Georgina and Walter in the present day, the film points to the violence still committed against African Americans, perpetuating that racist exploitation is alive and well even among supposedly liberal white people. Therefore, expressing through the horror tropes that the monster is racism itself.

The setting of horror films has continuously been used as a device to heighten fear in the film. A consistent choice is often one that offers isolation for the characters, making the idea of escape and calls for help more strenuous. For example, “The Shining”, sets the infamous family in a hotel in the mountains completely isolated from society, meaning when Jack loses his mind there is an element of fear (Kubrick, 1980). Peele recognizes these tropes and uses them to highlight the racial differences surrounding the suburbs. This is not the first time the horror genre has approached this racial topic, an example being Wes Craven’s ‘The People Under the Stairs’ in which a 13-year-old African American Fool attempts to burgle his landlords (a white suburban family) and discovers the horror within (Craven, 1991). After Fool discovers the warped situation being the family’s hidden cannibalistic children it is clear Craven deliberately wished to express the alienation black people often feel towards white rich suburban families. Later on in the film, when Fool must survive his landlords, we see how dangerous suburbia can be. Siegel commented when referencing Craven’s film that ‘being black is also being shut out of the protected spaces reserved for whites’ and furthermore creating both an interest and fear about these places (Siegel, 2013). Textually this is illustrated by the opening scene, the film beginning with a long shot of an empty suburban sidewalk at night. The camera then slowly pulls back, as we hear the voice of an African-American man speaking on the phone. He searches for an address, but is agitated, and anxious, saying into the phone, ‘I feel like a sore thumb out here’. Peele uses this to convey what might seem like a tranquil suburb but for a black man quite the opposite; through his eyes, the street seems creepy, like he does not belong. This is a reversal of a commonplace trope – the white person alone in the city at night, afraid of ‘racial others’. However, to an African American man, the white suburb is an ideal place to set a horror film. Peele destabilizes the viewer’s effortless confidence in the safety of the suburbs, the film begins by breaking down the ideologically dominant view of the suburb as the safe alternative to the dangerous city. While this abduction is occurring an upbeat song from 1939 ‘Run Rabbit, Run Rabbit’ plays on the soundtrack. The lyrics of this song point to the danger as they tell the story of a vulnerable rabbit being murdered by a farmer foreshadowing events that occur within the film. As the opening credits end, we see Andre abducted confirming our suspicions not all is how it seems in the white suburbs. Peele’s subversion of the usually ‘dangerous’ places within horror highlights how different races may perceive these settings (Peele, 2017).

A conventional scene at the end of many horror films is when the group or protagonist uncovers the killer. This often unveils a lot of hurt and betrayal as it is usually someone close to the protagonist. An example of this is seen in Scream in which the final girl Sidney finds out her boyfriend was the killer all along (Craven, 1998). Peele uses this trope with the dramatic reveal of Rose as the killer. The scene in which Chris is trying to leave and Rose is looking for the keys builds tension before the big reveal. The cinematography cuts between Chris, Rose, and the other members of the family before it cuts back to Rose who reveals “You know I can’t give you the keys right babe” (Peele, 2017). The camera cuts back to a close-up of Chris, his face shocked with betrayal as the family begins to take hold of him and Rose utters the line ‘You were one of my favorites’. This line particularly stands out as sadistic, making it clear Rose viewed him as an object, not a human. Rose’s betrayal was the film’s biggest plot twist as the character had consistently been portrayed as liberal and protective of Chris, however, this was all simply a guise hiding her true intentions. Such as the scene where Rose refuses to hand Chris’s license over, we believe is because she loves him and is protecting him from being racially discriminated against. However, upon reflection we realize this is her trying not to leave a paper trail, stopping the officers from recognizing Chris if he is reported missing later on. Allison Williams, the actress who plays Rose, addresses how often white people who watch the film will approach her saying, “Was Rose brainwashed too? She’s not evil is she” (Lewis, 2019). This stands as a testament that society cannot stand to see someone who looks so much like a final girl (white, straight female), turn out to be the biggest monster in the film. Jillian Boger claimed that what makes it scarier is Rose is ‘in a relative position of power as a white woman of race and gender, white women are still privileged over black men’(Boger, 2019), unfortunately, we can see this in real life cases such as Emmet Till’s, a young black boy who was lynched due to the inaccurate accusation of a white woman. While the trope of a romantic partner turning out to be the biggest antagonist of all is common within the genre, Peele subverts the trope with the use of Rose who does not look like the average horror antagonist. However, we can recognize this new take on the trope as drawing awareness to the changing face of horror, and the race conversation.

A horror film’s denouement displays a lot about the film’s message and often they follow a similar narrative. Generally, in the cases of slasher films, once the final girl has successfully killed the antagonist, the police arrive to mark the ending. The red and blue flashing lights are consistently a sign of safety within horror films, that the hero has prevailed. However, Peele’s ending subverts this entirely, leaving the audience terrified, due to his choice of ‘final girl’. Chris is conclusively the function of Carol Clover’s final girl in Get Out (Clover, 1987). The ‘final girl’ is one of the horror tropes Peele utilizes in Get Out. Various critics debate certain traits of the final girl however she is generally understood to be the “survivor” at the end of a horror movie, the one who prevails in killing the monster. Besides Rose’s characterization, she aesthetically fits the final girl prototype; a white straight woman. However, what separates Chris from these final girls is the audience’s reaction to the police coming. Societally we are aware of discrimination against black men from the police and it is even shown in the driver’s license scene, where the officer consistently asks for Chris’s licence despite him not being the driver. So, when Chris has successfully killed the family which the audience supports, and is standing over Rose’s body, the audience fears for him when the blue and red lights flash. This is because a black man standing over a dying white woman’s body does not bode well for our hero. Chris raises his hands as the cars approach and Rose pleads for help, which all but confirms her plan to manipulate the story going forward. When Rod steps out of the car the relief is cathartic. There is a level of importance of the empathy built for Chris especially when contrasting with previous depictions of black characters in horror. An example of this is the blaxploitation era of horror which ran from 1969-1975. This era of horror allowed representation of black people within horror with the most notable commercial success being Blacula (Crane, 1972). However, the films were satirical in nature and the roles given to black people were defined as ‘demeaning’ and set to cause more racial divide’ (Benshoff, 2000). Due to this, we can see the depiction of Chris as progressive, a black character in a horror film who is no longer a caricature to be marveled at but instead a protagonist an audience can emphasize and align themselves with.

Abstract

What is the psychological science behind why horror films appeal to us, despite having such a negative notion to cause anxiety and fear? Even individuals who do not like the horror genre, find themselves captivated and glued to their seats in a torturous and excited manner. Why does this happen? How does it affect viewers? And why is it important? The world we live in is complex and illusions of safety cause us to be on edge at times. The wonder of why we would enjoy watching something that uplifts our cortisol levels is strange. I hope to be able to provide clarity about these questions to the best of my abilities.

Intro to horror

Fear is one of the most basic and important human emotions. Despite the negative connotations behind feeling fear, most of us are attracted to the idea of being scared but would be uncomfortable if we were in the actual situation like in horror films. For the most part, it is an unpleasant emotion we usually try our best to avoid. So, why do some people enjoy being scared in cinematic settings? What are the psychological reasons behind this?

Let’s investigate this further by reviewing this from a filmmaker’s standpoint. For a long time across the world, people have been drawn to horror films of all genres. For many years, filmmakers have exploited this strange allure as not only a medium in which they can send a message but also to trigger physiological and psychological responses of fear in an audience. Why do this? What do they hope to accomplish? The answer is simple, it is a different form of medium in which they can practice and produce their craft. Remember a time when the only fear an individual would feel was through a story or superstition told, but times have changed. We live in an age in which media has transferred from a physical mode and print to virtual screens. Furthermore, the change in the late 20th century has presented new utilizations of digital techniques which have helped people to perceive the world in an unexpected way. In turn, filmmaking in the genre of horror has become a form in which film artists can refine these techniques of sound, lighting, time, motion, and other stylistic devices. They can use all these different techniques to deliver a message that is relevant to the time period, and issues in society, and of course to intensify the feeling of fear for the audience’s enjoyment.

About fear

What about fear? So far, we’ve gone over the aspects of why these sorts of films are made, but not over the actual term itself. According to google dictionary, “fear” is an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain or a threat.

The emotion of fear is common throughout our lives. We fear many things, such as natural disasters, this includes tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, and floods. Different encounters in which we meet danger and fear are when we see hoodlums, killers, and carnivorous animals. It is natural to exhibit these sorts of emotions because it is the body’s chemical and mechanical reaction to urge us to escape or fight before any actual danger occurs. Despite knowing all this, why do people still go out, buy a ticket to a horror movie, and watch to experience feelings of horror, terror, and disgust? It is believed that they enjoy the movie-watching process. To sit in the dark with other fellow movie-goers who have made the same choice and suffer as a whole. However, that isn’t enough proof of the reasons why people make this decision.

There are two types of feelings that arise when an audience sits in a movie theater to watch a horror flick, enjoyment, and fear. A major reason for this could be the fact that a horror movie isn’t real life. This gives an audience the opportunity to feel joy during viewing. But if, let’s say these dramatic fictional stories were to become reality, individuals would feel immense fear and less joy. What this means is that a cinematic environment provides a safe distance for people. Another manner in which an audience might feel excitement or unpleasantness is due to the successful or failed struggle between human characters and evil. The feelings of triumph or defeat could explain the paradox of why people like to feel fear, which will lead us to the psychological effects and theories behind the horror genre.

Why enjoy?

Of all the explanations or reasons people come up with as to why we enjoy the horror genre, there are several theories that might be able to explain this phenomenon. From the point of view of psychoanalysis, there is a paradox that the uncanny is something familiar but incongruous. Because of this paradox, creates cognitive dissonance in an individual’s psyche. Horror films draw on archetypes hidden deep within the subconscious. Shadows, the dark, and mothers are some examples. And people may be attracted to this dark, unknown familiarity for this reason.

Another theory might be that violent films and plays provide an opportunity for the audience to purge themselves of the negative emotions formed in everyday life, so they enjoy this process called catharsis. This is not always a good thing, though, because watching violent films and playing violent video games can make people more dangerous.

You know that feeling you get when the hero finally triumphs over evil? This is called excitation transfer, the negative feelings of the audience in horror films intensify the positive feelings when the hero finally wins. Unfortunately, this theory is unable to explain the enjoyment of films in which the hero fails.

A popular theory is sensation seeking, in other words, individuals are attracted to horror films because they want the feeling of experience. Some examples of this are people who are looking for excitement, such as bungee jumping, skydiving, climbing, and others. Sensation seeking, however, does not always have a significant relationship to interest in horror movies.

Could it be possible that horror movies reflect societal fears or concerns? Remember when the rise of yuppies, serial killers, and feminism in the 1990s made The Lambs ‘ Silence popular? This might also include reflecting fears of a 2000s virus pandemic that made movies and series like Resident Evil and The Walking Dead fun to watch among many. Many cycles of horror fit this theory, but more do not.

Perhaps dispositional alignment could be an explanation. This is the theory when an audience enjoys seeing evil characters given the punishment they deserve on screen. But the same objection as excitation theory can be applied, because what if the hero doesn’t triumph or what if the evil-doer is not punished?

Another theory called gender role socialization, could be that some young males enjoy horror movies when their female companions are scared by the movies. However, the opposite also holds true, when the film scares their male companions, young females will feel less enjoyment during the viewing. So that rules out that theory.

So how about just curiosity and fascination, we like to be in a state of horror as long as we’re in a safe environment, but experiencing horror in reality would be an unpleasant state to be in. This seems to make sense, but it is believed that there is no horror outside the normal everyday behavior in the society we live in today.

How’s this important?

Human beings have been attracted by the unknown of monsters for a long time and tolerate monsters’ disgust, but what does that mean to us as a society? There is an importance to fear and our reactions to it. It is a survival mechanism during the start of humanity, it kept us alive during times of danger. But since the world has grown safer, there is less need for it in modern society. However, this is still important, because it could represent a reason as to why we enjoy the horror genre in today’s time. It may as well be a play-off of our past natural instincts. The majority of horror films are based on fictional tales of monsters or evil and watching these movies, could in a sense help us come up with creative and interesting ways to develop our survival skills for other situations. For example, let’s say someone were to try and rob or attack you in real life. By watching a slasher film, you might gain an advantage in what to do in that situation, whether it be to fight back or flee. These instincts are hardwired in us from the start and the mind is a powerful energy that will aid us in escaping harm at all costs.

To conclude.

While people don’t like anxiety and fear of being scared in real life, many audiences love and are even obsessed with horror movies. Many theories have been suggested to attempt to clarify this phenomenon, but none can be applied to all genres of horror. A seat in a judgment-free environment in which everyone feels the same emotions, there’s nothing more fun than being scared of others. It may never be explained exactly as to why we find enjoyment in horror films, but that’s what makes the movie-going experience so spectacular and unique. That’s what truly matters!

References

1. Fu, Xiangyi. (2016) Horror Movie Aesthetics: How Color, time, space, and sound elicit fear in an Audience. Boston, Massachusetts: Northeastern University
2. Ryan, Ó. (n.d.). ‘Fear is an essential part of who we are’: Here’s why people watch horror films. Retrieved from https://www.thejournal.ie/psychology-of-horror-films-3667778-Oct2017/
3. The lure of horror. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-24/edition-11/lure-horror

‘In general, little attention has been given to the filmic representation of race in film genre criticism.’ (Mark A Reid). Making detailed reference to one or two discuss the ways in which a genre of your choice uses discourses of race.

This essay will analyze the horror genre’s approach to race in a variety of ways. Depictions of race in horror have changed and developed over time, one of the most influential modern interpretations being Jordan Peele’s Get Out (Peele, 2017). The film displays how the genre has moved in recent years to improve its racial depictions and Peele’s work uses the genre’s conventions to effectively approach modern racism. The premise of the film surrounds a black man meeting his white girlfriend’s family, inspired by the classic Look Who’s Coming to Dinner (1964, Kramer). Unlike its inspiration, however, Peele’s Get Out takes a sinister turn and becomes a commentary on race in modern society.

Consistently within the horror genre, there has been a lack of representation of black people as leading or even prominent characters. This is supported by the 2019 Hollywood Diversity’ Report where Darnell Hunt claimed that most horror films are “not about the humanity of the black characters, it’s about the humanity of the lead, who’s typically white, and everyone else in the film is there to sort of support that lead character in his or her story.’ (Hunt, 2019). Hunt’s claim amplifies the need for more representation of black people within horror. This is also confirmed historically by the genre, due to the famous trope “the black character dies first” (Ebert, 1997). Ebert identified a recurring trend in the genre in which black characters are deemed expendable and are often sacrificed the earliest in the film therefore prohibiting substantial characterisation. One notable example of this trope can be found in The Shining in which the only death is a black janitor Dick Hallorann who also dies for his white counterparts (Kubrick, 1980). Another example is Scream 2’s black character Phil Stevens (Craven, 1997), who dies before the opening credits. Peele’s Get Out, however, entirely subverts this genre trope (Peele, 2017). The film’s protagonist Chris is anything but expendable, despite being a black man in a horror movie, instead he guides the audience through the film. Due to watching the film through Chris’s eyes, the audience recognizes racism more coherently in contrast to if it were a white protagonist. Textually this is shown through the dialogue in the party scene, in which partygoers approach Chris with racially charged comments. Peele uses music with ominous undertones and close-up shots of Chris’s face, displaying uncomfortable reactions to create a sinister atmosphere. Comments such as “is it better” (referring to having sex with a black man as opposed to a white man), “black is in fashion” and “I do know Tiger” may seem harmless, however, it display that this is a gathering of people who cannot see Chris as a person past his race. The film makes it clear these comments are an example of necrophilia which is defined as an obsession with black culture in a way that fetishizes it (Landsberg, 2018). The partygoers are tokenizing Chris hidden behind the guise of white liberal acceptance. Additionally, Peele claims he views Get Out as a documentary and that these comments are based on real comments that people have said to him, displaying that we are far from a ‘post-racial society’(Sangkadila and Fadlilah, 2018). The device Chris uses to escape these interactions is his camera, he claims in response to a comment “Pardon me, I’m going to take some pictures”(Peele, 2017). Yet again the audience is placed watching the film through Chris’ lens, and using that same lens he uncovers the racist plot around him. It is his camera that exposes the body snatch plot by taking a photograph of Andre. Landsberg comments that Chris’ camera, is the instrument that will break the trance and make visible to Chris and to us, the audience, the reality of what is happening at the Armitage house, and by extension, metaphorically, in liberal, ‘post-racial’ American society (Landsberg, 2018). The camera plays an influential role as through its use racism in contemporary America is exposed. A further metaphor is that watching through the lens of black people, both metaphorically and through more representation will uncover the horror of racism within society.

It is widely noted that the horror genre is commonly used as a vehicle to reflect societal issues at the time. Therefore, Peele’s utilizing the horror to discuss modern race issues is befitting of the genre. Peele effectively uses the ‘rehibition of bodies’ horror trope in Get Out (Peele, 2017). The trope is commonly in horror films, including The Invasion of the Body Snatchers (Kaufman, 1978). However, the most comparable use of the trope can be seen in The Stepford Wives (Forbes, 1975), which is a horror film telling the story of housewives being turned against their will into robots. It largely represented the second wave of feminism which was thriving at the time, expressing the message that women were losing their own identity by becoming slaves to their family. This is shown by the robotic nature of the wives after the operation, which symbolically expresses that in society wives and mothers are pushed to sacrifice their own needs for their families leaving them without an identity. Peele uses this trope in a similar way instead highlighting racial discourse at the time. The takeover of black bodies further highlights black tokenism, the characters view the bodies as “cooler”, “stronger” and “trendier”. It also highlights the use of black bodies through the decades by white people through slavery as well as the current and rising Black Lives Matter movement, which was also thriving during 2017. During the body swap the body’s rightful owners remain in the “sunken place” (Peele, 2017). This means that while the white perpetrator uses their body to operate to their own wishes, the black owner remains in the background unable to speak or participate as their body is used. This is a wider metaphor for the silencing of African American voices by white people, by many means ranging from slavery to overall lack of representation. Textually there are links to slavery as Rose’s mother places Chris in the sunken place by running her spoon around the inside of her teacup, creating clear slavery links with tea production. Also, Chris is only able to escape this fate by stuffing his ears with cotton wool this being yet another clear product of slavery. Peele claims “The sunken place means we’re marginalized no matter how hard we scream, the system silences us” (Ryan‐Bryant, 2020). The sunken place represents the regression of racial issues, their bodies being used as a vessel while their thoughts and voices remain muted. Basto Da Silva claims that following ex-President Trump’s election in 2016 we are now living in a sunken place, where racial prejudice is being recognized more but due to that people believe that society is now ‘post-racial’(Bastos da Silva, 2019). Overall, it is clear that the body-snatching trope is a wider metaphor surrounding society’s view and use of black bodies.

Monsters are another common convention within the horror genre to induce fear in the audience and add stakes to a plot line. The horror genre has demonstrated that racism can create monsters on several occasions, an example being Candyman (Costa, 1992). Candyman is a ghost who has a hook for a hand and murders those who say his name three times in a mirror. While the film displays his graphic murders, it also characterizes him as a monster born out of racial injustice. He was once a black man who fell in love with a white woman and was brutally lynched for it (Costa, 1992). Georgina and Walter can be similarly displayed as the monsters of the film. Georgina appears almost as a Stepford wife, appearing robotic and, at a few points, as if she is malfunctioning. Textually this is shown when she comes out to the deck to pour iced tea for Chris and the Armitage’s, in this moment her face registers anguish and she overfills a glass, as if she is glitching (Peele, 2017). Walter’s overall depiction is monstrous as he seems to have an inhuman quality to him however, his monstrosity is quite literally a result of what allegedly ‘liberal whites’ have done to him. Despite this, the monster in Get Out shockingly appears to be the character the audience would least expect. Furthermore, she turns out to be the most diabolical of all; Rose, sweet, anti-racist, young, and liberal is revealed to lure black people to her parent’s sadistic laboratory. Due to this Georgina and Walter’s lives were taken at the hands of a racist society, much like Candyman’s. Georgina’s and Walter’s appearances are clearly a representation of modern-day slavery displayed effectively in a monstrous light. Through setting the enslavement of Georgina and Walter in the present day, the film points to the violence still committed against African Americans, perpetuating that racist exploitation is alive and well even among supposedly liberal white people. Therefore, expressing through the horror tropes that the monster is racism itself.

The setting of horror films has continuously been used as a device to heighten fear in the film. A consistent choice is often one that offers isolation for the characters, making the idea of escape and calls for help more strenuous. For example, “The Shining”, sets the infamous family in a hotel in the mountains completely isolated from society, meaning when Jack loses his mind there is an element of fear (Kubrick, 1980). Peele recognizes these tropes and uses them to highlight the racial differences surrounding the suburbs. This is not the first time the horror genre has approached this racial topic, an example being Wes Craven’s ‘The People Under the Stairs’ in which a 13-year-old African American Fool attempts to burgle his landlords (a white suburban family) and discovers the horror within (Craven, 1991). After Fool discovers the warped situation being the family’s hidden cannibalistic children it is clear Craven deliberately wished to express the alienation black people often feel towards white rich suburban families. Later on in the film, when Fool must survive his landlords, we see how dangerous suburbia can be. Siegel commented when referencing Craven’s film that ‘being black is also being shut out of the protected spaces reserved for whites’ and furthermore creating both an interest and fear about these places (Siegel, 2013). Textually this is illustrated by the opening scene, the film beginning with a long shot of an empty suburban sidewalk at night. The camera then slowly pulls back, as we hear the voice of an African-American man speaking on the phone. He searches for an address, but is agitated, and anxious, saying into the phone, ‘I feel like a sore thumb out here’. Peele uses this to convey what might seem like a tranquil suburb but for a black man quite the opposite; through his eyes, the street seems creepy, like he does not belong. This is a reversal of a commonplace trope – the white person alone in the city at night, afraid of ‘racial others’. However, to an African American man, the white suburb is an ideal place to set a horror film. Peele destabilizes the viewer’s effortless confidence in the safety of the suburbs, the film begins by breaking down the ideologically dominant view of the suburb as the safe alternative to the dangerous city. While this abduction is occurring an upbeat song from 1939 ‘Run Rabbit, Run Rabbit’ plays on the soundtrack. The lyrics of this song point to the danger as they tell the story of a vulnerable rabbit being murdered by a farmer foreshadowing events that occur within the film. As the opening credits end, we see Andre abducted confirming our suspicions not all is how it seems in the white suburbs. Peele’s subversion of the usually ‘dangerous’ places within horror highlights how different races may perceive these settings (Peele, 2017).

A conventional scene at the end of many horror films is when the group or protagonist uncovers the killer. This often unveils a lot of hurt and betrayal as it is usually someone close to the protagonist. An example of this is seen in Scream in which the final girl Sidney finds out her boyfriend was the killer all along (Craven, 1998). Peele uses this trope with the dramatic reveal of Rose as the killer. The scene in which Chris is trying to leave and Rose is looking for the keys builds tension before the big reveal. The cinematography cuts between Chris, Rose, and the other members of the family before it cuts back to Rose who reveals “You know I can’t give you the keys right babe” (Peele, 2017). The camera cuts back to a close-up of Chris, his face shocked with betrayal as the family begins to take hold of him and Rose utters the line ‘You were one of my favorites’. This line particularly stands out as sadistic, making it clear Rose viewed him as an object, not a human. Rose’s betrayal was the film’s biggest plot twist as the character had consistently been portrayed as liberal and protective of Chris, however, this was all simply a guise hiding her true intentions. Such as the scene where Rose refuses to hand Chris’s license over, we believe is because she loves him and is protecting him from being racially discriminated against. However, upon reflection we realize this is her trying not to leave a paper trail, stopping the officers from recognizing Chris if he is reported missing later on. Allison Williams, the actress who plays Rose, addresses how often white people who watch the film will approach her saying, “Was Rose brainwashed too? She’s not evil is she” (Lewis, 2019). This stands as a testament that society cannot stand to see someone who looks so much like a final girl (white, straight female), turn out to be the biggest monster in the film. Jillian Boger claimed that what makes it scarier is Rose is ‘in a relative position of power as a white woman of race and gender, white women are still privileged over black men’(Boger, 2019), unfortunately, we can see this in real life cases such as Emmet Till’s, a young black boy who was lynched due to the inaccurate accusation of a white woman. While the trope of a romantic partner turning out to be the biggest antagonist of all is common within the genre, Peele subverts the trope with the use of Rose who does not look like the average horror antagonist. However, we can recognize this new take on the trope as drawing awareness to the changing face of horror, and the race conversation.

A horror film’s denouement displays a lot about the film’s message and often they follow a similar narrative. Generally, in the cases of slasher films, once the final girl has successfully killed the antagonist, the police arrive to mark the ending. The red and blue flashing lights are consistently a sign of safety within horror films, that the hero has prevailed. However, Peele’s ending subverts this entirely, leaving the audience terrified, due to his choice of ‘final girl’. Chris is conclusively the function of Carol Clover’s final girl in Get Out (Clover, 1987). The ‘final girl’ is one of the horror tropes Peele utilizes in Get Out. Various critics debate certain traits of the final girl however she is generally understood to be the “survivor” at the end of a horror movie, the one who prevails in killing the monster. Besides Rose’s characterization, she aesthetically fits the final girl prototype; a white straight woman. However, what separates Chris from these final girls is the audience’s reaction to the police coming. Societally we are aware of discrimination against black men from the police and it is even shown in the driver’s license scene, where the officer consistently asks for Chris’s licence despite him not being the driver. So, when Chris has successfully killed the family which the audience supports, and is standing over Rose’s body, the audience fears for him when the blue and red lights flash. This is because a black man standing over a dying white woman’s body does not bode well for our hero. Chris raises his hands as the cars approach and Rose pleads for help, which all but confirms her plan to manipulate the story going forward. When Rod steps out of the car the relief is cathartic. There is a level of importance of the empathy built for Chris especially when contrasting with previous depictions of black characters in horror. An example of this is the blaxploitation era of horror which ran from 1969-1975. This era of horror allowed representation of black people within horror with the most notable commercial success being Blacula (Crane, 1972). However, the films were satirical in nature and the roles given to black people were defined as ‘demeaning’ and set to cause more racial divide’ (Benshoff, 2000). Due to this, we can see the depiction of Chris as progressive, a black character in a horror film who is no longer a caricature to be marveled at but instead a protagonist an audience can emphasize and align themselves with.