If you were to travel back in time
and see the original version of a horror film that you’d recently seen he
remake of, odds are the original would prove to be a bit disappointing compared
to its later interpretation. On the opposite side, if someone from the past
were to follow you back and watch the newer version of that same movie, they
would most likely yield a very different response. That’s because gore in
movies has changed significantly overtime. Horror is all about shocking the
audience. However, we’ve offered up a new challenge to Hollywood in recent
years because we are becoming harder and harder to shock. The “Oh no!” factor has
become more difficult to reach. “Media
violence has a desensitizing effect on viewers. As a result, specific levels of
violence become more acceptable over time. It then takes more and more graphic
violence to shock (and hold) an audience.
“History gives us many examples. To cite just one, the famous
Roman Circuses started out being a rather tame form of entertainment. But
in an effort to excite audiences, violence and rape were introduced in the
arena settings. Subsequently, as audiences got used to seeing these things,
they then demanded more and more, until the circuses eventually became violent,
bloody and grotesque, and hundreds, if not thousands, of hapless people
died in the process of providing "entertainment."
One movie combo that shows this
rise violence is the 1941 film The Wolf
Man, directed by George Waggner and its 2010 rendition The Wolfman, directed by Joe Johnson.
Although, the later remake tried to
honor its predecessor—The Universal logo at the start is the one from the
1940s, as homage to the time when the original was made—there are some very
distinct differences on the level of violence and gore. “Unlike its new remake
where it relies on gore and violence to illustrate the beast's effect on the
main protagonist's soul and everyone else around him, this movie relies more on
mystery and story element. Creating somewhat of a film noir element to
it, as even Larry himself is unsure he is the Wolfman until it's too late.”
The transformation scene in the
2010 film is incredibly violent with bones shifting, teeth ripping through
bleeding gums, fingers breaking and bending on dysmorphic hands, etc. Needless
to say, it doesn’t look like a pleasant experience. Anthony Hopknis’ character
actually compares it to going through hell. The 1941 version shows a more
gradual transformation from man to werewolf. Granted, these different transitions
are attributed, in large part, to the technology available at the time, but technology
aside, the tone of the remake is much more dark, violent and immediate.
Another movie that shows the
different in violence and gore then and now would be The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 1974 version versus its 2003 remake.
Unlike in The Wolf Man, the villain in this movie’s original and remake is
just as terrifying in its older version as it is in the later one, with the
same look, the same child-like temperament and unquestionable ability to evoke
terror.
Although not incredibly gory, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 1974 is still
very disturbing. Gore and violence rose substantially in the ‘80s with films
like The Toxic Avenger, Class of Nuke ‘em
High and Redneck Zombies leading
up to and past the Friday the 13th
movies.
Although known for its gore, the
1974 Texas Chainsaw Massacre has very
little blood actually in it. There are a few hands that get cut with small
knives and some blunt force trauma, but the most disturbing factor is the
Hewitt family dynamic. This connection is also carried over to the 2003
version, which has much more gore.
In many of the ‘80s horror films,
the bloodiness was overdone, almost to an unrealistic, Kill Bill level. Here, the bloodshed is toned down just enough to
seem realistic, which makes it even more effective than the blood spraying slapstick
spoofs.
In the modern remake, someone’s leg gets chopped off, someone
gets his teeth sliced off with a broken bottle and is later hung on a
chandelier and sliced with a chainsaw, the killer attacks a girl while wearing
her boyfriend’s face and a girl’s back is impaled on a meat hook, which is also
in the ’74 version, but isn’t as bloody.
Gore in movies went from being
almost non-existent in the ‘40s to over-exaggerated in the ‘80s and then toned
down again. Looking at it in this way, the most recent films should be more
disturbing, but this isn’t always the case.
The next example is The Thing 1982—which is arguably a
remake of Howard Hawks-Christian Nyby’s 1951 film, The Think from Another World—and its 2011 prequel, The Thing.
In the 2011 version, much of the
violence and gore was done through computer generation; while the 1982 version
used makeup and stop motion model animation. You aren’t shown everything, but
that’s where the terror comes from. The shock isn’t what you see; it’s the fact
that you can’t see the alien. Whenever you do, you see it as something else or
transitioning from one body to another. This mystery is taken away in the 2011
version, unless it’s assumed that the alien found frozen in the ice is just
another victim of the “thing.” The unknown is key here because instead of being
chased by your killer, you’re living with it, friends with it and telling it
all of your plans for its own destruction.
Gore has risen to the point where we can make things so
realistic that it’s almost more terrifying to not see the thing that should
shock you. We’ve turned the tables on ourselves: The only thing scarier than
seeing a shark is not seeing one. What we are forced to imagine because it’s
being kept from us, has become much scarier and because we’re used to always
being shown the brutality in film, conditioned to needing or expecting it, we
are forced to image what may be happening or what horrible thing may be beneath
us.
References:
http://stevennix2001.hubpages.com/hub/The-Wolfman-1941
No comments:
Post a Comment