Would Horror Be Scarier Without the Morality?

reading the posts about the upcoming Blob remake got me to thinking (and we all know how dangerous that can be): Stephen King wrote about the strict sense of morality that has pervaded horror fiction almost from its beginning. The ones who meet gruesome fates in horror films or books usually deserve it somehow.

The clearest examples I can think of are the EC Comics of the 50's and things influenced by them (like the "Creepshow" movies). It's the guy who murders his wife, or drives his business partner to suicide, or bumps off his friend so he can sleep with his fiancee. . . these guys get eaten by the zombies. . . or the roaches. And Jason and Freddy always cut up the teens making out or smoking weed (parodied pretty effectively in "Scream").

Personally, I think the moral streak served 2 purposes: 1. to scare us straight, so to speak. Like morals in an Aesop fable, the endings of horror flicks were supposed to show us bad things happening to bad people, and thus encourage us to avoid bad behavior ourselves, and 2. It made the films tolerable for a larger segment of the viewing/reading public. They could reassure themselves that if they just didn't do what the guy who bought it in this film did, they'd be safe from whatever boogeymen there might be out there. Evil in the universe isn't random; it doesn't happen to those who don't deserve it.

But I think we're seeing more and more departures from the general trend toward rigid morality. Remember how mad you were the 1st time you saw the end of "Night of the Living Dead"? Duane didn't deserve that, after all he went through, how hard he tried to protect those people. He did nothing wrong or evil. Jack ketchum's "Off Season" has a similar ending. One of the more effective examples I can think of is "Candyman". What sin did Helen commit (other than a small bit of hubris, telling the pther prof she'd "bury him" with her thesis about the Candyman legend)? Did she 'deserve' what she got? More to the point, perhaps, was the story within that story of the retarded kid that got his genitals sliced off. Surely HE didn't do anything wrong to warrant such horrible punishment. THAT scene disturbed me genuinely for a few weeks, and I consider myself a pretty jaded horror buff. And of course, gage Creed didn't 'deserve' to get run down by a logging truck, and his folks didn't 'deserve' to have him come back as a murderous monster, either. And did tad Trenton 'deserve' to die of dehydration at the end of "Cujo" (the novel not the cop out film)? Did any of the kids that got killed in the 1st "Final Destination" movie 'deserve' to die?

Personally, I think presenting horror in a more random, even-the innocent-shall-suffer manner like this is MUCH more effective. If you lived in a big city at the time (or maybe even if you didn't), remember how scared and powerless we all felt immediately after 9/11? We were all thinking "Oh my God, that could happen here! To me! To my family!" We didn't know how to protect ourselves. No amount of good behavior could save you. Perhaps 9/11 is the reason we're seeing more of this; they're trying to tap into that fear and powerlessness. Or maybe (Heaven forbid!) SOME writers and filmmakers are just getting sick of churning out the same old rehashed crap (recent trend toward remakes notwithstanding), and ditching the moral code just to be DIFFERENT, finally. But at least for now, while it's still the exception rather than the rule, this amoral approach is so much more effectiove, IMO, at getting a good, deep fear reaction. You may have been able to safely laugh at the necking teens because you NEVER did anything like THAT, but if anyone'd vulnerable, not just the 'deserving' evil people, and there's no way to guard against it, it's more likely to hit you where you live.

No matter who you are.

That's my two cents. What say you all?

I wouls add that i the Lovecraft tales, there's USUALLY an element of foreshadowing (well meaning but cryptic neighbor dropping hints about the strange sounds coming from the inherited estate at night, long lost uncle's diary found by the protagonist detailing the evil rites he engaged in, etc.) that serve as a warning to the current character taht this is really stuff that he shuldn't be messing with, which they choose to ignore. The reason behind the rites is also usually to gain some kind of otherworldly, evil power over your fellow man. Both sins that ought, in Lovecraft's world, to be discouraged.

Not to be self promotional, but I put up a thread about violence vs. chidren a few months back, w/ some interesting commentary on that subject.

I'm not sure I see where you're coming from, so I apologize in advance if I get it wrong. The morality I'm talking about is the morality of the victims more than anything else. I took it as a given that the evil perpetrated even on the 'deserving' in the traditional, moralistic horror film is just that: evil. I'm not suggesting for a minute you remove THAT from a story. True, unflinching, take on all comers regardless of deserts EVIL is, and should be, truly terrifying. What I'm arguing is that if the deserts are removed from the equation, and any character in a film is vulnerable to the evil the villain commits on his victims, the randomness, the inability of a potential victim to guard against it, make it that much more horrifying. A sense of societal morality, that killing and torturing are wrong in and of themselves, is ABSOLUTELY necessary.

Actually, I haven't seen the original in a couple years, but if I remember correctly, weren't they smoking pot in the van? And we were led to believe some of them were. . . were. . . . you know - having. . . SEX. (off camera, of course) And NONE of them were married. There was, I would argue, at least a smidge of the morality tale there.

This should not be the case. I think it depends a lot on the tone in which it's done. If the film or book takes it seriously, it should come off that way. Again, not that I advocate harming children, but that can be a very effective, disturbing cinematic device, and I am continually amazed that, even in our anything-goes, gotta-top-what-the-last-guy-did horror cultue, we don't see more of it. Imagine a film doing this right. Especially if you're a parent, it'd affect you DEEPLY, and for a long time to come. Which, admittedly horrific subject matter aside, IS the point behind horror fiction, after all.

WELL said.

I don't think I entirely agree w/ that. I prefer a staight up horror film in most situations, but a little levity, when it's intended and not an unintended consequence, can be fun now and again. "Creepshow" is a good example. It's plenty horrifying, but had a few moments that made you smirk or giggle (Adrienne barbeau getting shot in the head being one), and I don't think that the "fun" King injected into the film made it any less good. Some, like the "Zombies Gone Wild" Al just reviewed, are obviously (judging by the title, anyway) played in part for laughs even more, and that can make them fun and interesting, if not horrifying. It's the really bad stuff, stuff that's intended to be serious but comes off funny just because it's bad that I usually don't enjoy. As to your overall point, though, that horror filmmakers (or writers, for that matter) shouldn't shy away from horrific things just because they're horrific, I agree totally. Your objective is to scare people. Shying away from imagery that will do that is a cop out.

In the case of religiously themed movies, I think you're right, but other than "The Exorcist" I can't really think of any (at least not any good ones) off the top of my head. I'm guessing that's why they didn't make it here. There just aren't many of them to jog our memories.

I certainly didn't mean to imply w/ this thread, however, that innocents suffering is an ENTIRELY new idea. NOTLD is a great example of unjust deserts form the 60's. So is, I agree, "The Exorcist", but from the 70's. I do think we're noticing it more as a trend now, however.

As for the Monster Hunter movies, most of them kind of slip over into action/adventure territory and away from "pure" horror, I think. And in a twisted sort of way, you almost can't say that he doesn't 'deserve' "special attention" from the monsters. He does put himself in harm's way voluntarily, in most instances. He kind of has to expect that as an occupational hazard, doesn't he?

Now that's a whole 'nother thread.

[Smacks forehead] Oh, yeah. How could I forget about "The Omen"?! See, this is what happens when you write posts furtively at your desk at work.

Anyway, as for "Psycho", at the very beginning we learn that the Janet Leigh/Ann Heche character is on the lam after stealing a bunch of money from her boss. There's her just deserts for you.

And as for life vs. death being enough to sustain a story, I just finished jack Ketchum's "Off Season" a little while ago, and that seemed to be all that was really about. Granted the cannibals were particularly twisted and sadistic (read: evil), but the protagonists that survive to the end of the book are just fighting for their lives. That's conflict. I posit the same would be true of an otherwise innocent potential victim vs. the slasher/monster. Even more so. The evil I'm looking to remove from the equation is, again, the evil of the VICTIM, not the antagonist.