Halloween is an awesome holiday, regardless of one's age. When we were children, Halloween meant Power Ranger costumes and sugar highs. It was the one time we could take candy from strangers without fear. Since then, we have moved from actual candy to eye candy. We came to the conclusion that girls don't actually have cooties and we look forward to Halloween because they inevitably explore numerous ways to dress as scantily as possible.
But Halloween is special for another reason. There is no other day in which we will courageously sit through horror movies. Unfortunately, scary movies nowadays just suck, and not in the vampire way (although vampire films tend to be kind of lame, too).
Our biggest issue with horror films is how unoriginal they are. People always rag on action movies for uninspired and unnecessary follow-ups — the horror genre is definitely the biggest sequel offender. Look at the "Saw" series. We've had one every year for the past six years, with at least two more in the pipeline. We've reached a point where plot doesn't even matter or exist. Even the ads for "Saw VI" highlight the staleness of the series. "If it's Halloween, it must be ‘Saw,'" rasps the voiceover. Is that reason enough? To us, the series died with the perversely charismatic Jigsaw in "Saw III" (2006).
To tally other horror franchises, there were seven "Nightmare on Elm Street" films, 11 "Friday the 13th" installments and one Girl Talk-worthy mash-up, "Freddy vs. Jason" (2003). And that's not counting 2010's "A Nightmare on Elm Street" starring Rorshach (Jackie Earle Haley) as Krueger. Small budgets allow horror films to bleed out forever. The "Saw" films average a paltry $8 million budget, so they always turn a profit, which is reason enough for the studios to continue the franchise.
We also have an issue with horror remakes. Virtually every horror film out there has been remade at this point, from big names like Rob Zombie's 2007 remake of "Halloween" (1978) to obscure flicks, like the upcoming "The Crazies" based on George A. Romero's 1973 original. What will horror movies look like in 2020? Will we see a repackaged version of "Jennifer's Body" (2009) starring Shiloh Jolie-Pitt? We support going green, but all this cinematic recycling is ridiculous.
Besides the lack of innovation in the horror genre, recent horror films just aren't scary. This is due to the birth of the "torture-porn" sub-category. These are films that emphasize mutilation and gore to tap into America's sadistic psyche. One could argue that "Saw" started this trend, but the first "Saw" (2004) wasn't gratuitously gory. One of the creepiest parts of the film was the relatively bloodless kidnapping of a mother and daughter. The sequels, on the other hand, veered toward mindless brutality. The traps are less inventive and more gruesome. Director Eli "Bear Jew" Roth followed suit, showing nauseating amounts of mutilation in "Hostel" (2005). Horror movies should frighten us. If we want to be grossed out, we'll watch "Two Girls, One Cup." Shock value can only go so far, and for a movie to have a truly lasting impact, filmmakers need to refocus their scare tactics.
Yet, there's a glimmer of hope for horror. We were quite happy with the box office results last weekend. "Paranormal Activity" cut down "Saw VI," proving that originality can triumph over invariability. "Paranormal" trickled out in limited release back in September and has snowballed into a phenomenon. Its documentary-style filming and minimalist production earned it the title of this generation's "The Blair Witch Project" (1999).
So if you're looking for a fright Saturday night, we recommend hitting up "Paranormal Activity." If not, there's always "Hocus Pocus" (1993).
--
Zach Drucker and Chris Poldoian are sophomores who have not yet declared majors. They can be reached at Zachary.Drucker@tufts.edu and Christopher.Poldoian@tufts.edu, respectively.
