Philosophical Horror?

This word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
Those are examples of sociological horror.

Philosophical horror would be more like Carnival Of Souls. Nature of man, reality, perception. That kind of thing.

Philosophical horror is trying to parse your way through Heidegger's "Being and Time".

John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness, if you accept that theoretical physics can in fact be philosophical in nature (i.e. what does it mean to exist? if no one can see you, what state are you truly in?). That, and if Alice Cooper really was a zombie, would enough of his anarchist self be preserved that he would in fact be preying on the other zombies and not the humans in an expression of zombie counter-culture? Would those zombie victims be ok with this? That movie had everything (philosophically speaking)!

If it were made for that intention, I think a movie like Hostel comes closer to "philosophical horror" than The Fog which is more allusion and subtext. But it wasn't, so it's not.

Well I think there are interesting philosophical questions raised in many horror movies, even if they aren't explicit

The Shining: It is implied that Jack Torrance has always been part of the Overlook, not merely a reincarnation of a previous caretaker, but THE Caretaker. That he someone arrives in the late 1970;s but achieves some kind of apotheosis and goes backward to the 1920's. Or perhaps the Overlook exists in it's own kind of time where he and Grady et al exist as well.

Also, Jack and Wendy are easily manipulated by the visions/ghosts etc because, as modern secular people they simply can't admit the supernatural into their world view. In fact you could argue that Jack is driven insane by the act of perceiving Grady, Lloyd and that hottie/hag in the bedroom

Vampires used to be portrayed as "Outside" evil, often compared with a plague (Interestingly, vampires seem to give up free will, but once staked usually thank their killers, implying they were not acting under free will as the undead, a really horrible concept). With Ann Rice and beyond, I'd argue that vampires operate out of Situational Ethics: they are really OK except they have this annoying need to feed off the living.

And in Pet Sematary (where you don't want to be buried) Creed is willing to bury his dead son, knowing he will not really rise up but be replaced by something animating his corpse, but willing to do it because it's "close enough". Which raises the question of what we define, or are willing to accept as human.

I really need a six pack to have this discussion properly, so that's all I got

I agree with CB that there's philosophical (or sociological, if you want to split hairs) underpinnings to a lot of horror films. DM8 & I have debated the way horror films have changed over time to reflect the fears of the current generations. One could argue that the pervading theme of the radiation spawned giant monsters in many 50's horror/sci fi flicks are a warning against scientific hubris or tampering with nature, or against atomic power in general. Or that films like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", with its subtle anti-communism message apparent in its depiction of surrendering one's self to the hive mind, are comments on how sameness & the surrender of free will are terrible things.

One could also argue that the 70's-80's slasher flicks, with their EC comics like streak of morality (i.e., the kids having premarital sex, drinking or doing drugs are the ones killed - or killed first - by the slasher) are waxing philosophical on that topic as well. Although I think this argument wears thin after discussing the progenitors like "Halloween" and "Friday the 13th"; most of the imitators kept the "message" in out of tradition or blind imitation, without understanding why they were doing so, IMO.

I think it's possible that more modern films like "The Strangers" and "Cloverfield" (and, I'd argue, the original "Halloween", to some extent) are sending a message that evil exists in the world, and it can affect anyone at any time, regardless of whether or not they "deserve it". That's a philosophical statement, of a kind.

All that having been said, I'm surprised no one's mentioned George Romero's "Dead" films. The messages in those films, especially "Dawn's" anti consumerism commentary, have been bandied about by critics to a tremendous degree.

I'm sure I'll think of more to add as I chew on this topic a little more. Nice work, Stormin.

Winter Light? That might fit better into the 'religious horror' category...

No Country for Old Men gave me the overwhelming feeling of evil's prevalence. Really any film which undermines hope and broods on futility fits the 'philosophical horror' label, to me.

Thank God for Capra, Chaplin, and Tati!

Or maybe Kubrick just wanted to freak us out!

In the Mouth of Madness fits the bill for me. The essence of reality, whether our perception creates reality, the nature of storytelling, etc etc - all with a kick-ass metal soundtrack and Jurgen Prochnow!

Of course, Lovecraft was really the quintessential writer of philosophical horror. His stories dealt with humanity's lack of influence in an infinite universe filled with the unknowable, and he derived his brand of horror from Man confronting the unknowable and going mad.

Danielewski's House of Leaves also deals with this concept to some extent, but he transforms it into a metaphor for relationships and self-identity.

I agree. Lovecraft also has the theme of vast (in size and power) beings warring (?) human existence just a fleeting accident.

I just didn't want to be the guy with a Dawn avatar bringing up the Dead films. They're some of the most successful films ever in my opinion (specifically Dawn) because they work as psychological, philosophical, and sociological horror films, as well as plain old visceral horror films.

Cronenberg's work is especially philosophical too, especially Videodrome, and I could probably argue something about The Exorcist being rather overtly philosophical.

While I agree that Romero's first two films are rather good, I would hesitate to say they deal much with philosophical concepts. They definitely have a psychological and sociological message, and one can construe some philosophy from the concept of the dead rising again as a de facto commentary on the nature of life and death...but I don't see where Romero really explored philosophy in his films.

The sociological commentary in Dawn is outstanding, however.

I'd agree about Cronenberg, but again I just don't see any exploration of philosphical concepts in The Exorcist. The confrontation of evil is the modus operandi of a vast amount of horror films, and having religious overtones doesn't necessarily qualify as philosophical horror to me. If Blatty had tackled the questions regarding the nature and reason for this evil to have possessed the girl, or fully confronted and explored the reasons for and depth of Damien's loss of faith, I'd see the film as much more philosophical. Excellent film as it is, though.

If the philosophy needs to be overtly expressed to be considered as such then I'll stick by Videodrome. I suppose I read to much into the choices made in The Exorcist, and I've probably read too much about Blatty's intended subtext. And concerning the Dead films, I personally find Romero's intended message overt enough (why do you need these things, why can't you define yourself outside of what you own?) to still consider it pretty philosophical, but not enough to really argue it.

I wouldn't say it needed to be overtly expressed, but it should be the driving force of the "horror". I just think that a film should do more than present ideas to be classified as "philosophical". One of the big problems I had with The Matrix was its lazy approach to the philosophy it presents.

I definitely agree about Cronenberg, and I would say to a certain extent David Lynch belongs here.

Blatty presented evil as an opposing force, and there's definitely a philosophical undercurrent there by its nature. But the battle between Man and Evil really revolved around psychological horror for me. There's definitely some philosphical ideas to mine in Damien's redemptive sacrifice. Was he able to absorb the evil inside Reagan because he had lost his faith? Was his hate the driving factor behind his decision to confront the evil head-on? If so, what does that say about the nature of evil versus good? Can evil intent lead to good actions, and if so, do we judge the action or the intent?

You know, screw what I said earlier. The Exorcist definitely fits in this camp.

One of my traits - arguing myself full-circle.

I'd consider that more sociological, with an implied philosophical commentary regarding materialism and possession. However, I think Romero's intent was to comment on the culture and society, rather than the base philosophy of self-identity. But who knows. The fact that we are discussing this means Romero did something very right.

Arguing a particular point about sociology using narrative devices is inherently philosophical. Whenever you leave purely quantitative aspects of sociology behind (as you'd have to do to illustrate a position via narrative and not via charts and graphs), you're dealing with philosophy of some sort. Doesn't matter whether it's applied to "the self" or to "people."

Also, any movie is as "philosophical" as you want to make it. I have no idea (and don't care) whether the makers of The Hitcher considered it to be "philosophical," but you can pretty easily point out the existentialist motifs within.

Also, as far as I know, there's no line separating psychological horror from philosophical horror. Isn't the only real defining trait of psychological horror that it doesn't rely on gory visuals to establish terror? That's subjective, too, but at least "there's not that much blood in this" isn't as dependent on interpretation as asking "what is this movie saying"?

Not to hijack, but I bet there's a lot to discuss in terms of specific philosophies you see in certain films. The categorizing, however, doesn't really hold up.

I agree. I hadn't thought of it quite that way.

Well, how far do we want to move the goalposts here? Any abstract thought a human being has can be considered a philosophical one. I think a mutual definition of terms is in order here, specifically concerning what constitutes "philosophical horror". I'd like to think that philosophical horror explores philosophical questions in a way that causes fear. This may lend itself to a subjective interpretation of "philosophical questions", but it's like pornography - I know it when I see it.

Again, a mutual agreement on definition of terms is needed here.

I tend to agree, actually.

I suppose vengeance can be seen as a philosophical discussion too, but it's a less interesting reading of the thread.

I'm trying to think of a way to argue that my favorite Italian horror films are philosophically inclined, but I'm coming up empty. Fulci and Argento both go (went) out of their ways to apply philosophy to their films post release, but I'm pretty sure I've never bought it.

How about Alejandro Jorodowsky's films? I don't doubt the philosophy, but I suppose the 'horror' can be argued.

ETA: In response to Matches...

I'd argue that the term "philosophical horror" can't be defined in any meaningful way, because it requires a set of impossible parameters (as you wrote, it requires a definition of what a "philosophical question" is).

I guess I just think it's far more productive to discuss the philosophy inherent in films than to debate which are "philosophical." They're all potentially philosophical. Just because one filmmaker clearly knows who Nietzche is doesn't mean that he's doing a better job of articulating Nietzchean ideas than some other guy who stumbles across them while making his low-budget zombie movie.

Also - what traits classify a movie as "horror"? How is it different from "thriller"?

To me, a horror film is one created with the primary purpose of causing fear in the audience. From that starting point, we can classify subsets of the horror genre by examining the method by which fear is produced.

Well, when you put it that way...I concede the point. Impossible definitions do tend to put a damper on proper classification. Besides, it's more fun to argue the philosophy of horror rather than whether some horror is philosophical.

Aside: I still think Conan the Barbarian is the best exploration of Nietzchian ideas made in the last 100 years of cinema. I'm stone-cold sober.

I would say besides certain isms (nihilism, etc), real VS surreal philosophical debate is present in many horror flicks and tie directly to the psychological.

Also, I'd claim that any film that tests the belief system of the main characters is a "philosophical" horror film in a way. It doesn't have to be religion, but ethics/morales, world views, etc. HILLS HAVE EYES remake for example: How far should you go (and will you go) to protect your family?

Movies like THE DESCENT and THE MIST also come to mind.

Additionally, the films that push certain taboos or corrupt sacred ideals (see THE EXORCIST) spur on philosophical debates amongst the viewers, hence why we have so many great Iggy-started threads round here. Sometimes the film itself doesn't really explore or analyze the topic, but inspires the dialogue afterwards.

Doesn't any horror film do this by virtue of upsetting everyday lives and introducing an element of fear and danger? Even Friday the 13th movies challenge one's ethics, since we, as an audience, are forced to ask why we tend to cheer Jason's various murder sprees rather than root for the victims. Sure, some movies may be more overt about this than others, but "overt" doesn't necessarily mean better or more interesting.

I enjoyed the Hills Have Eyes remake, but how ethically challenging is it, really? How far should/will you go to protect your family against unsympathetic, inbred psychos? Well, pretty fucking far, I think. I don't see what would stop you. The War on Terror metaphor is pretty stacked when not just your terrorists, but their entire culture, is warped and inhuman.

Remember Dre's thread on Ferris Bueller (an example I find myself going back to again and again)? John Hughes probably did not intend Ferris Bueller to be an endorsement of 80s greed and a championing of the worst impulses of white, suburban, upper-middle-class America. This does not matter. Any movie can spur on philosophical debates among viewers after the fact. That's why the distinction between "philosophical" and "non-philosophical" movies in any genre is utterly meaningless.

Those Iggy-started threads are great because you can make a case for all kinds of movies when you start with a particular school of thought and elaborate from there - it's not about categorization, but application. "Philosophical" doesn't mean anything.

Fair enough.

You people are making me blush! Let me think about the points actually raised (not the least of which is the ferris Bueller stuff) and post something more substantial when I have the time. As always, DaveB adds exponentially to the discussion. His posts always require thought to respond to.

OK, I thought about it. I don't agree that you can stretch the point that all films present some philosophical viewpoints, to a greater or lesser degree, if you stretch the definition or strain the meaning of what the film presents you with.

I say this because to philosophize (or, to make sociological commentary) is a volitional act. One has to intentionally do so. In the Ferris Bueller example above, it's possible the 80's greed may be taken from the film by the viewer in interpreting what they're seeing (although I daresay the majority of us don't see it that way). But it certainly DOES matter that this isn't the mesage the filmmakers wanted to portray. Whatever the main philosophical/sociological thrust of a given film is, it's bound to come across better, more strongly, & more universally to the viewer than any secondary, gleaned thru interpretation, & probably unintentional reading such as this.

Perhaps a better way to look at Stormin's original question is to see what films presented a philosophical/sociological point WELL (and by that, not necessarily overtly). But I think he had in mind that it would still be an intentional presentation of the idea/commentary in question.

Just the other night I started to watch "The Toxic Avenger" on FEAR.net. I gave up on it because it was edited all to hell, but I digress. I suppose one could look at that film & say "A-HA! An environmental statement! They're coming out against toxic waste!" No, they're not. That was just a convenient plot device to get the "hero" to undergo his transformation into a violent, brutal, superstrong (but somehow still heroic) monster. Melvin's pathetic life was probably actually IMPROVED by the addition of toxic waste, as he came to be viewed as a hero by the town, and did great things he could never have hoped to accomplish pre waste. There's no doubt in my mind that Troma didn't have the abolition of toxic waste or bullying in mind when they made this film; they wanted to make an over the top, gory, tit-bedecked horror/comedy, which is exactly what they did. They were having too much fun to wax philosophical in any real sense.

Agreed. It makes sense that to truly "philosophize" in a film there must be some sort of calculation on the part of the filmmakers. But some discussion can still be had just by throwing out ideas about philosophical musings or social observations that, while maybe not deliberately incorporated into the film, could be derived from watching it.

And speaking of Toxic Avenger, me and my buddy (on an intoxicated whim) threw on Toxic Avenger IV the other night. It is, well, a sight to behold. Lloyd Kaufman is a madman.

This is the case with NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. Much is made of the lead being black, it's suggestion of news coverage of the war in Viet Nam and even counter-culture upheaval. Yet Romero said, and continues to this day and to his credit, to insist they were simply out to make a horror film. Any of the social implications(or rather inferences, I guess) people see may be there, but that they "crept in", as he put it. Something that was not on the minds of the filmmakers but rather in the environment that film was produced in.

This, to me, is tied explicitly to something I've always pushed concerning history and it's study. Like films, battlefield monuments and event memorials tend to say as much, if not more, about the time in which they were made as they do about their intended subject.

When I first saw DAWN OF THE DEAD I was nine. While my mother was less than thrilled, looking back I can wax grateful for her letting me get to see it in the theater. At the time, it was exactly what Romero has basically claimed it to be all these years, an over-the-top horror comedy. Sure, even at nine I could get the zombie/mall shopper comparison. But it was only on the thinnest of peach-skin levels. The gabbing in the film was merely filler until the next messy zombie scene. As I got older, the whole appreciation turned around. I began to find the gabbing scenes more pointed and see that the zombie scenes were much more carefully spaced in the film than previously thought(at nine, they were too few and too far between!). The "consumerism" angle is definately there and I think nowadays Romero tends to underplay just how heavy of a hammer he was using back then.

As opposed to the pure, for lack of a better word, environment in which Image Ten labored to produce NIGHT in, DAWN was made, and certainly written, with a more specific eye on the commentary. People still hold up NIGHT as an example of a horror film that seeks to transcend it's genre by "saying something more", though. Can it function as an indictment of race relations in the late 60s? Can it serve to underline the nightly 'horror films' people were watching on the news concerning body bags from southeast Asia? Sure it can. But if Romero is to be believed, and nothing suggests otherwise, these are elements that the audience brings with them. Duane Jones was the best actor they could get. Nothing in the screenplay requires Ben to be black. It's infinitely charming that such a compelling element was really dictated by chance.

The two that immediately came to my mind were the Mist for it's asking which is worse a score event or peoples fucked up reaction and compensations for it?

And funny Games for directly asking you what you're actually getting out of any of this.

But yeah I guess any movie that asks a question of the character or the audience is going to be in someway philosophical.

Um, the disciplines of sociology, psychology, were all once part of "philosophy", as were ALL the sciences.

I presume the original poster meant "Horror that is thoughtful and meditative, and has something to say about the way reality works in some fashion".

Any movie can spur philosophical debates, but whether a movie is itself "philosophical" is not meaningless, any more than characterizing a person as "philosophical" is meaningless. Does the person constantly explore aspects of reality, and the connections of cause and effect in reality, or does he just drink beer, watch porn and wrestling? It matters, and it means something.

Was Ferris Bueller's Day off championing 80's greed or wasn't it? Was it a deliberately intended message or one read into it by viewers? It matters. Any movie can spur philosophical debate, just as being hit by a car can spur philosophical debate, but being hit by a car is just an accident. But if a film deliberately philosophizes ITSELF about being hit by a car, that's notable, because you can see the philosophizing taking place within the film, guiding the audience. Those films are "philosophical", while the documentary recording of a car crash is NOT.

Okay, what I think of as "philosophical" or cerebral films.

Almost all of John Carpenter's films. It's a shame when some of them are marred by shoddy production values, but there's almost always some sort of ruminative thread running through them. Ferinstance, "Ghosts of Mars". Terrible acting, jarring pacing, but afterwards you realize a theme that's common to many of Carpenter's films ... man vs. man, vs. a Hostile Universe. And there's thought given to the characters ... the last two survivors are opposite poles ... Ice-T's character is anti-drug, male, black, criminal, while Nastassia Henstridge(sp?)'s character is a druggie, female, white cop. But what unites them is their common cause against ever encroaching Death.

Big Trouble in Little China had a rather hard to get joke about a Hero who is really a sidekick, which didn't quite work, but it was a cerebral thing as well.

"They Live" was a pretty blatant metaphor for the working class vs. the privileged elite, and was saying pretty bad things about the privileged elite.

"Starman" ... another meditation about wildly different people coming together in understanding (this time an alien and a grieving widow).

"The Thing", again, the theme of man vs. alien, vs. the environment, and ends with two men, one who must be an alien, waiting to freeze to death together, and their companionship in the face of death is ultimately more important than who is an alien, which seems to dismiss the horror and paranoia of the entire film as unimportant.

Other films...

I think "The Exorcist" is pretty philosophical, if you can throw theology into the Philosophical bucket (which you sure can do ... the ancient Greeks did).

"Drag Me to Hell" is pretty philosophical in it's examination of it's protagonist's psychology ... it's almost overwritten in it's fiddly detail regarding the state of Christine's "black heart". Think of the dinner scene, and the way Raimi focuses on Christine's face as she tries to calculate a way to justify herself to the mother-in-law. What is the "right" thing to do is certainly a subject of philosophy/theology.

"The Shining". Well, every frigging Kubrick film is philosophical and meditative. I've come to see the film as focusing on the character of Wendy as the central character, and the whole film as a condemnation of her blindness regarding the welfare of her kid in the face of Jack's insanity. The film focuses on his insanity and Wendy's blindness to it, until it reaches an epiphany of AWARENESS. Wendy is the true evolving character in the film, because she progresses in awareness, while Jack degrades and becomes trapped in the "maze" of his own mind. The whole movie is a meditation on why people stay in life-threatening and child-threatening marriages, and makes a judgement about it.

To contrast with Non-Philosophical Horror ... someone upthread mentioned Toxic Avenger ... Friday the 13th films would seem to be the same ... not a trace of the ruminative, cerebral, intellectual, "philosophical". Tits, gore, and perhaps a perfunctory attempt to justify it by aiming the gore against "sinners".

What the original poster seemed to be asking for were horror films that were unusually thoughtful, where one would identify the thoughtfulness as one of the major ingredients. That's what I'm focusing on in the above films.

From Merriam Webster Online

phi·los·o·phy Listen to the pronunciation of philosophy

Etymology:
Middle English philosophie, from Anglo-French, from Latin philosophia, from Greek, from philosophos philosopher

1 a (1): all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2): the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy> (3): the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1)archaic : physical science (2): ethics c: a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology2 a: pursuit of wisdom b: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c: an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs3 a: a system of philosophical concepts b: a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war>4 a: the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b: calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher

So, essentially, any horror movie that happens to have subtext?

So, essentially, any horror movie?

I clicked on this thread to read the last post, and re-read some others, including DaveB's as quoted above, and I had another thought on this subject. Many, if not most of my threads, deal with an overarching theme I refer to in my own mind (mainly) as "the philosophy of horror". But I'm not sure that's really an accurate categorization of the threads or the questions they ask. Maybe now I'M splitting hairs, but cinema (and literature) are forms of art. As such, I think most would agree that they're meant to make the viewer/reader FEEL things more than they are to make them THINK things. Philosophy is primarily, I believe, concerned with thought. To be sure, much cinema (or any other form of art for that matter) in any genre, is trying to "say something" & convey a philosophical message. But what I'm often concerned with is what the movies make us feel (i.e., scared), and how they go about doing that, & why what they do makes us feel that way. Are the debates/discussions as to the why's & wherefores of why specific horrific imagery or devices work to frighten us philosophical in nature? Perhaps. But I don't think the discussion of them being framed in such terms automatically elevates the film/work in question to a "philosophical" level just because it performs its fucntion as art - i.e., invoking emotions - well. I still think some measure of intent & forethought is necessary for that to happen.

I really hope Dave & DM8 see this. . . .

Nice stuff, Iggy, but I disagree. I think we elevate films all the time to the level of philosophy regardless of intent. Romero, as has been pointed out, wanted to make a good horror movie but time and critics have elevated his work beyond his original intent. I think the Dead series have become classics mainly due to this. Yes, they work very well as horror movies but they work even better as social commentary.

PS Nice to see NoMucketyAutismPosterBoy has been banned again.

Yeah, I see it this way, as well. I don't think the gulf between art that makes us feel vs. philosophy that makes us think is really all that great. Even ignoring the fact that some people probably get a bigger emotional payoff from reading Nietsche than they do from watching The Godfather, an artist that tries to create something "cerebral" may fail miserably, and, more importantly, another artist may have no intention beyond entertaining but end up being praised for his depth and insight.

Plus, even the art that's said to be highly philosophical may not be so from the point of view of the author. The Stranger, for instance, is considered a classic of existentialist literature, but Camus didn't even consider himself an existentialist. Just as Night of the Living Dead has a life beyond what Romero may have intended, so does The Stranger. In both cases, intentionality is overridden by popular opinion. And without intentionality to establish whether something is "philosophical," you're really just left with interpretation - which means that Friday the 13th may have as much to explore intellectually as Videodrome.

I'm surprised Jacob's Ladder hasn't been mentioned yet.

What philosophical idea does it espouse?

You've never read The Tao Of Aiello?