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.
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.



