I just started a book by Edward Lee called "House Infernal". I'm only 5 chapters in, so I can't really say what the plot actually is, yet, but it involves an abandoned, soon to be refurbished monastery being fixed up by an oddly . . . forward. . . priest and - among others - a beautiful, virginal, young female theology student who's thinking of becoming a nun. A subplot involves a slutty damned soul that hooks up with a damned priest, who are currently traipsing through Hell trying to figure out ways to help said theology student, for reasons that aren't clear yet. What immediately attracted me to this book was the promise lurid, perverted sex and gory violence, both Edward Lee trademarks. On the drive home from work tonight - here we go again - I got to thinkin':
An oft used horror device is the corruption of sacred things. The innocence of children, the beautiful miracle of childbirth, symbols of Christianity (at least, in our Western art forms, that's the symbology that pervades), etc. I started threads specifically devoted to the former two already. What I'm thinking of mainly here is the latter: dececrating holy symbols, people, acts or concepts.
This certainly has the potential to be a powerful cinematic or literary device. Who didn't shiver or squirm a litle uncomfortably when Regan abused herself with the crucifix in "The Exorcist"? And the Lutz house telling the priest who had come to bless it to "Get. . . ooouuuuutt!!" has become "The Amityville Horror's" most famous line, and possibly its most disturbing scene. Barlow overcoming the priest's wavering faith in "'Salem's Lot", crushing the cross in his bare hand. Gabriel rebelling against God and leading a war in heaven fought by factions of powerful, amoral angels, regaling us with accounts of how he "Kills firstborns while their mommas WATCH!" in "The Prophecy". Even something as insidious as the use of the church's Gregorian chants in "The Omen" trilogy, and films that followed after on Satanic themes, to (very effectively, despite their church song origins) denote a sense of the demonic. The list goes on.
I have the feeling that Lee, in his zeal to be iconoclastic and over the top, may overdo it a bit in this book, desecrating church symbols, doctrines and worshipers for no other reason than to be shocking. Not that there'd be anything really wrong with that; I kind of figured that was where this book would be headed before I even bought it, and that was the RESON I bought it. Sometimes, as with spicy food, it's fun even when you overdo it. I don't mean to imply that pursuing this train of artistic thought can be considered "going too far", in that it is too disturbing; as Greg David astutely pointed out in an earlier thread, there shouldn't be such a thing as "going too far" in a horror book or movie, where disturbing ideas and imagery are the name of the game. To shrink from such imagery does a disservice to the mission statement, he quippped, and I agree. But what I am wondering is: did any book or film use this device to the point where it looked they were just trying to be shocking for its own sake, and not for any truly artistic reason? Where the cpncepts and imagery didn't serve the plot at all, but were just there, like a pointless jump scare, to mindlessly offend the viewer's sensibilitites?
Perhaps because we live in an age of political correctness carried to its logical extreme these days, but I can't, off the top of my head, recall anything that, in my opinion, anyway, did this (although Regan with the crucifix probably comes close). Perhaps they fear reprisals from the Catholic League or other groups. Maybe the filmmakers' or authors' own sensibilities prevent such things from appearing in their works. But I imagine if the attempt were especially obvious, heavy handed and gratuitous, it would detract from the film/book by making it silly rather than add to it by making it creepier.
What's your opinion? Is overuse of iconoclasm even possible, in your view? If so, can you think of examples where it was done? Or is nothing sacred, nor should it be?
An oft used horror device is the corruption of sacred things. The innocence of children, the beautiful miracle of childbirth, symbols of Christianity (at least, in our Western art forms, that's the symbology that pervades), etc. I started threads specifically devoted to the former two already. What I'm thinking of mainly here is the latter: dececrating holy symbols, people, acts or concepts.
This certainly has the potential to be a powerful cinematic or literary device. Who didn't shiver or squirm a litle uncomfortably when Regan abused herself with the crucifix in "The Exorcist"? And the Lutz house telling the priest who had come to bless it to "Get. . . ooouuuuutt!!" has become "The Amityville Horror's" most famous line, and possibly its most disturbing scene. Barlow overcoming the priest's wavering faith in "'Salem's Lot", crushing the cross in his bare hand. Gabriel rebelling against God and leading a war in heaven fought by factions of powerful, amoral angels, regaling us with accounts of how he "Kills firstborns while their mommas WATCH!" in "The Prophecy". Even something as insidious as the use of the church's Gregorian chants in "The Omen" trilogy, and films that followed after on Satanic themes, to (very effectively, despite their church song origins) denote a sense of the demonic. The list goes on.
I have the feeling that Lee, in his zeal to be iconoclastic and over the top, may overdo it a bit in this book, desecrating church symbols, doctrines and worshipers for no other reason than to be shocking. Not that there'd be anything really wrong with that; I kind of figured that was where this book would be headed before I even bought it, and that was the RESON I bought it. Sometimes, as with spicy food, it's fun even when you overdo it. I don't mean to imply that pursuing this train of artistic thought can be considered "going too far", in that it is too disturbing; as Greg David astutely pointed out in an earlier thread, there shouldn't be such a thing as "going too far" in a horror book or movie, where disturbing ideas and imagery are the name of the game. To shrink from such imagery does a disservice to the mission statement, he quippped, and I agree. But what I am wondering is: did any book or film use this device to the point where it looked they were just trying to be shocking for its own sake, and not for any truly artistic reason? Where the cpncepts and imagery didn't serve the plot at all, but were just there, like a pointless jump scare, to mindlessly offend the viewer's sensibilitites?
Perhaps because we live in an age of political correctness carried to its logical extreme these days, but I can't, off the top of my head, recall anything that, in my opinion, anyway, did this (although Regan with the crucifix probably comes close). Perhaps they fear reprisals from the Catholic League or other groups. Maybe the filmmakers' or authors' own sensibilities prevent such things from appearing in their works. But I imagine if the attempt were especially obvious, heavy handed and gratuitous, it would detract from the film/book by making it silly rather than add to it by making it creepier.
What's your opinion? Is overuse of iconoclasm even possible, in your view? If so, can you think of examples where it was done? Or is nothing sacred, nor should it be?
), wickedness does go unpunished. But including the motif of religion in a horror movie can still explore other ideas, by either confirming or denying that there are other-worldly forces (beyond our level of understanding) duking it out , offering that there may be reward/retribution for our acts here on Earth (and depending on the religion, more importantly, our FAITH here on Earth), or revealing that we may be merely pawns or acceptable collateral damage in the ensuing spiritual/supernatural battles.
