![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timepiececlockMy roommate K and I just got into a long argument about what genre the movie Signs falls into, and how one defines a "horror" movie. I said a horror movie has to scare you and has to have conventional horror things like monsters or excessive gore. She said it has to follow a specific "horror movie" plot structure (which in her opinion is epitomized by Friday the 13th-- I think you have to also consider older horror films like The Birds when you're talking about traditional horror film structure.)
I said that's not the only way to judge a horror film, because by her definition of plot structure, Signs is a horror movie: as it follows a small group of isolated people being terrorized by deadly monsters, and their area of safety gets smaller and smaller, and there's crazy animals, and people are dying around them, and there's creepy children, and they have to survive the night and battle the monsters. It also makes you jump and shriek with fright. She said it's a science fiction movie-- I said it may have aliens, but the aliens were so off-screen they could have been replaced by any other farm-terrorizing monster and the plot would be exactly the same. They don't interact with the threat in any kind of science fiction way-- the way they defeat the aliens is even more reminiscent of horror than of science fiction: they find it's magical weakness, in this case liquid H20, and use it to fight the monsters off. From the family's point of view, the fact that they're aliens and not Boogiemen is incidental, academic to their situation. Signs doesn't follow the plot structure of a science fiction film, it follows the plot structure of a horror movie. But-- it's about aliens, not monsters. And main characters don't die along the way-- only the dog dies (although the animal going crazy is a very typical horror movie thing), and also people off-screen that you can't see, only hear about on their television and radio. So what is it? She says it's a thriller--- but does it follow the plot structure of a thriller, as by her argument that plot structure defines genre?
No. It has the plot structure of a horror movie. Silence of the Lambs, which also came up in discussion, has the plot structure of a thriller, but it has enough gore and is frightening enough to be called a slasher horror movie.
There's also the basic question: Do you go to get scared? I go to an M. Night Shayamalan movie expecting to get scared. Not every scene, but I expect it to be creepy or unsettling or to make me jump at least once. So what does that mean?
My whole point in this argument was that you can't say archetypal plot structure is the only way to define a film's genre. Movies can have the elements of a horror film but the plot structure of a thriller-- like War of the Worlds (recent), or vice versa, as with Signs. You have to look at the elements of the story and characters as well as the plot structure to categorize a film in one particular genre or another.
Blade Trinity was fun, though. Certainly re-watchable, whereas in the last five years I've had no desire at all to see Blade a second time.
Although, the ending of B:Trinity left me with a big WTF?. I watched the extended/unrated edition, and I guess they changed the last scene from the theatrical edition, but it didn't make any sense and even after talking to my roommate about it (she saw the theatrical version), she didn't know what to make of it either.
I said that's not the only way to judge a horror film, because by her definition of plot structure, Signs is a horror movie: as it follows a small group of isolated people being terrorized by deadly monsters, and their area of safety gets smaller and smaller, and there's crazy animals, and people are dying around them, and there's creepy children, and they have to survive the night and battle the monsters. It also makes you jump and shriek with fright. She said it's a science fiction movie-- I said it may have aliens, but the aliens were so off-screen they could have been replaced by any other farm-terrorizing monster and the plot would be exactly the same. They don't interact with the threat in any kind of science fiction way-- the way they defeat the aliens is even more reminiscent of horror than of science fiction: they find it's magical weakness, in this case liquid H20, and use it to fight the monsters off. From the family's point of view, the fact that they're aliens and not Boogiemen is incidental, academic to their situation. Signs doesn't follow the plot structure of a science fiction film, it follows the plot structure of a horror movie. But-- it's about aliens, not monsters. And main characters don't die along the way-- only the dog dies (although the animal going crazy is a very typical horror movie thing), and also people off-screen that you can't see, only hear about on their television and radio. So what is it? She says it's a thriller--- but does it follow the plot structure of a thriller, as by her argument that plot structure defines genre?
No. It has the plot structure of a horror movie. Silence of the Lambs, which also came up in discussion, has the plot structure of a thriller, but it has enough gore and is frightening enough to be called a slasher horror movie.
There's also the basic question: Do you go to get scared? I go to an M. Night Shayamalan movie expecting to get scared. Not every scene, but I expect it to be creepy or unsettling or to make me jump at least once. So what does that mean?
My whole point in this argument was that you can't say archetypal plot structure is the only way to define a film's genre. Movies can have the elements of a horror film but the plot structure of a thriller-- like War of the Worlds (recent), or vice versa, as with Signs. You have to look at the elements of the story and characters as well as the plot structure to categorize a film in one particular genre or another.
Blade Trinity was fun, though. Certainly re-watchable, whereas in the last five years I've had no desire at all to see Blade a second time.
Although, the ending of B:Trinity left me with a big WTF?. I watched the extended/unrated edition, and I guess they changed the last scene from the theatrical edition, but it didn't make any sense and even after talking to my roommate about it (she saw the theatrical version), she didn't know what to make of it either.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 07:33 am (UTC)also, the extra special edition? Has way more Dominic Purcell screwing Parker Posey.
why yes i have seen it more than once...
no subject
Date: 2006-01-31 10:19 am (UTC)::cracks up:: Dude, I'm totally gonna tell my roommate that. She'll crack up too.
Did you see Amittyville Horror? It wasn't a terribly good movie, but Oh. My. God. ABDOMEN. I was watching it with my roommates and about halfway through the movie (after quite a bit of abdomen already) we discussed the fact that most horror movies have hot girls in skimpy clothing, whereas this movie appeared to be nothing but two hours of Ryan Reynolds Half Naked Gratuitous Fan Service.
He's hysterical on the special features, too.
I haven't watched the second DVD yet. But you've just convinced me too.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-01 04:28 am (UTC)Not saying you're dumb, just wanting clarification so I can try to explain, if possible. I've seen all three Blade movies more than once - the first and third more than the second. Because, ho shit, Stephen Dorff as Deacon Frost is, like, the hottest vampire ever. And, yesh, Ryan Reynolds makes the third worthwhile.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-02 01:39 am (UTC)Every sci-fi movie I can think of has the structure of something else. Generally adventure or horror or action.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-02 01:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-02 01:54 am (UTC)Anyway, I was thinking about it after the fact, and I think I figured it out: Wesley Snipes on the morgue table at the end was Dracula, wasn't he?
My roommate said that in the theatrical version Drake took Blade's place at the table and died as his "gift". But the long version didn't make that clear... we didn't know what happened to their bodies. All we saw was Blade waking up on the table, flashing his eyes, and kicking ass. And then we saw him riding off into the night on his motorcycle with a monologue from RR about Blade waiting till he's needed again. I thought maybe Drake had gifted Blade with his supervamp powers....?
But upon thinking about it, I guess that wasn't Blade at all, and we're too assume Dracula did not die after all and is still wandering around. Even taking that into account, it doesn't really make that much sense.
IF you could explain it to me, I'd be very grateful. It's like there's some intuitive sequence of events and logic here that went completely over my head.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-05 05:15 am (UTC)