CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › Horror film courses
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Horror film courses

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 
Right now I'm in the process of finishing up film school (I don't think I recommend it, by the way), and I'm bummed because I've missed yet another chance at taking a horror class. We put a bunch of genres on rotation, and I know I would be a pig in shit in a horror class. But alas, it never works out. Anyway, a co-worker of mine who's in the class let me take a look at the syllabus, and I'm kinda glad I didn't take it now. There seems to be no organization to the weekly topics, and though there is an impressive list of films that will be discussed in the course, I've been told that they pretty much just watch a bunch of clips to cram in as much as possible.

This got me on a totally nerdy train of thought, where I started idly trying to figure out how I would present almost 100 years of horror films to the lay person in a 13 week course. Typically, with discusssions and other work included, that only leaves time for about 13 complete films to be screened. So what would you guys pick? Would you base it on its influence on the horror genre as a whole? Cultural significance? General filmmaking quality? Also, is it better to make sure everybody knows the established classics, or is it important to take the opportunity to show people some things they'd never see otherwise? I had a film history professor who liked to go with more obscure choices. It was hit and miss, but I appreciated what he was trying to do. Would it be better to present it chronologically or organize it into categories (slashers one week, haunted houses the next)? There is also, of course, a question of what actually qualifies as horror. Some people would count things like Jaws or Night of the Hunter, some would not.

So, you've basically got 13 movies and limited time to cover the entire genre. How do you best represent horror films as legitimate art and make people take them seriously?

And after a quick perusal, I don't think this thread exits. If it does, bugger off.
post #2 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Sherman
So, you've basically got 13 movies and limited time to cover the entire genre. How do you best represent horror films as legitimate art and make people take them seriously?
If a person doesn't take horror seriously as part of the movie making art form, why would they be taking the course?

I'd be picking movies based on how they use the medium of film to evoke horror, (it's hard to put my thoughts into words here) try to emphasis the type of emotions/reactions that can only be created by a movie, That is to say, in a book you cant use music, or ambient sound, or a slow tracking shot, or use of light and shadow, unexpected movement, almost all of these techniques are exclusive to film.

If you're highlighting how all the same techniques from any other type of filmaking are apllied to horror, just in a different way, I don't see how a film student could say that Horror is any less of an art form.

Pic movies that are great films first and great horror movies second, for the most part, Slashers and splatters are an important part of horror too and shouldn't be excluded, but maybe hold them back a few weeks till everyone is on board the monsters are people too, train

I'd have Jaws on there. there's no denying it scared the piss out of a lot of people and it accessable as fuck.

Frankenstien: Classic, attractive to look at, good lesson in a filmaker taking a real life fear and twisting it to fit the story and give it more emotional weight.

Devils Backbone: Gorgeously shot, The fact that it's not in english may help people focus on the actual film making going on.

The Thing: Agian it's a well shot movie, with an almost palpable sense of gathering dread and paranoia.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre: Shows horror as one of the few genre's where a low budget and amaturistic approach can actually add to it's atmosphere. (if you're going to illustrate this point please don't use The Blair witch project)

Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives: I don't know, whenever I think slasher, I think this film.

Night of the Living Dead: Because it's Night of the Living Dead.

Braindead/Dead Alive: Fun with red stuff.

The Exorcist: Because if it didn't have every aspect of filmaking firing at once, it wouldn't work at all, and it works really well.


I'm gonna leave it there because if I list 13 movies I know I'll leave out an un-leave-outable movie and feel like a dick. And besides, you're not really organising a horror film course so why should I, lazy ass?
post #3 of 10
Thread Starter 
Hey, maybe one day I will. Teaching's in the blood. Although I'm warned by my entire family that it's not really the best way to make a living.
post #4 of 10
Thirteen movies, eh? Lemme think...

1. Nosferatu (One of the original feature-length horror films)
2. Haxan (Original fake documentary)
3. Bride Of Frankenstein (Golden Age studio horror)
4. Horror Of Dracula (Hammer horror)
5. Attack Of The Giant Leeches or The Killer Shrews (Cheapo Corman horror and his imitators)
6. Night Of The Living Dead (Good indie horror, the zombie craze begins)
7. Cannibal Holocaust (Exploitation)
8. Suspiria (Giallo)
9. Halloween (Slasher movies)
10. Evil Dead 2 (Splat-stick)
11. The Thing (Body horror)
12. Dead Alive (New indie horror)
13. Ringu (J-Horror)

Honorable mentions: Cat People, Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein, Blood Feast, Rosemary's Baby, Vampyros Lesbos, Black Christmas, The Shining, Dawn Of The Dead, An American Werewolf In London, Scream, The Blair Witch Project.
post #5 of 10
While I agree with you for the most part, Stormin', I'd have to go with Curse of Frankenstein for a Hammer flick. It provides a nice compare and contrast opportunity with Bride plus it's a great intro to the Hammer style.

I'd also take The Thing out as the Body Horror and replace it with The Fly or Dead Ringers. However, I'd keep The Thing in as an example of how someone can make a remake work.

ETA: Great topic, Gary!
post #6 of 10
I'd go with the original Dawn of the Dead for its satircal aspects on American culture.
post #7 of 10
Stormin, Susperia is not a giallo.
post #8 of 10
Here's my list (probably repetitive in parts, but hey, great choices everyone!);

1. Nosferatu (Alternate choice: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari) - mainly to give everyone a starting point as to the origins of cineamtic horror, plus giving an insight into how films were made in the silent era.
2. Frankenstein (Alt: Dracula) - Both are classics from the Godlen Age, and any horror fan worth his/her salt has to watch these at least once.
3. Psycho (Alt: The Birds) - Hitchcock. Nuff said.
4. Horror of Dracula (Alt: Twins of Evil, damn near ANY Hammer flick) - sex merges with horror, thanks to Hammer.
5. Night of the Living Dead (Alt: any Corman flick of the era) - DIY horror, shows you what your predecessors did when they were learning the ropes.
6. Texas Chainsaw Massacre - same reasons as previously mentioned, full color gore and the first horror film that actually made me uncomfortable watching.
7. Jaws - horror as summer blockbuster.
8. Halloween - great pacing and cinematography, excellent story, flashpoint to the stalker/slasher craze.
9. Alien - the haunted house/Ten little Indians theme, except out in space.
10. Hellraiser - c'mon, it's Clive Barker at his best, people!
11 and 12. The Church and Zombie (alt. anything by Argento or Fulci) - carnage from the continent, special attention paid on pacing, atmosphere, etc.
13. Hostel (Alt: Saw) - torture porn as horror, wvae of the future?

Again, my suggestions - really tough to nail down just 13. If I was running the class, there'd be a LOT of homework assignments -"For next week, a brief dissertation on the approach to Satanism in The Exorcist, and how it compares to how Satanism is portrayed in the Omen."
post #9 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy225
Here's my list (probably repetitive in parts, but hey, great choices everyone!);

1. Nosferatu (Alternate choice: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari) - mainly to give everyone a starting point as to the origins of cineamtic horror, plus giving an insight into how films were made in the silent era.
2. Frankenstein (Alt: Dracula) - Both are classics from the Godlen Age, and any horror fan worth his/her salt has to watch these at least once.
3. Psycho (Alt: The Birds) - Hitchcock. Nuff said.
If you really thought the students might be taking the horror course without taking horror seriously as a genre, I'd start with Psycho. No one doubts the great works that are Hitchcock, and it would be a good place to emphasize that you can do horror and be artistic, mainstream, successful, classic.
post #10 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belethedheliel
If you really thought the students might be taking the horror course without taking horror seriously as a genre, I'd start with Psycho. No one doubts the great works that are Hitchcock, and it would be a good place to emphasize that you can do horror and be artistic, mainstream, successful, classic.
Very good point, but I was shooting for a chronological order - to show the students how horror progressed from decade to decade, and how changes to the movie industry (sound, color, storytelling, etc.) impacted how horror films were made. I'd also touch on the horror/monster movie craze of the 60s and 70s where the TV horror movie host and show popped up (Chiller Theatre, Creature Feature), the merchandising and fanbase of horror (toys, Aurora model kits, Famous Monsters) and how all of that inspired filmmakers and creators like Spielberg, Dante, Lucas, King, etc.

Still, a very good idea you had, though, Belethedheliel. These kids today, I tells ya, with their short attention spans...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Creature Corner Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › Horror film courses