EDITORIAL: Can a Horror Movie Go Too Far?

Shock value is a valuable, and versatile, tool in horror movies, and some types of horror are more reliant on shock value than others. Some movies, like Dead Alive and my personal favorite horror film, Evil Dead II, use absurdly excessive gore for black humor. Other horror films, like Pieces and The New York Ripper, show brutal violence in graphic detail for (consciously) cheap thrills. And some films, like Midsommar and I Spit On Your Grave, starkly depict abuse as a way of generating awareness for such atrocities. But whether it’s being used for comedy, exploitation, or social commentary, is it possible for a horror movie to go too far with its shocking content? Sure, plenty of films over the years have been accused of doing so, but pretentious critics have been dismissing horror movies as filth for decades, even going back to Psycho, a movie that, while fantastic, is incredibly tame by today's standards. But has it ever actually been true?

Well, for one, we need to examine and acknowledge what a film's goal is. While many people have dismissed slasher movies for being obscene and "pointless" for their shallow violence and nudity, it is very important to remember: that is the point! While some slasher flicks have risen beyond cheap sleaze through exceptional technique and/or originality (like Halloween or A Nightmare on Elm Street), for the most part, their purpose is to just be silly exploitation, and that's why we like them. No, Maniac isn't on the same level as Rosemary's Baby, but it isn't supposed to be. It’s just good, gory fun.

Now this doesn't mean that a movie that is intentionally going for cheap sleaze can't do so to a fault. Some movies, like the Human Centipede franchise, have proven to be just too sickening for plenty of horror fans. And I have to admit, I am one of them. For me, personally, it feels like the sole focus is on the characters’ suffering, and I just have trouble enjoying that. But I can’t fault the movie(s) for that. It’s just my personal preference. There’s also an odd Japanese franchise known as the Guinea Pig series. The movies, of which there are seven, are all about 40-50 minutes a piece, and they’re a bit of an enigma to me. I’ve only seen the first one, but I’ve been led to believe the sequels aren’t much different (I could be wrong). The first film, entitled Guinea Pig: Devil’s Experiment, is literally one long torture scene. The characters don’t have names, there’s no setup; it’s just a 40-minute scene of a woman being mutilated. Now, apparently, the goal of the film was to create the illusion that it was a real snuff film, which it does rather effectively. But... why? That seems more like a conceptual art piece that would be made by someone who hates horror movies who’s trying to make a point. A lot of pretentious a-holes use the term “torture porn” to describe movies like Saw and Hostel; movies which do have characters and structure and intrigue. Even if one doesn’t like them, they are actual movies. But plenty of snobs like to dismiss them as nothing but sadistic torture scenes. But with Guinea Pig, that’s actually exactly what it is! And yet, the question remains: does that mean that it’s going “too far”? Well, not necessarily. It just makes it bad storytelling, which isn’t a good thing, but it isn’t inherently immoral.

Another essential aspect to examine is the filmmaking itself. All art is the result of a long and complicated process, and that is an important part of any film. Stanley Kubrick was notoriously abusive to Shelley Duvall on the set of The Shining, leaving her with PTSD. But I don’t think that should disqualify the finished product from being a masterpiece. Kubrick was just a dick. (I’m also assuming cocaine was involved, to an extent, but who knows?)

Now, there was a notoriously unconscionable trend among the production of certain horror films in the late 70’s and early 80’s: killing live animals on-screen. Most infamously done in the 1980 film Cannibal Holocaust (although other similar films did so, as well), exotic animals were brutalized right in front of the camera. In fact, in Cannibal Holocaust’s case, the human gore (which was fake) was so shocking and realistic that the film was the subject of a criminal investigation, as some believed the director had murdered actual people, as well. While this was proven false, the fact remains that actual living creatures were mutilated by the filmmakers, and for a time, the film was banned, and director Ruggero Deodato was forced to take a break from directing. Apparently, they never killed an animal without the locals telling them what they were already planning on hunting. So, in a way, they were simply assisting the local tribes with their “grocery list” for the week. Knowing this, in retrospect, makes the film, itself, less repulsive in my eyes. Personally, I still can’t bring myself to watch those particular scenes. So, did the movie go too far? I’d say it’s a matter of perspective and personal opinion.

Finally, I think one of the most important aspects of any piece of art is the message. What, if anything, were the filmmakers trying to say? And does that come across effectively? Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom is often praised for its indictment of fascism and the abuse of the lower classes, even comparing said abuse to Dante’s circles of Hell. It is also, however, notoriously revolting, showing torture, rape, coprophagia, and many other acts of depravity without hesitation. But Saló, which is based on the novel by the Marquis de Sade, at least has the excuse of cultural and historical context. It’s a period piece, and its message is fairly transparent. It’s most definitely a difficult watch, but it does have significant cultural value.

Another film in the same vein is A Serbian Film. Its social commentary isn’t quite as upfront. It is intended to be an indictment of Serbian politics (of which I am no kind of expert) and the way its government exploits its citizens. But A Serbian Film goes even farther than Salò, even going so far as to show (among other things) the rape of an infant. I, personally, see absolutely no reason to show something like that. I am completely in favor of not holding back in cinematic depictions of abuse, but a grotesque exaggeration like this just repulses me, and I find myself completely unable to ponder the questions the film is attempting to pose. This is also a film that plenty of obnoxious “edgelords” love to claim isn’t nearly as graphic/extreme as some other films (which I clearly have not seen, and probably never will, if it’s true), and they enjoy bragging about how they don’t find it at all disturbing. I’m not sure what kind of “respect” or “acclaim” you intend to get from that, but all that you’re doing is proving that you are a douchebag, a sociopath, or both. But the question remains: did the film go too far? Plenty of people say yes, plenty say no. Myself? I don’t know if it’s up to me. It’s not my film. I’m not really even its target audience. I don’t know anything about Serbian society or the atrocities taking place within it. But even then, my opinion is that it goes too far, but does that even matter?

Whenever the topic of more extreme horror is discussed, there is one name that is always brought up: Lars von Trier. Von Trier has made a name for himself as one of the most (if not the most) boundary-pushing filmmakers of all time. The Danish auteur has made films featuring some pretty hardcore stuff, not the least of which includes digitally compositing the faces of actors in Nymphomaniac onto porn actors actually “performing” in order to depict sex as realistically as possible. Say what you will, but the man is committed to his vision. One of his most notorious films is a movie called Antichrist, and it is easily one of the most divisive horror films ever made. Starring Charlotte Gainsbourg and Willem Dafoe (one of my all-time favorite actors), it tells the story of a grieving couple, following the untimely death of their young son, and Gainsbourg’s descent into madness. Many audiences find Lars von Trier’s work to be pretentious and self-indulgent, and... yeah, it’s not hard to see why. He clearly wants to be seen as smart and artistically unique. But he’s also a very stylish director, and he creates good characters, often played by superbly talented actors. Gainsbourg and Dafoe are undeniably magnificent in it, regardless of how one feels about Von Trier. Antichrist, one of his only true horror films, features a graphic genital mutilation scene (and the particularly revolting aftermath) that led the film to be loved by some horror fans and hated by others. Even though this is far from the only graphic moment in the film, it is probably the most infamous. The film itself is littered with symbolism, and to this day, it is still hotly debated among viewers. But many of those who don’t like Lars von Trier have called his use of explicit imagery shallow and pointless, beyond cheap shock value. Now, I’m not here to critique Antichrist, but there’s a reason I bring up all of these details about Von Trier and his artistic sensibilities. Was he just attempting to shock the audience without purpose? He certainly doesn’t think so. Whether it’s well-executed or not, he clearly had a point he was trying to make. Even if it is way too lofty and pretentious, which many say it is, Antichrist is a movie with something to say. So did it go too far? Not exactly. Lars von Trier is a true auteur, and whatever message he may be trying to convey with that horrific violence, it’s there for a reason.

So in the end, what exactly is the answer to the imposed question? Can a horror movie go too far? Is it possible for a film to cross the line to the point of being truly immoral? Well, not for any of the reasons many people claim. If a horror film is excessively gruesome or explicit, its morality is entirely subjective. Copious amounts of gore and/or nudity are nothing but images, and such things have no inherent decency or lack thereof. It is the message that is capable of being right or wrong; not the film, but that for which it might stand. Bigotry, misogyny, intolerance, insighting violence; these are the things that can make a piece of art immoral. Not depicting them, but encouraging them. So can a horror movie, in and of itself, go to far? Objectively speaking, no. But can the intentions of a film go too far? Absolutely.