MovieChat Forums > Eden Lake (2008) Discussion > How can anyone call this 'Horror'?

How can anyone call this 'Horror'?

posted 13 years ago by midnight_muse
94 replies | jump to latest

This is a crime thriller. But I see it classified as Horror over and over on the IMDb.com boards. [Edited to add: Thanks for your comments. That was a poor word choice on my part; I should have said 'violent thriller' instead. What I meant was a thriller where violent crimes are committed, not a police investigation film of course, since there are no police in Eden Lake.]

I really wish some god or other would step down from Olympus and define Horror for good and all. ;) [<------I think some of you missed the winky face...?]

I define 'horror' not merely by violent or horrifying content, but by the presence of the paranormal, the supernatural, the uncanny. [Edited to add: The latter is the broadest concept;, it need not involve the supernatural per se, but the eerie/unknown/inexplicable].

Thus, Eden Lake, Inside, Funny Games, Ils, serial killer films, etc. are NOT Horror films. But The Descent is. And Picnic at Hanging Rock. And Spoorloos... because although *technically* a thriller, there is enough metaphysical and metaphorical foreshadowing to be considered precognitive; therefore paranormal; therefore it's horror. That's how I'd classify them, anyway.

Just wondering about the thoughts of thoughtful fans who may read this board. [Edited to add: and thanks for the great discussions so far!]

________________________________________

I don't come from hell. I came from the forest.

[–] AaronDarby 13 years ago

I don't think having a set definition is a good idea, the great thing about film is it can mean different things to different people. As you can see IMDB has it listed as crime/drama/thriller, but in my eyes it still shares a lot of Horror traits. Horror to me is open to being anything that plays with human's primal feelings of fear, and this film definitely does so.

4 phalanges and a sibling

[–] midnight_muse 13 years ago

I was thinking further about definitions of Horror, and how for many folks, fear is the defining factor. But I don't use fear alone to characterize horror films, because some of my favorite horror films are not at all frightening, but they deal with the uncanny and the supernatural.

Two examples of this are Valerie and Her Week of Wonders (1970) and The Company of Wolves (1984), which involve dream states, layers of eerie symbolism, themes of mystery and predation... not to mention vampires, werewolves, and miscellaneous dark European folklore. I think they're both unquestionably horror films... yet they're not scary. (Of course, what's scary is very subjective, too.)

At any rate, I think examples like these are what inspired me to come up with my personal designation of horror, which is, films involving the uncanny/supernatural/darkly mythic. But it's true, it's just a personal definition.

________________________________________

I don't come from hell. I came from the forest.

[–] The_White_Hotel 13 years ago

Don't agree with you at all, midnight. Amongst my favourite horror films are The Wicker Man, Psycho, Silence of the Lambs and this, none of which have supernatural elements.

"Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-made"

[–] William_Henry_Pratt 8 years ago

None of them are horror films. They are classified as Suspense.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 7 years ago

The Company of Wolves is not a horror film at all. It is a fantasy, and an allegory; ergo, it is what is often called a fairy tale. Grimm's Fairy Tales, on the other hand, is a collection of horror stories. Little Red Riding Hood is a werewolf story. The Company of Wolves is a coming of (sexual) age story. Death and devourement versus ecstasty and release. I'll take the latter, thank you very much. I am connoisseur of werewolf movies, e. g., Dog Soldiers, (though this is stretching it a bit to her hound) Dark Angel: The Ascent, and they are not all horror. The Wolf can have a heart, you know.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] moundshroud 13 years ago

In my opinion, Horror is defined by the presence of the paranormal, the supernatural, or the uncanny. Not merely by the violent or upsetting.

What you're describing is supernatural horror, which is a very significant subgenre of horror, but not the entirety of the genre. The other subgenre is psychological horror, where the source of the horror is human, not supernatural.

The horror genre is defined by the intent of the work to invoke horror, fear, or disgust. Psychological horror often overlaps the thriller genre, but the intent to shock or frighten in the audience is more pronounced. Thrillers often deal with murders or other criminal plots, but their primary intent is not to frighten the audience (although some scenes put the protagonist and other characters in peril). The cutoff between psychological horror and thriller is subjective, but some films are clearly in horror territory, with Hitchcock's Psycho and The Silence of the Lambs being the classic examples.

And before you call TSotL a thriller, remember the old addage: Any horror film with a chance of an Academy Award nomination will always get re-branded as a thriller, because respectable Academy voters can't possibly vote for a horror movie.

[–] terryperring104 13 years ago

*SPOILER ALERT*

I think that any film with paranormal activities and the supernatural can be defined as fantasy and/or sci-fi.
In Eden lake, truly HORRIFYING things happen to a nice young couple. I mean, being tied up next to a dead partner who is set alight, while you have been injured, are in great pain while waiting for the flames to lick your way; that situation is surely, unimaginably awful. And, there is another incident later on in the movie that no-one would like to be in. If thats not HORROR what the heck is?!

[–] dpetty01 13 years ago

It's one of the most horrifying movies I have ever seen. Crime thriller? There's no police involvement, no investigation, nothing to do with the justice system at all. It's about survival against vicious and evil elements. It's definitely a horror movie.

[–] OceanPagan 12 years ago

I completely agree! I found it extremely intense and gripping. Most of what are referred to in LaLa Land as "horror films" seem to have to involve monsters or the supernatural and I find it difficult to temporarily suspend reality and lose myself in any film in which the perpetrators of evil are not concrete beings; i.e., evil/mentally deranged humans. As in real life I have no fear of anything supernatural but I greatly fear humans with weapons who may seriously intend to kill me - a stranger who has never done them any harm - with implements that would be painful and inescapable. Therefore my all-time favorite scary movie is Klute, which is IMHO a classic film masterpiece at inducing dread/fear in the viewer at the prospect of what might happen next to the heroine. The suspense in Klute is just remarkable. Who wouldn't be terrified if they knew they were being stalked by a killer and then heard footsteps on their roof at night? *shiver*

Darlin', don't ever take a Southern woman for granted!

[–] diegoavilarodriguez 13 years ago

i agree with you in some aspect it is a thriller, but hell, like most ill call it a horror/thriller, there have been only a few number of horror films that actually made me feel scared (not counting what i saw as a kid) or even horrifyed, Saw (1-7) and Hostel 1-2 are not among them, not even close. this film is filled with all the emotions horror films are intended to provided, hoplessness, fear, i even began to feel scared at the teenagers living across my street, the film was disturbing in many aspects and there was no need for explicit deaths or overwhelming gore, it really hits you were it were it was meant to.

[–] rayraysworld 13 years ago

So you don't think this is a horror, but Picnic At Hanging Rock is in your opinion. How can we take your post seriously?

[–] midnight_muse 13 years ago

You replied to diegoavilarodriguez's post. Did you mean to reply to me? I don't want to answer for him.

________________________________________

I don't come from hell. I came from the forest.

[–] thesoulmuncher 13 years ago

Completely agree. There's a difference between horror and just horrific. I hate torture porn horror being branded as 'horror' and this seems to be along similar lines.
Horror films are supposed to scare you not make you feel sick.

[–] midnight_muse 13 years ago

Right - apparently, some folks define 'horror' as anything with horrible/horrific/horrifying subject matter. But then war films would be part of the horror genre too.

That's why I'm wondering about exactly what goes into making something a horror film. It seems to me films can't be defined as horror only because they are horrific and fear-inducing; that why I theorized about the inclusion of the uncanny/supernatural, or at least a hint thereof, as a defining characteristic. Or it could be some other more subtle quality I haven't considered yet. That's why I'm interested in hearing what others think.

________________________________________

I don't come from hell. I came from the forest.

[–] mogonk 13 years ago

I think you miss the point. It's not whether the subject matter is horrifying. It's whether the effect of the film is to horrify. Saving Private Ryan features horrifying material, but the intent of the film as a whole is hardly to horrify the viewer, for example.

The difference between a horror film with no supernatural elements and a thriller exists entirely in the effect the film has, and the effect it seems to be intended to have. 28 Days Later features no supernatural elements. Is it not a horror film? Alien could be called a science fiction film, but it is undeniably a horror film, and it features no supernatural elements. Silence of the Lambs could be called a thriller, but it seems clearly designed to frighten you.

Shaun of the Dead, by the same standard, is NOT a horror film. It's a comedy, because while it features supernatural elements commonly associated with horror, the effect is to inspire laughter, not fear.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rayraysworld 13 years ago

to the op midnight muse you wrote this for me

"You replied to diegoavilarodriguez's post. Did you mean to reply to me? I don't want to answer for him. "

why be so pompous? i was following on the thread and that is how this works. i will not post on this thread again. you never even replied to my point. you just tried to be a smart alec with your childish retort.

this guy is clearly on the wind up. stop feeding the troll

[–] midnight_muse 13 years ago

Rayraysworld, if you put your message board thread settings on 'nest,' it should clarify things for you.

What happened was that you clicked on the reply button belonging to diegoavilarodriguez's post, yet seemed to be speaking to me, so I wanted to confirm that it was me you were asking before answering. I'm sorry you thought this meant I was pompous or a troll. (You just did it again, by the way - you hit reply on mogonk's post, not mine, so I didn't get my usual email notification of a reply. I only realized you'd written me again when I happened to glance back at this board today.)

To answer your question, well, I suppose I'd prefer to be taken seriously, yes. :) I'm just thinking aloud here about what makes something a horror film to me, with an interest in hearing the opinions of others, differing or not.

FYI, I'm very far from the only person to believe Picnic At Hanging Rock falls within the horror genre (which is admittedly broad and varied). Several of the most passionate and erudite contributors to the Horror boards feel the same, not to mention film scholars, etc. And the three genres listed for PAHR on IMDb itself are Drama/Horror/Mystery, which seems to indicate a fairly widespread opinion in harmony with my own.

________________________________________

I don't come from hell. I came from the forest.

[–] rayraysworld 13 years ago

I simply replied to the last message on the thread as I have again done this time. That is the way this normally works so get with it. And stop patronising me with your 'nest' pointers please. Thank you. I can still put messages relating to earlier messages if I so wish but I always follow on from the last message so it helps the chronological flow. I did start with 'to the op' so you may have sussed it out. Excuse me if you never got your email notification lol. And you still sound incredibly pompous. And Picnic At Hanging Rock should never ever ever like ever ever be classed as a horror or anything near it.

You appear to have a 'holier than thou' attitude. I said I was not going to re-visit this thread but after seeing your arrogance come shining through on your last couple of messages, I was compelled to retort.

Back to the real crux of the thread though. Eden Lake has enough horror elements for many people to class it as horror. Wolf Creek is also possibly not a horror or Hostel if we are going by your judgement. But they give people chills or feelings of dread and have gore and violence and suspense so horror can be an apt genre for these afore-mentioned films.

You make it sound as if all horrors should have monsters in but then you say 'Picnic' is a horror. Come on.....please! Picnic has a scene where the girls are seen playing and it is a ghostly image of them and is quite a haunting scene. But it is not scary, there is no horror element and the rest of the film is like a crime investigation movie with again no elements of horror.

[–] zacattack9114 13 years ago

Rayraysworld, grow up. They were talking nicely and clearly you were being arrogant. Just because someone has a different opinion to you doesn't mean that they are arrogant. Just answer the damn question instead of being a jerk. You are the typical definition of a troll. At least everyone else on this thread answered the damn question. In my response to the question, I believe it is up to the person. Horror in my opinion is what provokes the human response of fear and brings to question elements of reality which doesn't just involve the supernatural but also that of human psychology aka the human condition, deep down a hidden form of fear or it could be an open form. Horror doesn't neccessarily mean people have to die and in my opinion there are many films like that which are a mix of gore and drama and should be classified as such and are to make people empathise with the protagonist, but they shouldn't always be considered as horror. Horror on the other hand is something that triggers that reaction which can make people visualise their fears and forces them to confront it. Even though it is a poem, the raven sums up that fear. A man who loses his sanity at the end rather than actually passing away. Horror in a way is supposed to have an element where the bounds of logic do not have to apply. Rayraysworld, supernatural doesn't mean monsters have to be in it. Supernatural can mean that it is beyond ones understanding. It applies elements that are beyond reasoning and it leaves many question open rather than answer them. In that sense, the op brings a valid point in that the supernatural is in many ways what makes a horror. A genuine horror will push us past our limitations where even the creator cannot even truly understand it. They make us feel naked, alone and that nothing can save us from that fear wherever it may come from. Horror can be summed up as this. To provoke a response of one's internal and external fears of something that they cannot explain. This doesn't mean that it incorporates unrealistic elements such as monsters or that stuff. What it does mean is that it is beyond our reasoning. Remember that before you make a definition on horror as well as the supernatural.

[–] rayraysworld 13 years ago

Lol.......I made no definitions based on my own opinions. I commented on others. You do sound rather pompous. Well written though.

[–] midnight_muse 13 years ago

Nicely said... I like the idea of horror being a place where the bounds of logic do not have to apply. This could apply to frightening and inexplicable human behavior (Eden Lake, Silence of the Lambs) as well as to the supernatural. You've given me more to think about. Thank you!

________________________________________

I don't come from hell. I came from the forest.

[–] Symarip 12 years ago

Oh, wow! You reply to the person YOU want to talk to, THAT is how it normally *beep* works. Replying to a random person and then expecting the OP to answer it is how ignorant douchebags work.
The worst thing is that the OP actually did respond to you, twice, and you're still acting like an *beep* Unbelievable.

I'm the grim reaper, Lardass, and you're my next customer.

[–] VivienCastro 9 years ago

>Shaun of the Dead, by the same standard, is NOT a horror film. It's a comedy, because while it features supernatural elements commonly associated with horror, the effect is to inspire laughter, not fear.

What do you think about movies like Scream, Cabin in the Woods, or Tucker and Dale vs Evil that are obviously meta movies about the horror genre, but definitely comedies for horror fans (with Scream still having a bit of a thriller in it, and Tucker and Dale being pure comedy.) I constantly argue with people who call these horrors exactly because they don't inspire fear.

I think you just gave a good definition.

[–] robbevl-1 8 years ago

Right - apparently, some folks define 'horror' as anything with horrible/horrific/horrifying subject matter. But then war films would be part of the horror genre too.

Agreed. Horror has monsters. Like Alien. Like Army of Darkness, even though the latter is not scary / terrifying / horrific.

Eden Lake would be some kind of thriller.

[–] coolhandnuke 13 years ago

Basically, it's the graphic gore that makes it just not a thriller but also a horror.

[–] e-bowen2 12 years ago

A truly graphic film realistically and tragically depicting a realistic scenario facing anguish and violent death. I can't think of anything more "horror" than that.

"What happened to the American dream?"
"It came true! You're looking at it!"

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 13 years ago

I agree with you. According to my film teacher, a horror movie must have, by definition, supernatural elements, and I believe the guy cause he has spent his whole life studying film in different countries.

My Completely Biased Top 250 Favorite Movies
http://www.imdb.com/list/KU4T5sDsmRk

[–] joenesmit 13 years ago

I disagree with you and your teacher. I'd even go as far as to say that your teacher is probably messing with you or he is stating nonsense as fact because he wants to seem knowledgable.

Also Im very interested in how he would define movies like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Last House on the Left.

_________________________________

"Werewolves ate my Platoon."

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 13 years ago

He defines them as thrillers. And I disagree with absolutely everything you said. In fact, I disagree with your whole existence. Cheers.

- Brand, where're you going?
- This is the men's room

[–] joenesmit 13 years ago

My bad, thought I was dealing with a grown up.

Have a nice day.

________________________________

"Werewolves ate my Platoon."