CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › Everywhere was creepier pre 1930
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Everywhere was creepier pre 1930

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
I can tell before I even get in to writing this that I'm going to ramble a lot and raise questions only to answer them my self, but hopefully there will be room for discussion afterwards.

I've been reading Dan Simmons' The Terror, I've also in the past 2 years or so tore through any H.P Lovecraft stuff I can find, and it sort of dawned on me that I find anything that goes on in horror infinity more creepy when it's set a Victorianish era

I'm not 100% sure what it is about that era that affects me so. Part of it is that while it doesn't make any logical sense, I can buy an unknown mysterious something more in a time when there were so many things as yet unknown to science.
Part of it is there's no need to make the characters trendy and distracting.

Even when you just picture a small town back then, it's scary, you can see low hanging mist everywhere, (where the fuck has all the mist gone in our modern world? has apple stolen it? it cant all be hanging around Frank Darabont) They lit their streets with fire and then not nearly enough to keep murky shadows at bay, the roads themselves are built for horses, again scary, you can see their breath and they're always acting twitchy, maybe they just have an itch they cant get to or maybe there's something right behind you!

All their day to day tools were potential weapons, trimming their lawns with scythes. sure you can kill someone with a lawnmower but that shit is funny, not scary. Is something unsettling going on in the back yard? you should call your neighbour Alex Bell on the phone, but you cant because he's down in the basement inventing it, so you have to send the youngest of your 8 kids on a fools errand a mile away in the monster dampening rain. (The other 7 don't make it either)

If you live though an attack the medical treatment is most likely going to be worse than the initial assault. Everywhere looks like England, the buildings are stoney and the sky is overcast on the rare occasions it's not night time.

Nobody will believe you, this is true of any horror setting, but these fuckers don't even believe in molecules or particles yet, so your struggle to convince them of the tentacled dead is mammoth. Another side of that is because of the lo level of exposure to anything remotely exotic, the Characters have zero frame of reference for what they see and are thusly much more likely to be bind blown.

Even nature was different back then, The woods: Haunted, The Hills: Cursed, The Animals: yet to be rednecked into submission, The weather: Cliche'd with brief periods supernatural vortexes in the late afternoon.

You have no way of collecting irrefutable evidence, even if you survive to the end of your story people will just say it was some rare form of tiger.

People working in aren't pimple faced teens out of high school, they're creepy old dudes with missing extremities (or if working in the hospitality sector, gills)

There's a tone and an overall unease you can get just by placing your story 150 years ago. There's a lot of hate for Sleepy hollow but the atmosphere achieved from the location is undeniable. I'm sure Growing up hearing about jack the Ripper played no small part in the horrification of the era.

I now look back upon my first sentence and see that I was right about my incoherent rambling, am I right about modern settings just not being able to compete with 150 years ago though? is horror doomed to get worse and worse as technology, and knowledge of how the world works drive mystery further and further away.

The only answer I've seen that storytellers have been able to is isolation, The thing or the shining could be told in almost any era with very little changed.

I'm going to shut up now.
post #2 of 23
I'm midway through The Terror right now. For me, it reads as if Dan Simmons really liked Master and Commander, but felt like it needed more monsters.

I don't usually find horror set in the 1800's more effective. Setting your horror film in 1820's Paris is certainly more estranging than setting a horror film in, say, present day Cleveland, but with horror, that estrangement can work against the story. Poltergeist, for example, is really effective at finding horror in the contemporary and mundane. Kairo, too. Had either of these been set in the 1800's, they might have been just as entertaining, but far less disturbing.
post #3 of 23
Thread Starter 
That is true, I guess what you'd call the more domestic types of horror work better the closer they hit to home.
post #4 of 23
There's something to be said for pre-cell-phone horror. The obligatory "THIS IS WHY CELL PHONES DON'T WORK IN THIS MOVIE" scene in every horror movie after 1998 is distracting. This is one reason why '80s horror works so well for me, which sorta ties into your theory about the Victorian era working better as a result of limited technology.
post #5 of 23
This is an interesting train of thought. I think, as you aluded to, horrid, there is a sense of everything being creepier one hundred years ago because of similarities and yet massive differences to our own period. I'm sure a really talented writer can easily write a compelling horror story in Pharaonic Egypt, but it's a huge stretch for us to be able to connect with that world--it's so alien. Something in Edwardian England, however, is alot closer to our own experience while still being mysterious. I think there's something to be said for that balance between mystery, and as Trevor said, the mundane. Especially for Lovecraft's brand of "weird fiction."

Still, in general, I think I find those older settings more compelling simply because of the mystery and uncertainty in everyday life. We live in a world now where we have instant communication, almost all of the planet is mapped and can be viewed from a handheld device, we can get effective medical treatment, etc--all the things already mentioned. Of course, we have new things to be uncertain about, and this sets the stage for some really compelling modern and futuristic horror--Cronenberg's "body horror," Alien, Solaris (not horror, but creepy, and easily could be horror), Event Horizon (if it weren't awful; seriously, way to ruin a great concept), etc. And even though it's lazy to just remove the characters from their technology, even that can be effective if it's done well.

That was a giant ramble, but I hope it makes sense.
post #6 of 23
I agree with Mushnick but I also think part of it is the isolation of the Victorian era. It's easy to isolate your characters away from the world. And easy to do it in a very creepy mansion, set of moors or just a spooky small town.

Part of it also might be our reaction to the lack of technology. We're all so married to our technology that to lose it or to see characters that have none is really scary for us. How would we cope without our ability to communicate with the rest of the world or without sat nav or even without cars? It's pretty damn scary. I think there's a good horror movie to be written about technophile investigator who goes back in time and is so completely useless without his or her technology that they become prey for a very simplistic serial killer.
post #7 of 23
Thread Starter 
One of the things I dug about that first batch of Japanese horror was the idea that you could be completely isolated amongst a billion people because none of those billion gives a shit about.

Also in terms of isolation back then that you don't really get anymore is the concept of isolated communities, that have manged to get all twisted and fucked up with inbreeding mixed with evil. I'm thinking Shadow over Innsmouth here. There are modern examples like Deliverance or southern comfort. Nowdays it seems like you'd have to actually go out of your way to stumble into a town like that where as back then you could believe you could stumble into such a place on the way between 2 major cities.

Even the idea of a community so tight it could harbor a secret without anyone spilling the beans seems far fetched in today's society.
post #8 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan S~ View Post
Part of it also might be our reaction to the lack of technology. We're all so married to our technology that to lose it or to see characters that have none is really scary for us. How would we cope without our ability to communicate with the rest of the world or without sat nav or even without cars? It's pretty damn scary. I think there's a good horror movie to be written about technophile investigator who goes back in time and is so completely useless without his or her technology that they become prey for a very simplistic serial killer.
I'm sure, though, that the Victorians would feel this way about a time comparably far back. "How could people have lived without telephones, trains, or streetlights?" a Victorian would think, and he'd wonder how he'd fare in such an era.

And I'm sure in 150 years a person will be horrified to think of our lack of technology, our isolation, and our ignorance on matter of biology and physics.

That said, I still share horrid's original sentiments. That stuff is just creepy. It's so easy to feel that the current state of science/culture/whatever is the finished form and that anything earlier must have been horrific in its lack.
post #9 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Kimbell View Post
I'm sure, though, that the Victorians would feel this way about a time comparably far back. "How could people have lived without telephones, trains, or streetlights?" a Victorian would think, and he'd wonder how he'd fare in such an era.

And I'm sure in 150 years a person will be horrified to think of our lack of technology, our isolation, and our ignorance on matter of biology and physics.

That said, I still share horrid's original sentiments. That stuff is just creepy. It's so easy to feel that the current state of science/culture/whatever is the finished form and that anything earlier must have been horrific in its lack.
Certainly and that's kind of my point. We get horrified at the lack of technology of a hundred years ago because we would have no idea how to get by without it. Our dependence on it would actually put us at a disadvantage.

In the same sense it's pretty easy to make the modern audience spooked by the old world because we can't quite understand how people lived like that. It adds a layer of creepy that a Victorian audience wouldn't understand.
post #10 of 23
Love the subject and love this period of horror (I also love this period for tales of sci-fi and stage magic).

I feel like in this time-period, myth and magic haven't been completely killed off yet by cold science. There was still alot of unknown out there. The KONG remake had to be set in the 30s. It was the last time there was anything really uncharted out there. This thread reminds me of a subject I always wanted to create a thread about. A subgenre of horror that I really dig (and related to all the Lovecraft mentions in here)...

Archeological Horror.

TEMPLE OF DOOM, HELLBOY, etc. I love the pulp adventure with blatant horror cross-genre elements. They go together so well.

In general: Evil lurking in ancient sunken cities, old temples, tombs. Long forgotten dieties, sleeping demons, cursed artifacts, monsters trapped from another bygone era just waiting for that foolish human to release them. Cults, vanished settlements, unexplored mountains/forests/caves, alchemy, idols. I like not knowing all the rules going in. That it requires actual discovery and research and bravery (moxy!) to delve into the mysteries. I like being shocked by the horror of other cultures and their myths/folklore that I haven't discovered or researched yet (one of the reasons I like foreign horror). I like horror stories to have a mythology behind them. A past.

Besides Lovecraft, Clive Barker excels at this (Hellraiser, Nightbreed, Lord of Illusions, yes even Rawhead Rex). His horror universes feel lived in and unique.

Yeah PHANTOMS was mostly crappy, but I dig the concept of a sleeping evil so ancient, it whiped out the dinosaurs long ago. And it's coming for us next.

EDIT: I adore the original Dracula and Frankenstein tales. On the cusp of scientific breakthroughs, but science was still a scary proposition at that point (and would be again when the atomic era came, and later genetics). It was almost like magic. Untapped power and potential. Would we weild it for evil, playing God and thusly damning ourselves (Frankenstein)? Or would we weild it for good, banishing superstition back into the shadows (Dracula)?
post #11 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 View Post
I feel like in this time-period, myth and magic haven't been completely killed off yet by cold science. There was still alot of unknown out there. The KONG remake had to be set in the 30s. It was the last time there was anything really uncharted out there. This thread reminds me of a subject I always wanted to create a thread about. A subgenre of horror that I really dig (and related to all the Lovecraft mentions in here)...

Archeological horror.

TEMPLE OF DOOM, HELLBOY, etc. I love the pulp adventure with blatant horror cross-genre elements. They go together so well.
I'm with you, DM. I'm kinda old fashioned in the horror I love and that pulpy stuff is right up my alley. It was the disappointing thing about the new version of the Mummy for me. It lacked the more horror aspect of the story. I liked the pulp adventure of it but miss the scares.
post #12 of 23
The Terror is good, but Simmons takes 19th century pseudohistorical pulp fiction to new heights with DROOD, his newer Dickensian tale of ghastly London murder. In some ways, it is a sequel to The Terror. It's the best such throwback shlock since Richard Laymon's SAVAGE. A similar guilty pleasure is SHADOW OF FRANKENSTEIN aka Frankenstein vs. Jack The Ripper.

Of course there is plenty of "real" 19th century horror, Poe, Bierce, Lovecraft, Chambers, etc. But for more obscure junk I love any Victorian Terror collections edited by HUGH LAMB. That dude knows how to turn up some musty old gems
post #13 of 23
For me the appeal of pre-1930 horror is that is purportedly takes place in a world with fixed, strong ideas of how the world worked. Newton reigned supreme in physics and Astronomy, Darwin was accepted, there was this strange mix of Materialism and stern Religious based morality.

And some of the touchstones of the Horror story are 1) the world is not rational and does not operate by straightforward laws 2) morality is a lie, or is false, or is subverted.

Also the Victorian Age is now noted for it's Hypocrisy. Women had zero rights, men preached what we call family values by day, but went whoring at night etc
post #14 of 23
I applaud this thread. Kudos, sir Horrid.

I think you touched on some of the reasons horror set in this era work (lack of technology, which fails to banish much of the darkness, both literally & figuratively), & the potential for isolation being greater than it is today. DM8 echoes these sentiments with his positing there was still a lot of "unknown" out there. Also true.

I'd like to throw in the following: part of the reason we find this setting creepy is that we're conditioned to. We EXPECT haunted houses to look like Victorian mansions, killers to walk fog shrouded streets like London's Whitechapel district, etc. because decades of films have led us to believe THIS is what's creepy. Nothing wrong with that; we have similar expectations of almost everything else, so why not what constitutes "scary"?

I think the reason we have been so conditioned is because the Edwardian & Victorian eras came at the tail end of the Romantic period in art & literature. I mean "Romantic" in the free, idealized emotional sense, not the sexual/amorous one. The Romantic period was a response to the era of the Enlightenment, in which, by and large, cold logic & reason reigned supreme in thought & philosophy. People eventually began to find it dry & lifeless, & sought a return to the adventurous, lusty emotions prevalent in the art & literature of the Renaissance. To illustarte what I mean, compare music from the 1700's with stuff Beethoven or his contemporaries were writing. The later stuff was louder, more bass driven, riddled with crescendos, etc. It had a much more raw, emotional feel than much of the Enlightenment era music, which was kind of orderly and symmetrical. And compare stuff like the philosophical writings of Descartes or Diderot with even the simplest letters written by Civil War soldiers to their families. Heroic imagery & flowery language abound in the latter, compared to the dry, didactic rationality of the former.

In this climate, the ghost story took root in a big way, & became widely popular for the first time, I believe, thanks to works by authors like M.R. James & his contemporaries. They were very popular in Britain, for whom the eras above were named, & thus many stories that went on to become classics were set there. So that historic backdrop came to be associated with scary stories, particularly since much of horrific (as I'd argue, most other forms, too) cinema was adapted from written works. Film being a new media, there hadn't developed a cottage industry for sprcifically writing screenplays, so adaptations of prior written works was the most tapped form of source material. Thus, archetypes were formed in our collective consciousness.

The fact that some of these writers developed devoted followings (Lovecraft & Conan Doyle probably being the best still popular horror examples) helped cement these images & ideas even further.
post #15 of 23
To add to Iggy's post the Victorian era also saw the advent of photography and the almost immediate birth of photo manipulation which set up the template for how ghosts 'should' look. Ghosts have that hazy, transluscent look because the first 'records' of them employed this style immensely. The Victorian era was an era of technology and the power of man and because of this, and because of Queen Victoria's own fondness for the spiritual world following the death of her husband, there were real efforts made in trying to face down spiritualism, to try and quantify and examine the occult.
post #16 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfMC View Post
Of course there is plenty of "real" 19th century horror, Poe, Bierce, Lovecraft, Chambers, etc.
Why are people in this thread citing Lovecraft as an example of Victorian era horror? The guy was born in 1890 and didn't really get cracking as an author until the '20s or so. That's well after the Victorian era ended. Is it because his stories--often dealing with quaint New England towns--has many of the trappings of that particular time period?
post #17 of 23
Thread Starter 
Just speaking for myself I used the terms pre 1930, and Victorianish specifically so H.P could be included.
post #18 of 23
That's kind of what I was thinking, too.
post #19 of 23
Yeah I realize that HPL was 20th century but he fits with Victorian IMO. He is kind of the bridge into modern gore, bringing industrialized mahem into victorian ghostliness.

G. del toro says he is going to direct a movie of DROOD http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/hero...g-started.html
post #20 of 23

Revisiting the flawed (but dripping with atmosphere) THE WOLFMAN remake (and heck, Gilliam's BROS GRIMM) recently. Soooo glad they kept it period.

 

Saw one of the 3 supernatural/medieval flicks (SOLOMON KANE, THE BLACK DEATH, and SEASON OF THE WITCH) that came out recently. Looking forward to viewing the others.  Love the time period (granted, Pre-Victorian, but the tropes mentioned in Horrid's initial post still kinda apply) and the imagery/costume of the Plague Doctor, which is utilized in all 3 flicks:

 

plague11.jpg

 

 

 

 

More about the plague doctor and the odd beliefs at the time. "Being a plague doctor was unpleasant, dangerous, and difficult. Their chances of survival in times of a plague epidemic were slim." Someone needs to make a movie about that Dirty Job.

post #21 of 23

FYI: The audio book version of this is pretty darn-worth a look, if you can get a hold of it:
http://www.amazon.com/Horror-Stories-Robert-Howard/dp/0345490207
http://www.amazon.com/The-Horror-Stories-Robert-Howard/dp/B003E783H8 ($14.95 with your Audible.com Gold membership)

Howard loves his werewolves, drowned corpses, underground de-evolved "goblins", voodoo, curses, etc.



http://christhorndycroft.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/the-horror-stories-of-robert-e-howard/

post #22 of 23

Interesting to contrast the creepyness you could get in a medieval setting with the one operating in the Victorian era; they contrast sharply, in that the medieval era embraces supersitition, the supernatural, the subconcious (though they wouldn't know to call it that), while Victorians were all about SCIENCE, reason, order. You'd have a much easier time convincing someone that you did indeed see a nameless horror during the Middle Ages; on the other hand, you'd also run a higher risk of being burned alive for it.

post #23 of 23
Lets not forget Jack the Ripper had a big hand in making the Victorian era creepy as shit. He stepped out of the shadows massacred women and disappeared again. He made the police look incompetent. Not only where the streets not safe, he even broke into someone's house to ultra massacre them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Creature Corner Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › Everywhere was creepier pre 1930