I watch a lot of horror. I’ve probably seen most of what the genre has to offer, save for some obscure Asian films (but I’m working on it). Recently I’ve caught myself thinking I very rarely feel disturbed or ‘scared’ by horror films. It is true that one becomes desensitised, but I think that’s not the whole story. The gorier it gets (or, in psychological horror, the closer we are to the climax), the more I anticipate the payoff, and of course, if something is truly sudden, I might flinch (though I don’t recall that happening in a while). But I’ve started to wonder if anyone actually feels anything close to stress stimuli from horror, or is it just Adrenalin? I feel like gore occasionally elicits disgust, we feel more sympathy for the characters, the greater the peril (if it’s competently done, of course), but does mental stress ever really come in?

First off, what one finds scary is very subjective. So while one movie or moment might be scary to some, it can be hilarious or just do nothing to another. But I think we all have some kind of deep fear and it’s not always easy for a movie to bring that out for us unless that fear us something as simple as “being scared of the dark” for example.

Also - but you probably know that - horror doesn’t have to be scary. Of course it’s good when it can be, but the horror genre is often misunderstood by many who feel like they have to walk away from a horror film having been scared for it to be a great horror film. That’s simply not the case. And i would partly also refer once again to the above paragraph, for example.

As for me, I very rarely am scared from horror anymore. I do feel on the edge of my seat sometimes. But not scared. I wouldn’t even call it rare. I would be close to calling it never. However, when I watched It Follows in the cinema I was completely shocked to see that I could still be scared from a movie. And that might have been “my moment” as I talked about in the first paragraph. That there was some kind of deeper fear I did not know about and that this movie somehow found that and presented the moment perfectly.

The moment was when that big tall guy just came out of nowhere from the dark in the hallway. I hadn’t seen the trailer so the moment came out of nowhere. I felt a genuine shock wave go through me and a short burst of what I think must’ve been real fear. A couple of seconds later it was all fine though, but right in the moment I felt what I think a lot of horror fanatics search for or at least wonder about.

I think that a fair part of it is just each person's disposition. When watching films I just don't have much of a startle reflex. However, I do know several people who either have a strong startle reflex (and so are genuinely scared by jump scares or sudden violence) or people who are very sensitive about suspense/danger/spooky stuff. Some of them to the point that they actually don't enjoy horror sometimes because it's too intense and ventures into an uncomfortable level of unease.

Sometimes I think I'd enjoy horror a little more if my brain allowed itself to be more emotional while watching them. I'm a very emotional person and I watch movies with my heart more than my head, but when it comes to horror my analytical, "detached observer" part takes over. I don't know if that's a subconscious defense mechanism or if it's that I like horror so much that I can't help analyzing them as I watch.

I agree with you that the feeling I feel while watching horror is suspense and not "scared." Only one film ever scared me genuinely, and that was when I watched Black Christmas late at night while home alone and in a weird mood.

On the other hand, it annoys me when people say that a horror movie "wasn't even scary". Horror comes in all forms and plenty of horror movies aren't scary to me, per se, but are still pretty great.

I agree that a sensation of fear is usually to do with the film (or experience) tapping into hidden trauma or phobia.

Sure, and I’m not saying one must feel scared whenever one watches a horror film. But that’s precisely what I was wondering about, whether the fear experience actually comes into it in a recognisable way.

I see what you mean. It’s kind of mystical in the best sense of the word. I haven’t felt anything like that in a really long time, but that sounds about right. I think even ‘shocked’ is not exactly the same. My most recent ‘shocked’ moment was with Hereditary when , but it still wasn’t anything like what you’re describing. I mostly thought, ‘Wow, we’re only about fifteen minutes in!’. It is definitely personal. For some reason, I used to always find Inland Empire extremely creepy. Wouldn’t call that emotion ‘fear’ either, but there’s a scene where Laura Dern’s Nikki is filming a scene with Justin Theroux’s Devon, and she forgets they’re filming during the take. She says something like, ‘God, that sounds like we’re rehearsing’, and the director becomes really confused and annoyed. I’ve always found that scene distressing, though I can never explain why, and nothing about Inland Empire is ‘scary’, technically speaking.

That’s a really good point. I don’t have one either, but my mother does, and she always reacts strongly to films.

I’m not emotional, I’d say (or rather, I shut in and process everything internally). But horror does invite a kind of analytical detachment for some reason. Probably because it’s the official meta-genre by now. Good to know it’s not just me.

Of course, that’s reductive and extremely narrow-minded. I think most great horror films can function equally well as suspense films/thrillers without tapping into the fear factor.

I need to watch Black Christmas again at some point.

Good topic! I've been thinking about this too. Specifically I wonder about what emotions does intense horror/slasher films elicit in people?

You mentioned stress, and stress & anxiety is what I feel when I watch innocent victims being tortured/killed in a horror film. Personally I hate feeling that stress and anxiety that's why I don't like horror...BUT I wonder if fans of horror actually enjoy those feeling of stress and anxiety?

I'd be really interested in hearing from horror fans on this topic.

This might be a better question to ask.

I have a much older family friend who did say to me once that he watches horror to feel ‘life isn’t that terrible’ by comparison. It has stuck with me. But I’m reluctant to take that as the typical horror fan experience, and I definitely don’t feel that way.

I can't put all of horror into one box, because it is an incredibly diverse genre. There are horror films that I love because of their set design or because of their creature effects.

But there is a certain type of horror movie that I do love for the emotions that it evokes in me. I would say that stress and anxiety are half of the equation, but the other half is the explosive resolution of those negative emotions.

I'm fully guilty of strongly preferring "happy ending" horror movies--the ones where at the end the bad guy takes a machete to the head. For me the journey through the film brings about a kind of catharsis: you feel scared in the moment, and there may be casualties along the way, but you can survive a bad situation. It's an emotional arc that makes me feel good.

It's not so much a literal comparison of my circumstances to the ones in the film ("at least I'm not being chased by an axe-wielding maniac--I'm just a little depressed!") as it is seeing an allegorical representation of a bad situation and bonding with a main character who perseveres through it.

Everyone has a different level of "pleasurable stress". For example, I actually get too stressed out by something like a rollercoaster. I really do not like the sensation of moving fast. It is not a pleasurable stress for me. For some people I think that horror films produce the "just right" level of stress.

Re: Horror not ‘scary’ most of the time?
 

I've seen uncountable horror movies and have to admit that scares have been rare since I reached adulthood. So, why? Well, for me, horror movies work because it reminds me that there are worse things than real life, like supernatural demons, machete killers, giant spiders, werewolves, or whatever.

The closer a horror movie gets to reality, the more likely I am to turn it off. There's enough real crap that I don't need movies about that, but monsters and demons are no real threat, so I enjoy the cheap thrill that comes along with a threat that doesn't really exist.

I had that feeling from An American Crime (2007) with Catherine Keener. It’s not a good film, but it did feel ‘real’ for what that’s worth.

I've watched horror movies almost all my life and I can honestly say I watch them because I enjoy them, but they don't scare me. I've mentioned it on the site a number of times but the only films to have ever scared me are The Entity when I was about 9 (and I still think about that film sometimes even though I've not seen it in at least 20 years) and Pinocchio, which I didn't finish watching because I was too scared and still don't want to watch.

TBH, I don't think many people who love horror films actually find them scary and, for many of them, I don't think it's because they've been desensitised so much as, like me, they get something else from it. For me, there's something comforting about many horror film, but especially from the 70's and 80's. Nostalgia definitely plays it part for me.

Fair enough. A really interesting read, thanks for sharing, @honeykid. Horror is my favourite genre, but it’s more of an accident; I tend to find tropes and plot lines that I enjoy in horror films more than other genres. I almost think if it was called something else - ‘speculative thriller’? - and contained most of the same elements, it would be easier to discuss at times. The Entity has aged really well.

Re: Horror not ‘scary’ most of the time?
 

Yeah personally I've found that a lot of horror from 2000 to today, are just all jump-scares and boo-frights... monsters and stuff, shown on screen immediately, or even in the trailers.

Look at the 70s, 80s, 1990s... all jump scare movies and slashers did well. And there was a lot of them too compared to only a handful of psychological stuff.

It's no different today. Jump-scares sell tickets...
Psychological stuff tends to get forgotten about, regardless of reviews... Babadook, Don't Breathe (underrated), The Lighthouse...
The psychological stuff didn't fair quite as well in terms of ticket sales and a lot of what's revered today, was panned at the time like The Shining, The Exorcist, The Thing.

The most successful movies though tend to be based on jump-scares...

The first Paranormal Activity was ok... the rest were all just jump scares.
All of the Conjuring Universe is slow camera pans, followed by......... jump scares.
All of the Insidious Universe is slow camera pans, followed by......... jump scares.
IT Chapter 2 went for more jumps scares. Instantly made it less interesting than the first part.

Instantly forgettable A Quiet Place did too. It started ok, then went jump-scares at the end.
I say "instantly forgettable" because I was looking forward to this movie before it was released... and just now, I had to Google it to remember what it was called.
Judging by the trailers the sequel is looking to be all jump scares as well.
It'll make a killing at the box office no doubt... because jump-scares.

You have to remember as well that most of the cinematic audience, the ones who buy the tickets... made the Transformers movies a success so it's gonna be tough to get them to watch The Thing or The Shining, when they have another Jason Voorhees or Godzilla movie to occasionally squeal at.

Re: Horror not ‘scary’ most of the time?
 

Love horror but for me they've not really been scary since I was a kid and I put that down to whether or not they get my imagination going into hyperdrive or not. When I was a single-digit entity the proper edition of The War Of The Worlds made me scared of an eye-tentacle coming into my bedroom at night for weeks - and that wasn't even a horror movie per se. Sadly as an adult I just don't seem to have that same fertile imagination so whilst I still adore a decent atmosphere, love tension/suspense, enjoy buckets of gore and even react to the occasional jump scare (when done well) I can't say I find any movies scary any more. Doesn't mean to say I can't and don't enjoy the heck out of them though :yup:

Spielberg's movie wasn't that scary was it?

This is a really good topic.


For me the story is important in any genre. So if a horror movie, which is traditionally expected to scare you, doesn't scare me but provides me a well made story, then I am still content.


The other emotion would be discomfort, something which I felt while watching The Witch. But the most uncomfortable and scared I felt was while watching a movie called Jagten The Hunt and it is not a horror movie, but as someone who likes kids it made me scared as hell to the point that I keep a distant from children cause you never know when your harmless kindness towards a child might be perceived in the wrong manner.




On a side note, a recommendation to @AgrippinaX if you are looking for new and good horror movies to watch.


https://youtu.be/sN75MPxgvX8

Trailer has English subs.

I’m pretty sure we’re talking about the old version, the 1953 film. I think it was more horror-leaning than the 2005 Spielberg version, but as everyone has said here, I agree it’s subjective.

He knows, he's just tryna yank a chain .... all I got though was how youthful he obviously still thinks I am :D

As a teacher, Jagten was a straight up horror movie. I couldn't even finish it.

⬆️ Exactly. The story makes all the difference. Alien and Aliens had a truly great story throughout. Also I have a personal attachment to really well-made family dynamics films, which is why Hereditary works wonders for me, though some people think it’s boring.


That’s very true. Discomfort is definitely a powerful one. It’s quite hard to place. Actually, I find the ‘cringe-factor’ horror films have the most impact on me. Not so much Creep (2014) as Restraint (2017). It’s not that good, but discomfort is all you feel throughout (at least that’s my experience). The Hunt with Mads Mikkelsen was heartbreaking to watch.


Much appreciated, I’m always on the lookout!

The Conjuring 1 & 2 had good worldbuilding and great sets to look at, but they were among the films I found tragically un-scary. I didn’t really like any of the others you mentioned above. Jump scares are definitely overdone and somewhat ruin the experience. I wonder though whether there is a fashion/hunger for ‘artsy’ horror nowadays, like the Suspiria remake, which definitely can’t gross much and doesn’t really attempt to instil a sense of unease, let alone fear.

I didn’t like it much either. The idea of having to give birth in silence was pretty out there, and they could have done more with it (like in the parable where the woman has to stifle her crying newborn so that the enemy soldiers do not hear and find her and the other child). But other than that, it didn’t have much to offer. I’m still taking a gander at the sequel.

That’s pretty sad. I could probably fall asleep during the latter two if I was tired enough, though Godzilla does hold a kind of sentimental value for me, because it used to be a family film for us. I do think it’s possible to make a horror film a spectacle if that’s what you want as a director. Crawl (2019) was entertaining enough, but Rogue (2007) did a much better job of it. But I definitely prefer quiet, cerebral horror films like The Thing.

Not a scientologist, are you?;)

Also, Aliens isn't a horror film. :D

You're pretty new here, but others will have been waiting for me to post that since you mentioned it. ;)

I can see how people can argue that it isn’t, but it’s listed as such all over the place, so I think it’s open to interpretation.

And no, I’m a diehard atheist with no other creed. 😂

RottenTomatoes:

MOVIE INFO

Big-budget special effects, swiftly paced action, and a distinct feminist subtext from writer/director James Cameron turned what should have been a by-the-numbers sci-fi sequel into both a blockbuster and a seven-time Oscar nominee. Sigourney Weaver returns as Ellen Ripley, the last surviving crew member of a corporate spaceship destroyed after an attack by a vicious, virtually unbeatable alien life form. Adrift in space for half a century, Ripley grapples with depression until she's informed by her company's representative, Carter Burke (Paul Reiser) that the planet where her crew discovered the alien has since been settled by colonists. Contact with the colony has suddenly been lost, and a detachment of colonial marines is being sent to investigate. Invited along as an advisor, Ripley predicts disaster, and sure enough, the aliens have infested the colony, leaving a sole survivor, the young girl Newt (Carrie Henn). With the soldiers picked off one by one, a final all-female showdown brews between the alien queen and Ripley, who's become a surrogate mother to Newt. Several future stars made early career appearances in Aliens (1986), including Lance Henriksen, Bill Paxton, and Reiser. ~ Karl Williams, Rovi
SHOW MORE
Rating:R
Genre:*Action & Adventure, Horror, Science Fiction & Fantasy
Directed By:*James Cameron
Written By:*James Cameron
In Theaters:*Jul 18, 1986**Wide
On Disc/Streaming:*Jun 1, 1999
Runtime:*138 minutes
Studio:*20th Century Fox

All over the place :D Rotten Tomatoes seems to be the only popular place that lists Aliens as horror (wiki, IMDb and Letterboxd don't). Some people undoubtedly consider it horror, but I don't think it's a very common opinion.

Not just there, but I’m on the move and couldn’t find other sources. Dreadcentral calls it ‘horror’.

https://www.dreadcentral.com/news/33...eased-in-1986/

If you just Google it, the first thing that comes up is action/horror as genre. Anyway, no offence meant to any genre purists. I think it’s horror-action personally, but it’s really a matter of opinion.

https://www.cornettfiction.com/faceh...-scene-aliens/

Re: Horror not ‘scary’ most of the time?
 

It raises the question of what is horror. "Scary" would be a better term except when it isn't, and sci-fi can transition into horror, as can a murder mystery, provided that the murderer is sufficiently demonic. Are ghosts or hauntings horror, especially if they are not scary? How about monsters, as in the King Kong/Japanese variety? What about serial killers, definitely real entities?

For myself, I generally stick with a fluid definition, as in something that might be scary to someone, definitely intended to be scary, containing some main plot element (spirits, monsters, mutants, creatures, etc) that is the source of the "fright", that's definitely dangerous to humans and that doesn't exist in our world of consensual reality. Sci-Fi overlaps with horror, as do strange events, unsolved mysteries, cryptids, etc, but the borderline of the genre is fluid.

I'm definitely not a genre purist but I just remember that Aliens was hotly debated in preparation for our Horror countdown (it wasn't eligible). The only thing that I tried to object was the implied consensus of it being horror.

In my experience genre purist posts tend to shut down conversations rather than deepen them.

The utility of genres as labels is that it gives a way to contextualize a film among "peers" (especially if a film is doing something new and/or intentionally subverting genre expectations) and help a prospective viewer know what they're getting into.

I would call Aliens a sci-fi/action/horror. I think that the action and sci-fi elements are more "forward" than the horror aspect, but I've never heard a compelling explanation as to why it can't be considered horror. The setting, the creature design, and the way that the space within the ship is used to evoke fear and suspense easily couch it in a horror zone for me. It's not a film that my mind immediately goes to when I think "horror", but if someone thinks of it as one of their favorite horror movies, what is productive about telling them that they are wrong?

(Can you tell I've argued about this with my horror friends a lot?)


EDIT: Please read the above as loving snark. I know and love a few genre purists. It's not their fault they're wrong and accidentally ruin conversations. ;)

DOUBLE EDIT: I changed my language because I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. I know that tone (and especially loving snark) does not always translate well in the written word.

That's what I mean about fluidity between genres. One of the most deep seated, instinctive and understandable of human fears is for fierce animals with big teeth and hostile intent. Whether it takes place on earth with a tiger or on a distant planet with an "Alien", it's the same basic fear. As scary as tigers are, sci-fi writers spend lots of time and money on movies that exploit the same basic fear but amp up the fierceness of the creature. Whether it's sci-fi or horror seems like a moot point except for people who maintain the database entry for movie genre.

When I was a kid, I recall being taken to a drive-in theater to see a rerun of The Forbidden Planet. It featured a giant creature with huge teeth that was invisible. The roar was enough to give a kid nightmares alone but when Leslie Nielsen and company used their ray guns to outline and illuminate the creature (great old time animation by the way), again, it was a huge animal with big teeth. That creature inhabited my nightmares for about a month, displacing King Kong, another big animal with big teeth.

The cool thing, however, was that the creature was the result of a planetary energy source that materialized human thought, especially the thoughts of a resident who wanted to be alone, so it was not JUST a big animal, but a big animal materialized from the evil part of a human brain....Monsters from the Id. It was definitely a sci-fi-horror crossover.

Yes! Very polished.

It's better to state the above like this:

Genre purists arguments are the least interesting arguments and in my experience they tend to shut down conversations rather than deepen them.

I added an edit to clarify that I was joking, but in case it's not clear, yes, I dislike the arguments they make and not the people themselves.

I'll also add that most genre purists I've come across . . . that's their one thing. It's like *doesn't contribute*, *doesn't contribute*, *doesn't contribute*, *pops up to state with no support that Psycho is not a horror movie*.

I appear to have a hyper-inclusive approach to this topic. How on Earth is Psycho not a horror movie?!

Ironically, it was a conversation that came about because of the "Is Aliens horror?" ~*~controversy~*~.

Someone asked how other people define horror and people were giving their personal definitions. Another poster felt very strongly that a movie was only horror if it included something "impossible" (like a werewolf, zombie, ghost, etc) OR the abilities of the killer were exaggerated or supernatural (like a killer who can lift a person with one hand). Anyway, this led to them asserting that Psycho could only be a thriller and not a horror film because everything in the movie could really happen. (It also meant that a lot of other "classic" horror films didn't fit that category).

I should note that I don't personally care if someone mentally shelves Psycho with the thrillers and not the horrors. My only issue was how angry this person seemed that other people didn't agree with this definition.

I guess that's my problem with genre policing. I've had a handful of interesting discussions about why someone does or doesn't think a film qualifies as a certain genre, but usually it's just a dead end. And I ultimately don't usually feel that a genre categorization is relevant to what's at the heart of a film. Plus, as many have alluded to in this thread, films are rarely just one thing. Like, The Lure is a horror/comedy/musical/romance/drama/fantasy. It is all of those things.

In a way, this almost goes back to your original question about horror being scary. When I think of something like Shaun of the Dead, I'm not sure there's a single scary moment in it. It's a comedy, right? But we put that horror label on there because zombies.

It could be a reasonable argument, but it excludes psychological horror. That’s why I disagree - it’s not just Psycho, but also Jaws and The Eyes of My Mother. But it’s a fairly common view.

I had more traditional horror films in mind. But you’re right. I would never interpret Shaun of the Dead as horror, it’s a comedy with supernatural elements. Some darkly satirical horror films still work for me, like Slither .

Lure was weird. I didn’t like it at all, but that’s probably just my aversion to musicals. I recently watched Dancer in the Dark and started reading up on how people perceive musicals. There’s a view that people who don’t like them can’t engage with the singing on the storytelling level, and that’s definitely me.

I’m definitely in the camp that thinks horror should at least try to be scary. But the question is, is it all a kind of social contract/ ‘pretence’ on the part of the audience, or can that ever result in real ‘physical’ fear. I guess it’s personal, as everyone has said.

I loved The Lure, mostly because it was so outlandish. Traditional musicals (where people pause every now and then to sing their feelings) are very hit or miss with me. But there was something very appealing to me about a dark psychological thriller wrapped in a fantasy musical, wrapped in a folklore based horror movie. And I thought that the ending was perfect.

Hmm, maybe I need to give it another go.

I mean, I loved it. But it's not the kind of movie where I'm offended or baffled when others don't. It's so out there that I think it's the definition of an acquired taste.

FTR I think of horrors as films which were 'sold' to me as horror films or films which I thought of as such when watching them. So, not only is Aliens not a horror film, neither is Jaws (my favourite film), Psycho, Silence Of The Lambs or Se7en (still can't believe I have to even bother to make that point with Se7en but I know for some it 'obviously' is.) I agree that Horror/Comedy is much more difficult to categorise, but for me, they're their own category and just because something funny happens in a film, doesn't mean that film qualifies as a comedy. So, for example, Shaun Of The Dead not a horror film. An American Werewolf In London is. SotD is a horror comedy, but while I accept that aAWiL is looked upon in that way, for me, it's a horror film. Plain and simple.

Also, @Takoma11 said someone had argued with them that

"Anyway, this led to them asserting that Psycho could only be a thriller and not a horror film"

Now this could just be a difference in how that's read, but was this person implying that thrillers are less than horror films? If so, could that be where some of this genre stuff comes from? I think Se7en is great and I can't stand Aliens. Now how people categorise them doesn't affect that. It only matters if we're talking about a particular genre and whether or not the film can be included in the discussion.

Question to those who've seen it: Is Kill List a horror film?

Re: Horror not ‘scary’ most of the time?
 

Kill List has elements of horror so if anyone wants to call it a horror film that's fine by me even if I don't regard it as one myself. Personally I don't fuss over how others categorise things, there are far, far more important things in life to devote my time and energies to.

Fully with you on horror comedy and An American Werewolf in London. Seven definitely isn’t horror as far as I’m concerned. Otherwise, I mean, sure, everyone has their own understanding what a horror film is. But I think in the most basic sense, any story that aims to install a sense of dread or extreme unease is a horror. From that POV, Jaws is definitely a horror film (and that’s how Spielberg himself sees it, not that I’m saying authorial interpretation is superior to others). What’s also part of it for me is that it seems to revel in the final scene . I’d say if it didn’t last so long or had been less graphic, it could be argued it’s a thriller, not horror. But that’s completely subjective.

Edit: I just read an article from 2015 which calls Jaws a comedy, so I officially give up... we live in a meta-modern environment.

I would definitely argue that Kill List is a horror film, because , and it definitely aims to install a sense of dread and discomfort. From that perspective, I’d always say intention is key. If Jaws could potentially be interpreted as a straightforward thriller, I don’t think Kill List can. Also I’d argue that horror films as opposed to thrillers are likely to have bad endings.

The person in question was arguing that Psycho could not be considered a horror movie and that therefore another person was "wrong" to consider it a horror movie. I think it was purely an argument of categories--though I agree with you that some people seem to consider horror a "lesser" genre and don't seem to like it when a film they like it put in that group.

I personally would consider Kill List a horror/thriller.

But I think it's another good example of a movie where I mostly think "Does it really matter?". If one person thinks it's a thriller and another thinks of it as horror . . . they will probably end up discussing the same elements of the film (the foreshadowing, the final sequence, the stylistic choices, etc).

Part of the problem, surely, is that there I've never seen a definition of horror (or, really, most genres) that totally encompasses the range of films that you can get in a single genre. I'm fine with someone saying "To me XYZ isn't a horror movie . . ." or "I don't consider XYZ horror becuase . . ." or "I don't tend to think of XYZ as horror because . . .".

It's when I say, "Hey, I just watched this really interesting horror movie . . . " and someone chimes in with "Well, actually that's not a horror movie." Art is an intersection of authorial intent and how a film is received by the viewer. It always makes me a bit snippy when someone else tells me how I should think about something.