MovieChat Forums > Horror > The New York Times defends horror films ...

The New York Times defends horror films against efforts to de-genre them


The Times, They Are A'Changin'? Dept. - Horror fans have long grown accustomed to critics, certain snooty viewers and even the filmmakers responsible for horror movies regularly insisting that top-shelf horror films aren't really horror films. Horror remains an outlaw genre, treated as synonymous with worthless junk. If a movie is good, goes the thinking, it _can't_ be a horror flick. It has to be something else, a dark fantasy (just "horror" by another name), an "adventure," a "thriller" (one of the most useless, formless, pointless catch-all designations ever conceived).

This offensively snobbish habit is born of and fueled by an appalling ignorance of and indifference toward cinematic history. The hallowed pages of the ever-so-high-and-mighty New York Times are the kind of places one expects to see this meme furthered. They're just about the last place in the world one would expect to not only see it refuted but the genre defended. Yet that's exactly what Jason Zinoman has just done:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/movies/get-out-the-shape-of-water-horror-oscars.html?mtrref=www.facebook.com

reply

I think times have changed. When I started watching horror movies in the middle/end of the '90s there were still lasting effects of the video nasty era, which was very much a thing in my country Sweden as well as Great Britain. But I remember some critics enjoying Scream. I also remember celebrated horror films, such as The Exorcist being referred to as thrillers. A long time has passed since then. People have watched horror films without becoming Jason Voorhees-copycats.

reply

the academy awards need to change this. midsommar should have won some academy awards this year. it's not really a horror movie but it feels like it. the only time a horror movie has ever been truly respected was the silence of the lambs which is a slasher movie. oh and misery.

reply