Why do we enjoy horror films?

The Star Garden

HTML Comment Box is loading comments...

There are exceptions to this theory, such as slasher and modern 'torture porn' films, but Carroll argued that these are mainly used as tests of endurance and this explains why adolescent boys are the most persistent group to watch this type of film. It could also be the case that any curiosity teenage boys possess may be tainted with sex. Another problem with Carroll's theory is that it doesn't explain why we don't just watch fantasy films so that we do not have to witness the unpleasant side effects of horror. Yet people may prefer horror because it forces them to think not just of the impossible, but of the consequences that can arise if we do become too dependent on social norms.

Carroll argued that we do not respond with disgust when we see the heroes of fantasy, comic books or cartoons because we look to the characters within the art-horror to see how we should respond. Carroll gives the example of the film 'The Fly', we feel sympathy when Veronica Quaife, the 'Fly's' girlfriend, does. In fantasy, nice monsters are treated as being normal within an impossible world. This idea crosses over to non narrative art-horror such as paintings, we do not fear a painting of a monster unless it is depicted in a way that implies we should be afraid. Carroll does not explain why that must be the case, however, and points out that if people were depicted as wanting to be attacked or devoured then this would be even more disturbing.

In 1995, British philosopher Berys Gaut criticised Carroll's theory and suggested an integrationist approach (Gaut, pp.284-289). Gaut argued that people complain when a horror film is not frightening enough and this should be taken to literally mean that people enjoy being frightened. Carroll argued that they actually mean they did not find the monster abnormal enough to provoke their curiosity and the one-to-one correspondence between curiosity and disgust makes it easy for this mistake to happen. Gaut stated that the only reason we would not take this claim at face value is if there is indeed a paradox in enjoying the fear invoked by fictitious horror. Gaut argued that this is not the case because emotions are value judgments, not just feelings, if we judge the monster as unpleasant, but are not motivated to avoid it, then we can enjoy it. Just as we would not want to be close to a wild tiger but can enjoy watching one in a zoo.

Gaut criticised Carroll's theory for not accounting for human-monsters. It could be argued, however, that we also watch these films out of a curiosity, in this case it is about the dark side of human nature. Gaut also argued that horror films are so formulaic that it is hard to believe people would put up with the disgust they feel in able to experience the same curiosity over and over again. Carroll's responded by arguing that people will find new types of narrative worth investigating in every film as they will not be identical and that different monsters can be presented differently over time (Carroll, 1995).

British philosopher Rosemary Jackson suggested that monsters represent unspoken possibilities that exist but are not usually thought of because we can only think within the confines of our own society (Jackson, pp.4). Horror may show us how society can be different and have a political message. An obvious example of this is the anti-communist horror films made in America, or the claim that horror is anti-feminist because it often features sexually active women being killed.

Another integrationist argument for why we enjoy horror is attributed to Aristotle's catharsis, the idea that we will feel relief having released, and therefore come to a deeper understanding of, our emotions. This theory is echoed with Freud's psychoanalysis. The problem with this approach is that we do seem to enjoy the whole of the film, not just the feeling of having watched it. It is also true that if we are very afraid, then watching a horror film will not make us feel better.

In the Freudian approach, it is not just fear that can be expressed, psychoanalysts tend to think that the release needed is a release of sexual emotions that are repressed in our society, for example ideas of incest or rape. They argue that we do not want to admit to ourselves that we can enjoy these thoughts and so it is only within the context of horror that we can allow ourselves the freedom to emotionally respond, we can tell ourselves that we are really disgusted. This theory works well for monsters like vampires or Freddy Kruger but not so well for creatures such as King Kong. American psychiatrist John Mack argued that it is not just sexual ideas but any primitive infantile fear that can be released in horror, such as the idea of being consumed by your parents (Mack, 1989).

References

Carroll, N., 1987, 'The Nature of Horror', The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol.46, pp.51-59

Carroll, N., 1990, 'The Philosophy of Horror or Paradoxes of the Heart', Routledge, New York

Carroll, N., 1995, 'Enjoying Horror fictions: A reply to Gaut', The British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.35, pp.67-72

Gaut, B., 1995, 'The Enjoyment of Horror: A response to Carroll', The British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol.35

Jackson, R., 1981, 'Fantasy: the literature of subversion', Routledge, New York

Mack, J.E., 1989, 'Nightmares & human conflict', Columbia University Press, Columbia

Why do we enjoy horror films? (1900s)

Philosophers have long wondered why people seek out negative emotions for entertainment, this question first applied to Greek tragedies but it can be extended to the modern medium of horror films and novels. Most people do not search for real forms of horror in their lives, so why is it that fictional horror, even when accompanied by seemingly real fear and disgust, is pleasurable? There are two main branches of explanation, integrationist and co-existentialist. The integrationist theory states that the pleasure we get from horror films comes directly from the fear and disgust we experience. The co-existentialist theory claims the pleasure is not directly related to the negative feelings, we enjoy horror because the positive feelings outweigh the negative ones.

In 1987, American philosopher Noel Carroll presented a co-existentialist theory, where it is curiosity that drives us to horror (Carroll, 1987 and Carroll, 1990). More specifically, it is a curiosity about what we believe to be naturally, rather than logically, impossible. We find pleasure in curiosity, but to gain this feeling we need to be presented with an impossible being to be curious about. In order to seem impossible to us it must cross the boundaries we have used to classify nature. It could, for example, possess the qualities of more than one type of animal, be larger than normal, be both living and dead, or be composed of a body which is either not complete, or possess more than we would expect. These creatures will inspire awe and fascination amongst us but due to their nature they will also disgust us.