...or if not scare; at least affect you as intended--they seem to pose something close to a legitimate threat.

We were discussing Dracula and I broadened it by saying that I have trouble taking them seriously. E.g.; the witch in Hansel and Gretel has never posed a personal threat to me; and so she--and most other objects of terror--are; for me; removed beneath a thick glass plate. They'll never affect me; I'm a safe voyeur.

Pretty chicken if you ask me; but there it is... :^)

But there are other "threat" sub-genre films--some not supernatural but I'll leave those out for now--that do seem to break thru; sometimes enough to enter my psyche thru dreams.

E.g.; the Godzilla type pervasive existential threat has gotten in there quite a bit. Therefore "Cloverfield" worked very well on me. The original "Night of the Living Dead" worked well--although the zombie trope worked only that one time for me. The nature of the threat came out of left field--had no explanation; at all; until close to the end.

In spite of all the negative press "The Blair Witch Project" flirting with only partly revealed threat; worked very well for me. If handled well; the "found video" sub-genre has great potential mainly because we know from the on-set that there is no narrative necessity that any major character needs to survive to tell the tale.

What stuff has worked for you; EDers; and why?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pretty much I don't watch horror movies, Sawfish. It's not so much that the horror images would bother me now, I think, but that these movies are also, often, characterized by nudity and sexual imagery, and I have old-fashioned notions about that; and that I'm aware I'm getting older and may have some years of dementia ahead of me, in which I will not have control over my mental processes and memories. Will I then be troubled by horror-imagery against my will? Better not set myself up for that. There are one or two other concerns too, but those come to mind immediately.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pretty much I don't watch horror movies, Sawfish.
> It's not so much that the horror images would
> bother me now, I think, but that these movies are
> also, often, characterized by nudity and sexual
> imagery, and I have old-fashioned notions about
> that; and that I'm aware I'm getting older and may
> have some years of dementia ahead of me, in which
> I will not have control over my mental processes
> and memories. Will I then be troubled by
> horror-imagery against my will? Better not set
> myself up for that. There are one or two other
> concerns too, but those come to mind immediately.

FWIW; sounds understandable to me.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Film scenes that impressed me are largely those I remember from my youth.

The eerie child vampire from Tobe Hooper's SALEM's LOT.

(On a vaguely similar note, I remember from much earlier in childhood a scene where a spooky green space siren - I somehow remember her as green tho I think the episode was in black & white - tries to lure Dr. Smith out of the spaceship on an early episode of LOST IN SPACE; of course I was very young then, and it took me a long time to get over my fear of the Robot after it ran amok in the initial episode -- I kept thinking, why don't they de-activate that menace?).

A recall a single scene from THE HOWLING where a bipedal werewolf menaces a terrified victim who IIRC was the friend of the main protagonist (this is one of the few movie werewolf scenes, if not the only one, that captured some of the horror of my werewolf nightmares). I don't recall much about the movie overall, so I would guess that on the whole it was rather less effective. I'm not even sure I'm recalling the scene accurately.

I thought THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT worked well. It was hugely successful for its tiny budget, so I guess the terrible press must have been good enough as well. It spawned a tiny "found footage" subgenre which included bigger-budget imitators such as CLOVERFIELD, which was less effective for me because I had more trouble identifying with the characters; but I won't say the "found footage" gimmick did not still work to some extent.

I like the idea of a GODZILLA type movie, with the giant monster as an existential threat. It has always seemed remarkable to me how few GODZILLA movies are willing to pursue this theme. It always annoys me when Godzilla has to be the hero of the story, rather than the absolute menace that he was originally.

For horror to work, the viewer must identify with the victim. I've never liked the budget-saving "monster's eye view" technique, for this reasons. I don't want to be on the monster's side.

The first time I saw the scene, in the television film of Susan Hill's The Woman in Black, when the ghost swoops upon the delirious Arthur as he lies in bed, was pretty scary even though I had some idea, from something I'd read, of what was coming. Whew.

Thanks for the response, Platypus. Some responses interleaved, below:


Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Film scenes that impressed me are largely those I
> remember from my youth.
>
> The eerie child vampire from Tobe Hooper's SALEM's
> LOT.


YES!

The little kid floating outside the window, tapping.

I was completely and fully a self-satisfied, smug young adult, and that really scared me, almost instantaneously.

I didn't know Hooper did this. He sometimes had a knack for instinctive, creepy horror. I have a guilty favorite of his: Funhouse. Standard teen slasher plot but some very strange small touches that were subtly more effective in setting mood than many more overt effects might have been.

The female lead went on to play Mozart's wife in Amadeus, FWIW. But Funhouse will tell you why she probably got the role.

>
> (On a vaguely similar note, I remember from much
> earlier in childhood a scene where a spooky green
> space siren - I somehow remember her as green tho
> I think the episode was in black & white - tries
> to lure Dr. Smith out of the spaceship on an early
> episode of LOST IN SPACE; of course I was very
> young then, and it took me a long time to get over
> my fear of the Robot after it ran amok in the
> initial episode -- I kept thinking, why don't they
> de-activate that menace?).

Hah!

This dredges up memories from when I was *really* little.

I went with my parents to see some movie, and the preview for Invaders From Mars (1953--this makes me 6 or 7 at the time) had this image:

[scifist.files.wordpress.com]

It scared me for a long time afterward.

>
> A recall a single scene from THE HOWLING where a
> bipedal werewolf menaces a terrified victim who
> IIRC was the friend of the main protagonist (this
> is one of the few movie werewolf scenes, if not
> the only one, that captured some of the horror of
> my werewolf nightmares). I don't recall much
> about the movie overall, so I would guess that on
> the whole it was rather less effective. I'm not
> even sure I'm recalling the scene accurately.
>
> I thought THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT worked well. It
> was hugely successful for its tiny budget, so I
> guess the terrible press must have been good
> enough as well. It spawned a tiny "found footage"
> subgenre which included bigger-budget imitators
> such as CLOVERFIELD, which was less effective for
> me because I had more trouble identifying with the
> characters; but I won't say the "found footage"
> gimmick did not still work to some extent.
>
> I like the idea of a GODZILLA type movie, with the
> giant monster as an existential threat. It has
> always seemed remarkable to me how few GODZILLA
> movies are willing to pursue this theme. It
> always annoys me when Godzilla has to be the hero
> of the story, rather than the absolute menace that
> he was originally.

The first Godzilla essentially had it right: Godzilla was an uncontrolled force of nature.

The Japanese have--or at least my wife's relatives have--a sort of idea related to kharma--they refer to it as something that sounds like "bah-CHEE". It covers getting your butt kicked for being a sort of smart alec, among other shortcomings often related to hubris.

Given this it's possible to see Godzilla as ba chi for screwing around with the atom. Granted the Japanese hadn't screwed around with it at the time the film was made, but they were *friends* of those who did, so...

>
> For horror to work, the viewer must identify with
> the victim. I've never liked the budget-saving
> "monster's eye view" technique, for this reasons.
> I don't want to be on the monster's side.

No.

I like human villains (sometimes they have a sense of humor that's lacking in the protagonists) often, but not monsters. They represent a personal threat that cannot be avoided or placated.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Two things in particular stick out in my mind. The original B&W Godzilla. The scene when the Elevated is causing along with commuters oblivious to the emminat danger and the motorman suddenly sees the monster walk through the track. The look of terror on his face is terrifying. And then Godzilla picks up a car in his mother and shakes a pasenger off it. The type of scene you rarely see in future Godzila films. Plus at 4 years of age and in Black and White I had no trouble suspending my disbelief.

The other is the recent UK mini Series of Dracula. Mostly honest to the original story but with come contempatty dialog was very well done. The gratuitous and unexpected violence made him a truly terming creature.

Lunatic murder slasher films foremost. Insane psychopaths. I avoid such.
Next, evil spirit films. The Exorcist. The Omen was also extremely unpleasant.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 28 Aug 21 | 11:00PM by Knygatin.

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> The first Godzilla essentially had it right:
> Godzilla was an uncontrolled force of nature.
>

Godzilla eventually brought supernatural terror to a level that we've never seen the likes of before.

Regarding Godzilla, there was a semi-recent film called Shin Gojira (Shin Godzilla, or New/God/Devil Godzilla) which went out of its way to avoid the anthropomorphic heroism and return him to his roots. This Godzilla is shown as a twisted, horrific monster, with malformed limbs, too many bones, and a life-cycle with several stages, evolving like a tadpole does. I haven't seen this film myself, but I might want to after this discussion.

One thing's for certain, you will never find the Godzilla of this movie defending humanity! It might as well join the fun with Megalon and Mechagodzilla.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29 Aug 21 | 11:22AM by Hespire.

Knygatin Wrote:

> Godzilla eventually brought supernatural terror to
> a level that we've never seen the likes of before.

Oooo noooo! I can't un-see that!

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
>
> > Godzilla eventually brought supernatural terror
> to
> > a level that we've never seen the likes of
> before.
>
> Oooo noooo! I can't un-see that!

;D

SpHespire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Regarding Godzilla, there was a semi-recent film
> called Shin Gojira (Shin Godzilla, or
> New/God/Devil Godzilla) which went out of its way
> to avoid the anthropomorphic heroism and return
> him to his roots. This Godzilla is shown as a
> twisted, horrific monster, with malformed limbs,
> too many bones, and a life-cycle with several
> stages, evolving like a tadpole does. I haven't
> seen this film myself, but I might want to after
> this discussion.
>
> One thing's for certain, you will never find the
> Godzilla of this movie defending humanity! It
> might as well join the fun with Megalon and
> Mechagodzilla.

Gosh, Hespire, this brings to mind an old Japanese B&W film I saw maybe 35-40 years ago, and whose name I can't remember. It *seems* like an expanded folktale--and maybe it derives from one. It's like this:

There's a remote village probably in feudal Japan. There is a huge stone simalacrum of a warrior in full armor who, at times, comes alive and wreaks havoc.

I remember nothing of the plot, but can recall that on coming alive, he swept his gauntleted hand across his face, which changed from a stern stone visage to a snarling demon face. It was like vengeance, personified.

I am sure that this was not developed for US audiences, but probably after the success of Godzilla in the 1950s, a lot of Japanese domestic market "monster" films were bought up in hopes of appealing to the expanding US market.

Do you know of it, H? I would like to know its name and look it up.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
>
> > Godzilla eventually brought supernatural terror
> to
> > a level that we've never seen the likes of
> before.
>
> Oooo noooo! I can't un-see that!

Hah, hah!

OT, there is a pre-op drug in use now called propofol that anesthesiologists jokingly refer to as "milk of amnesia". It's used in place of sodium pentothal, which has quite a hangover.

I've had several procedures and had experience of both. Propofol is uncanny in that you can go under in what seems a fraction of a second, perhaps speaking, and wake up later, fully alert, and likely will try to complete the sentence, with no knowledge that time has passed.

It is a very weird experience, but not threatening or alarming or depressing in any way, as sodium pentothal can be.

So, if a way can be figure to have you watch it under propofol, maybe you *could* un-see it. :^)

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gosh, Hespire, this brings to mind an old Japanese
> B&W film I saw maybe 35-40 years ago, and whose
> name I can't remember. It *seems* like an expanded
> folktale--and maybe it derives from one. It's like
> this:
>
> There's a remote village probably in feudal Japan.
> There is a huge stone simalacrum of a warrior in
> full armor who, at times, comes alive and wreaks
> havoc.
>
> I remember nothing of the plot, but can recall
> that on coming alive, he swept his gauntleted hand
> across his face, which changed from a stern stone
> visage to a snarling demon face. It was like
> vengeance, personified.
>
> I am sure that this was not developed for US
> audiences, but probably after the success of
> Godzilla in the 1950s, a lot of Japanese domestic
> market "monster" films were bought up in hopes of
> appealing to the expanding US market.
>
> Do you know of it, H? I would like to know its
> name and look it up.


It sounds like a terrifying story, exactly the thing a Japanese village would have. Living statues and vengeful samurai spirits are common elements of rural folklore. My friend in Japan shared some fascinating stories, like the flying, flaming head of a decapitated samurai, or the statues of mischievous foxes that come to life at a temple of Inari (the god of rice, who is also a lord of foxes).

Is Daimajin the film you're describing? I've seen it long ago, but I can't remember much besides a huge samurai statue terrorizing a village. I also remember thinking it scared me more than Godzilla! Maybe I'll watch Shin Gojira and Daimajin back-to-back next weekend, for a monster romp.

Regarding Japanese monster movies, I remember many of them were dubbed in English since the 70s, but they seem to have gotten more attention in recent years. Obscure movies such as Atragon, Dogora, and Matango have had successful blu-ray releases, and they've been releasing huge collections of the twenty-something Godzilla movies.

I guess very few of those films would count as horror, but for this thread's purpose I remember Matango giving me real chills at night! It was when the last surviving man on an island was surrounded by humans who had been heavily mutated by mushrooms. All the fungus-infested beings were giggling and tittering maddeningly, while the heroine was calling to him for help as they were trying to mutate her. He was too scared however, and abandoned her to flee the island alone. When he returned to civilization, he realized he was already infected by the mushrooms, and regretted leaving the island, where at least he would have been accepted by the strange beings, rather than caged up and studied like a freak.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29 Aug 21 | 01:28PM by Hespire.

Hespire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gosh, Hespire, this brings to mind an old
> Japanese
> > B&W film I saw maybe 35-40 years ago, and
> whose
> > name I can't remember. It *seems* like an
> expanded
> > folktale--and maybe it derives from one. It's
> like
> > this:
> >
> > There's a remote village probably in feudal
> Japan.
> > There is a huge stone simalacrum of a warrior
> in
> > full armor who, at times, comes alive and
> wreaks
> > havoc.
> >
> > I remember nothing of the plot, but can recall
> > that on coming alive, he swept his gauntleted
> hand
> > across his face, which changed from a stern
> stone
> > visage to a snarling demon face. It was like
> > vengeance, personified.
> >
> > I am sure that this was not developed for US
> > audiences, but probably after the success of
> > Godzilla in the 1950s, a lot of Japanese
> domestic
> > market "monster" films were bought up in hopes
> of
> > appealing to the expanding US market.
> >
> > Do you know of it, H? I would like to know its
> > name and look it up.
>
>
> It sounds like a terrifying story, exactly the
> thing a Japanese village would have. Living
> statues and vengeful samurai spirits are common
> elements of rural folklore. My friend in Japan
> shared some fascinating stories, like the flying,
> flaming head of a decapitated samurai, or the
> statues of mischievous foxes that come to life at
> a temple of Inari (the god of rice, who is also a
> lord of foxes).
>
> Is Daimajin the film you're describing? I've seen
> it long ago, but I can't remember much besides a
> huge samurai statue terrorizing a village. I also
> remember thinking it scared me more than Godzilla!
> Maybe I'll watch Shin Gojira and Daimajin
> back-to-back next weekend, for a monster romp.

Yes! That's it!

Thanks!

>
> Regarding Japanese monster movies, I remember many
> of them were dubbed in English since the 70s, but
> they seem to have gotten more attention in recent
> years. Obscure movies such as Atragon, Dogora, and
> Matango have had successful blu-ray releases, and
> they've been releasing huge collections of the
> twenty-something Godzilla movies.
>
> I guess very few of those films would count as
> horror, but for this thread's purpose I remember
> Matango giving me real chills at night! It was
> when the last surviving man on an island was
> surrounded by humans who had been heavily mutated
> by mushrooms. All the fungus-infested beings were
> giggling and tittering maddeningly, while the
> heroine was calling to him for help as they were
> trying to mutate her. He was too scared however,
> and abandoned her to flee the island alone. When
> he returned to civilization, he realized he was
> already infected by the mushrooms, and regretted
> leaving the island, where at least he would have
> been accepted by the strange beings, rather than
> caged up and studied like a freak.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are no horror movies in existence that could scare me but there are a lot of them that somehow have stuck in my mind. The Fog and The Thing by John Carpenter, Alien and Predator movies (except for Alien vs Predator 2, Predators, Predator: The Evolution and Alien: Covenant), Mimic 1, Get Out, The Ring etc. etc. etc. It would be a long, very long list ...

Hespire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... I remember Matango giving me real chills at night! It was
> when the last surviving man on an island was
> surrounded by humans who had been heavily mutated
> by mushrooms.

A nice one. And, I suppose everyone already knows, it was inspired by W. H. Hodgson's "The Voice in the Night".

There should be more original movies like that, seeking weirdness, instead of the commercialized entertainments appeasing to shallow human desires and impulses.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
>
> > Godzilla eventually brought supernatural terror
> to
> > a level that we've never seen the likes of
> before.
>
> Oooo noooo! I can't un-see that!


I have decided to take you seriously on that. :) :/ My apologies. And I promise I will not do something like that again. On the other hand, a whole generation of Americans and Europeans were subjected to The Muppet Show and similar atrocities. Which is in actuality a greater terror to our integrity than any serious attempt at fictional horror. I now think I better understand why you avoid Television altogether.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hespire Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ... I remember Matango giving me real chills at
> night! It was
> > when the last surviving man on an island was
> > surrounded by humans who had been heavily
> mutated
> > by mushrooms.
>
> A nice one. And, I suppose everyone already knows,
> it was inspired by W. H. Hodgson's "The Voice in
> the Night".
>
> There should be more original movies like that,
> seeking weirdness, instead of the commercialized
> entertainments appeasing to shallow human desires
> and impulses.


Despite the mainstream media's obsession with computer-generated imagery, and all the hubbub about its creative potential, I'm surprised by how similar so many movies are, especially in visuals and ideas. I guess if the producers or audiences insist on sameness, then actual weirdness won't be appreciated except in small bursts in otherwise conventional stories. Then again, there was that recent blockbuster adaptation of Lovecraft's Colour Out of Space, but I don't know much about it.

Hodgson's "The Voice in the Night" is one of my favorites, and I think it suits the Japanese taste for weird stories derived from a combination of natural science and uncanny nature-spirits. I like it when a movie can technically adapt a story without quite being that story, which I feel encourages creativity while giving the original source material its own space as a work of art/fiction. Maybe a Japanese animator could do something similar with CAS' fiction, especially since bizarre and experimental imagery is better appreciated in their mainstream media.

Anyhow, Kumi Mizuno is a bonus in whatever movie she stars in! Too bad she's no longer at that age to play a temptress from Zothique.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 30 Aug 21 | 02:33AM by Hespire.

Hespire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Despite the mainstream media's obsession with
> computer-generated imagery, and all the hubbub
> about its creative potential, I'm surprised by how
> similar so many movies are, especially in visuals
> and ideas. ...
>

Yes, it is absolutely awful!



> I like it when a movie can technically adapt a story
> without quite being that story, which I feel
> encourages creativity while giving the original
> source material its own space as a work of
> art/fiction.
>

I wholeheartedly agree. And that is the greatest compliment and respect a film maker can give to a work of fiction, ... being inspired by it instead of slavishly trying to copy it (which is impossible).

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dale Nelson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Knygatin Wrote:
> >
> > > Godzilla eventually brought supernatural
> terror
> > to
> > > a level that we've never seen the likes of
> > before.
> >
> > Oooo noooo! I can't un-see that!
>
>
> I have decided to take you seriously on that. :)
> :/ My apologies. And I promise I will not do
> something like that again. On the other hand, a
> whole generation of Americans and Europeans were
> subjected to The Muppet Show and similar
> atrocities. Which is in actuality a greater terror
> to our integrity than any serious attempt at
> fictional horror. I now think I better understand
> why you avoid Television altogether.

No, Knygatin, I thought the video clip of Godzilla scooting through the air was endearingly hilarious, and hastened to invite my wife to watch it with me.

My avoidance of TV isn't absolute. We'll watch weather reports sometimes, for example, and when that Endeavour series reappears we'll probably watch that (the police detective series). We watch two hours of The Three Stooges on Saturday afternoons. (I am thankful that my kids didn't see these when they were young an impressionable. The mayhem would have been contagious.) And we watch DVDs of old Twilight Zone teleplays, The Fugitive, Star Trek, etc.

For many years I have been hostile towards children's programming such as Sesame Street because I generally do not want children to meet fairy tales in supposedly clever parodies for that terribly victimized being, the modern child. No, no! Let them even be a little bit frightened by the witch in the wood, the dragon in the cave, the troll in the forest. All my children are adults living on their own now, and have been for years, but when they were little, I used to read, or better tell, them such stories in their winter-dark rooms, perhaps with a candle lit if I needed to read the story rather than retell it.

This might be unusual now. But it was for a long time a "natural" thing to do, when poetic consciousness was the norm.

Often, "cleverness" reflects sociological consciousness. We need more wisdom and a lot less such "cleverness." More straightforward laughter and tears, and fewer ironic grins.

Quote:

DN
Often, "cleverness" reflects sociological consciousness. We need more wisdom and a lot less such "cleverness." More straightforward laughter and tears, and fewer ironic grins.

Boy, *that's* right on the money.

This is The Age of Snark, in which one gains points by being hip enough to catch the most attenuated of innuendos.

That said, I regret falling to that level fairly often. On some forums, it's sort of the badge of passage--the Secret Handshake. You cannot even get a response without presenting something outrageous, simply to get their attention long enough to engage them.

Not needed, or countenanced in ED. It's why I'm here, folks.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> ... I thought the video clip of Godzilla
> scooting through the air was endearingly
> hilarious, and hastened to invite my wife to watch
> it with me.
>
>

I watched it maybe 4 times, and laughed equally much every time. Which is rare. Very disarming.

I agree wholeheartedly, Dale. A sincere expression of human emotions has given way to an overreliance on "clever" subversion. And the art of subtle irony has been forgotten for snark and sarcasm.

I don't watch movies or television like I used to, but sometimes I see glimpses of what's popular because of my nieces and nephews, and it seems that even children's entertainment is defined by cynicism and sarcasm. If something scary happens, a character has to quip about it. If something wondrous happens, a character has to quip about it. If something cliched happens, a character has to point out how it's cliched.

I'm not sure how much this affects children, but I notice that more kids and young folk today like to be snarky, especially toward subjects they might not fully understand. For instance, one of my nephews made a rather smug remark about how Heaven is only an illusion. I'm not a religious person, but I thought it would be useful for him to have a deeper discussion about Heaven, exploring its meaning, purpose, and the beautiful and not-so-beautiful expressions of its grandeur throughout human history. He stumbled a lot and stared at me blankly while going "Uuuuuuuhhhhh", and it turned out he didn't come to his conclusion because of deep consideration, but because he was following what others were snarking about at school or social media. From what I've seen, snarking doesn't demand any thought, because it exists to dismiss rather than analyze. It's more like a defense from having to engage with others and the possibility of a challenging conversation.

It seems there's an almost neurotic fear of vulnerability. A fear of sincerity and honesty with deeper thoughts, a fear of being open to conversations in which one's ignorance may be apparent, and a fear of expressing oneself passionately among other people (even in spaces where like-minded fellows exist). And it all seems to boil down to a fear of rejection that will be immortalized on the internet. But I think this could result in a culture where people are too afraid to engage with each other in any way that isn't numb, boring, stupid, or extreme.

Perhaps horror might be one of the few areas where snark and pseudo-intelligent sarcasm doesn't thrive, because the whole point of horror is to be scared out of your wits, to let go of rationality for the sake of primal overreactions.

I suppose certain forms of fantasy fiction have a degree of awe and wonder as well, but as I pointed out earlier, this feeling is secondary to some kind of sociological theme, moral lesson, or subversive "humor". The Kalevala cherishes the forest in itself, but in recent media the forest is only as impressionable as the theme will allow.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 30 Aug 21 | 11:33AM by Hespire.

I must add that I have nearly all the Three Stooges shorts on DVD! I can't help but laugh every time I see them!

To keep this closer to the thread's purpose, there were surprisingly eerie or unnerving scenes in the shorts that involve spooks and ghouls. I recall the scene when that parrot went into a human skull and started fluttering and crawling around a bedroom while someone (Larry was it?) tried to sleep!

Hespire Wrote:

> It seems there's an almost neurotic fear of
> vulnerability. A fear of sincerity and honesty
> with deeper thoughts, a fear of being open to
> conversations in which one's ignorance may be
> apparent, and a fear of expressing oneself
> passionately among other people (even in spaces
> where like-minded fellows exist). And it all seems
> to boil down to a fear of rejection that will be
> immortalized on the internet. But I think this
> could result in a culture where people are too
> afraid to engage with each other in any way that
> isn't numb, boring, stupid, or extreme.

Yes. Yet there may be a real hunger for just such conversations. Shortly before my retirement from teaching, I offered a one-time-only one-credit course on the philosophy of Plato. One student enrolled! We met for an hour a week in my office and read various dialogues. I had no professional preparation for teaching Plato and she didn't need the college credit; we just were interested. It was a good experience.

Hespire Wrote:

>The Kalevala cherishes the
> forest in itself, but in recent media the forest
> is only as impressionable as the theme will allow.


I must revisit this great work.

Hespire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I must add that I have nearly all the Three
> Stooges shorts on DVD! I can't help but laugh
> every time I see them!
>
> To keep this closer to the thread's purpose, there
> were surprisingly eerie or unnerving scenes in the
> shorts that involve spooks and ghouls. I recall
> the scene when that parrot went into a human skull
> and started fluttering and crawling around a
> bedroom while someone (Larry was it?) tried to
> sleep!

I remember that parrot. Do you remember the one(s) with the cloaked figure wearing a grinning, toothy fright-mask? That could give a youngster a turn.

Quote:

Hespire
Perhaps horror might be one of the few areas where snark and pseudo-intelligent sarcasm doesn't thrive, because the whole point of horror is to be scared out of your wits, to let go of rationality for the sake of primal overreactions.

I think you're onto something important here.

Reading effective weird/horror is like skydiving probably is: you willingly abandon the rational when you step out of the plane.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All this is very insightful Hespire.

My thoughts/comments, interleaved:


Hespire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree wholeheartedly, Dale. A sincere expression
> of human emotions has given way to an overreliance
> on "clever" subversion. And the art of subtle
> irony has been forgotten for snark and sarcasm.
>
> I don't watch movies or television like I used to,
> but sometimes I see glimpses of what's popular
> because of my nieces and nephews, and it seems
> that even children's entertainment is defined by
> cynicism and sarcasm. If something scary happens,
> a character has to quip about it. If something
> wondrous happens, a character has to quip about
> it. If something cliched happens, a character has
> to point out how it's cliched.

Yes. The nadir of this is the "wacky side-kick" character that seems like an obligatory part of every Disney animated feature.

>
> I'm not sure how much this affects children, but I
> notice that more kids and young folk today like to
> be snarky, especially toward subjects they might
> not fully understand. For instance, one of my
> nephews made a rather smug remark about how Heaven
> is only an illusion. I'm not a religious person,
> but I thought it would be useful for him to have a
> deeper discussion about Heaven, exploring its
> meaning, purpose, and the beautiful and
> not-so-beautiful expressions of its grandeur
> throughout human history. He stumbled a lot and
> stared at me blankly while going "Uuuuuuuhhhhh",
> and it turned out he didn't come to his conclusion
> because of deep consideration, but because he was
> following what others were snarking about at
> school or social media. From what I've seen,
> snarking doesn't demand any thought, because it
> exists to dismiss rather than analyze.

Great distinction!

It permits the snarker to gain a bit of distinction *without* putting in any positive effort. Just mouthe the right phrases, with the right intonation and facial expression.

> It's more
> like a defense from having to engage with others
> and the possibility of a challenging
> conversation.

Yes, I think this is true. I used to post to a lot of current events forums and I got into the most trouble for insisting on clarification of certain points. I now see that they were being dismissed using snark--the reader was supposed to recognize that because they were being handled in a snarky fashion, they were, by definition, beneath worthy discussion.

But I failed to recognize this and insisted on expansion/explanation, which was never expected by the snarker.

>
> It seems there's an almost neurotic fear of
> vulnerability. A fear of sincerity and honesty
> with deeper thoughts, a fear of being open to
> conversations in which one's ignorance may be
> apparent, and a fear of expressing oneself
> passionately among other people (even in spaces
> where like-minded fellows exist). And it all seems
> to boil down to a fear of rejection that will be
> immortalized on the internet. But I think this
> could result in a culture where people are too
> afraid to engage with each other in any way that
> isn't numb, boring, stupid, or extreme.
>
> Perhaps horror might be one of the few areas where
> snark and pseudo-intelligent sarcasm doesn't
> thrive, because the whole point of horror is to be
> scared out of your wits, to let go of rationality
> for the sake of primal overreactions.
>
> I suppose certain forms of fantasy fiction have a
> degree of awe and wonder as well, but as I pointed
> out earlier, this feeling is secondary to some
> kind of sociological theme, moral lesson, or
> subversive "humor". The Kalevala cherishes the
> forest in itself, but in recent media the forest
> is only as impressionable as the theme will allow.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Like you Sawfish, I also have had some experience with those kind of forums. I have not clearly analyzed it, trying emotionally to figure out what is going on when it seems like I am being rejected. If you don't really fit into a particular social culture, it is difficult make it work.

My experience is that if you are in a gathering of people with "social consciousness", their foremost priority is their group's concord and social unity. It is much more important than the individual intellectual focus. If you say the wrong thing in such a gathering, something that is not in line with "social consciousness", something that is not considered to be of contemporary consensus, something that is politically incorrect, ... then you will never be forgiven by the group, because of their focus on conformity. The mistake cannot be repaired. Another tool such forums use is the "like button" and the gathering of "likes", which is an important focus . It is used to further strengthen the group's unity, by sticking together and supporting each other with "likes"; at the same time it is a tool for mob rule, by freezing out the unwanted. They lack priority on "poetic consciousness" and individual intellectual excellency. They are guided foremost by herd mentality. A sort of socialism attitude. It reminds me of Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron".

So, yeah, this discussion subject Dale started about the differences between social and poetic consciousness, has been quite interesting and enlightening for me. Because it is not something I otherwise have reflected much over.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 30 Aug 21 | 05:15PM by Knygatin.

Boris Karloff completely owns this scene from The Mummy. Soon the scientist sitting by the table starts laughing insanely.

Now, if I had a little more imagination, I probably would have reacted to this scene as absolutely terrifying.

Are people who practice sociological consciousness ever delighted and enlightened by experiences of nature, of wholesome life together, and books and poems from outside the social concerns that occupy them? I suppose it must happen -- but their inward habits must make that experience rare. So much human flourishing, though, can come from those sources.

I think someday some of these folks may gradually emerge from the sociological dream-world and regret so many wasted years that they can't live over and better. Some such people might be angry at the teachers who didn't give them something better.




I wondered if anyone here has had a teacher -- an "official" teacher or an "unofficial" one -- who seemed to have deep roots in "poetic consciousness." I had two such, which is extraordinary "fortune" indeed.

Such "teachers" could include not just people in classrooms but, for example, a bookseller who seemed to get the books you needed maybe without having to be asked... maybe books you didn't know existed....

I should say, though, that if someone wants to respond to what I just wrote, perhaps the thread on poetic consciousness vs. sociological consciousness thread would be a good place for it, making it easier for someone to find later on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 30 Aug 21 | 05:48PM by Dale Nelson.

That person would be *you*, Dale.

No kiddin', and THANKS!

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knygatin Wrote:

> ...this discussion subject ...
> about the differences between social and poetic
> consciousness

I've been reading a book that's very much an introduction to Plato. I was thinking about that Greek "know thyself" -- Γνώθι Σεαυτόν gnothi seauton. (I had to look that up.) "Sociological consciousness" focuses, to use Plato's terms, on the visible, tangible world of "becoming," of constant change, about which we can have only opinions. Specifically, it focuses on the human dimension that way. That can have some limited usefulness. But here's the thing" sociological consciousness assumes that the transitory and sensory is all there is. What, then, should the "agenda" be? "Progress"! "Progress," always and endlessly, and not towards a specified goal, but just always "progress" towards "social justice," etc. But it seems they never say just what "social justice" would look like. And, of course, if they did, one of two problems would arise. Either they would specify an achievable goal, after which the dedication to "progress" would not be needed; or they would be forthright about their Utopia -- which would almost certainly be a Marxist one that most people do not believe in and do not want and in the name of which the most gross barbarities have been committed. But in any event their notion of the human is too narrow.

Poetic consciousness is often more receptive to the multi-dimensional and to the transcendent. Not all people who think, feel, and imagine from within "poetic consciousness" possess religious belief or a spiritual sensibility, but they are more ready than people under the sway of sociological consciousness to allow the possibility of aspects of the human that elude quantification, social reform, etc.

You can (skip the ads!) watch this clip with a leading exponent of sociological consciousness. Ibram Kendi sees the job of religion as social justice reform -- i.e. the agenda set out in his books. He contrasts his idea of what religion should be with a caricature of traditional religion that omits (for example) the worship of God and that misses the point about mission.

[www.youtube.com]

In contrast to this notion, think of Bach. Most of his music was written for church services.

Plato is a rigorous thinker and he stays within poetic consciousness. His mind is wider than Kendi's appears to be. Plato would allow the limited validity of "sociology," I suppose, but his thought encompasses far more. Anyone here ever read him? There's a mistaken idea that Plato might be hard to read. Well, maybe you shouldn't start with Cratylus, which was a bit much for yours truly (it's about rhetoric). But he can be a really good read. That again is a topic for a different thread!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 31 Aug 21 | 09:16AM by Dale Nelson.

Here's something that came to mind this morning that might actually fit this thread.

I don't think T. S. Eliot's 1930 essay "Baudelaire" is available online. Anyway, I only want to take some words out of context and ask if they are relevant to this thread.

Eliot wrote that Baudelaire was "concerned...with the real problem of good and evil." Baudelaire lived in a time and a country (France) characterized by "bustle, programmes, platforms, scientific progress, humanitarianism and revolutions which improved nothing." But he "perceived that what really matters is Sin and Redemption. ...the recognition of the reality of Sin is a New Life; and the possibility of damnation is so immense a relief in a world of electoral reform, plebiscites, sex reform and dress reform, that damnation itself is an immediate form of salvation -- of salvation from the ennui of modern life, because it at last gives some significance to living."

That's an expression of sociological consciousness vs. poetic consciousness.

But is what Eliot wrote a clue to the meaning -- occasionally -- of the horror genre? Are people reading the books and watching the movies because they are bored by modern society, represented in my previous message by Ibram Kendi, but, note, also by Donald Trump? Do the movies give a sort of bogus sense of value to, interest in, living, because their gruesome threats are so ghastly?

(I don't watch these movies as a rule, though I liked A Quiet Place and look forward to seeing the sequel.)

I'm not advocating horror books and movies, but I wonder if there is, sometimes, something going on in this milieu that makes a kind of sense. It certainly has staying power, doesn't it? Modern horror must be 50 years old or more. That doesn't make it good, worthy, noble. But maybe it's significant as a symptom. Probably a symptom of more than one thing.....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 31 Aug 21 | 09:49AM by Dale Nelson.

Quote:

DN
Plato is a rigorous thinker and he stays within poetic consciousness. His mind is wider than Kendi's appears to be.

If I may interject here my considered opinion, the difference between Plato and Kendi can be easily understood in this way...

Plato starts with an observation of phenomena and examines them to come up with what he considers to be a sound and logical explanation which he then classifies as "truth".

Kendi starts from already knowing the "truth", and seeks phenomena to support it.

In Plato's case, he does not know the truth before examination--the truth is what's left after all other explanations fall away. Kendi presumes to know the truth at the outset, and selectively culls information for only those bits that seem to support his original version of the truth.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I haven't read any of Kendi's books. I hope they are better than the video clip & so on would lead one to expect them to be.

Plato sought the good, the true, the beautiful: reality. Socrates, in Plato's dialogues, used cross-examination (the elenchus) to clear away the inadequate notions of his interlocutors. They would come to a point of aporia, of being nonplused, and ready to learn better. Sometimes Socrates humbly confessed he was still seeking a satisfactory understanding of things, but at least he'd reduced untruth. He was unyielding in the beliefs that this kind of examined life, raising us from constant focusing on "becoming," was the only worthy one for a man, and that a man should conform himself to, or align himself with, the truth as much as he could. Plato offered "myths" -- possible stories -- to help us further along the way to the vision of reality (Being).

I don't want to be unfair to Kendi, but I wonder if he doesn't hold to a notion that there are no objective truth and beauty to be sought by means of an ascent of the mind; "truth" and "beauty" he might hold to be "social constructions" such as we've talked about here elsewhere. He might not recognize Being, just "becoming."

Without a real understanding of the true and the beautiful, or at least a yearning for the vision thereof, one might be -- perhaps Kendi is -- just left with a strong desire to impose one's notion of the good, by the reform of society. But such social reforms would lack both metaphysical integrity and a clear sight of human nature. Kendi might believe that, if "society" is reformed as he wants it to be, people will either fall in line or that they will be marginalized and kind of cease to exist. Oddly, here Kendi might actually be fairly close to Plato. I think Plato had some sense of human fallenness, but much of the time he seems to think that people do evil from ignorance -- remove ignorance and they won't do evil; likewise, Kendi may think that, if "society" is reformed the way he wants it to be (which might be an open-ended, continuous "progress" thing -- I don't know), people, even white, sexually normal people would be reformed too, e.g. as the children are educated in woke schools, as laws enforce woke principles, as entertainment communicates woke norms, etc. I don't know how democratic Kendi is prepared to be if the demos doesn't go along with diversity, equity, inclusion as the wokesters define them,

Plato's thought has religious overtones or foreshadowings, and "Woke" is a religion. But I don't see Kendi -- from the little I know of him -- as a sage, a philosopher. He might say that he never said he was one. But if (as I suspect) he holds to the idea of social constructivism that is so prevalent in schools of education now, he is in fact an adherent of a philosophy.

I wanted to respond to your comment, Sawfish, but if we're going to discuss this further, what say you: shall we take it elsewhere, away from a thread about horror movies?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 31 Aug 21 | 04:20PM by Dale Nelson.

Dale, you can read Kendi any time you want on The Atlantic website.

It doesn't take long to see what he's all about, how he thinks and reasons. First, he tells you to ignore your own perceptions and evaluations as incorrect, and substitute his in their place.

To him, everything is about numbers; inequity is demonstrated by variations in percentages. The simple fact that percentage of home ownership differs by racial group is proof of racism.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sounds like "sociological consciousness," all right.

Those of you who watch horror movies -- how do you feel after the movie is over? Exhilarated, like you might feel after a roller-coaster ride? Or -- ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 31 Aug 21 | 05:27PM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sounds like "sociological consciousness," all
> right.
>
> Those of you who watch horror movies -- how do you
> feel after the movie is over? Exhilarated, like
> you might feel after a roller-coaster ride? Or --
> ?


Naturally, it depends on the nature of the film.

But yes, some make me feel exhilarated.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For example...?

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For example...?


Carnival of Souls. Not exhilaration, but more subtle, more profound.

Eerie, yes; scary, no.

If you haven't seen this, it is a very impressive low budget film (B&W) from the 60s.
I can recall about 25 years ago the film reviewer for NPR "rediscovered" it and it had a sort of second life. Contemporary to the original Night of the Living Dead, and with a comparable budget, but so much more to take away for later.

Me, I saw it one Saturday night on Creature Features in the Bay Area, probably around 1966. I remember those old quasi camp shows where a color host presented a scary movie at aboyt 11:30 PM on local braodcast TV. I really liked those shows.

[en.wikipedia.org]

In my opinion, it's worth watching. It has poetic consciousness at its core, I believe.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've seen Carnival of Souls twice and think well of it too. Yes indeed, poetic consciousness.

I remember a Creature Features -- I think that was the title -- from San Francisco, with host Bob Wilkins. I've looked on YouTube but not found the intro with the music that I remember, which was a deliciously incongruous high school marching band type of recording. Wilkins was fun to watch with his advice that the programming on a competitor channel would be better. I don't remember watching the movies themselves -- e.g. Agent for H.A.R.M.. I must've watched a few, though.

The forest spirit in Throne of Blood is really eerie. This movie by Kurosawa justifies the medium of cinema as capable of doing something great that could only be done thus (as a movie). The forest goblin takes the place of the witches in Macbeth.