Quote:
Originally Posted by neverending
I dunno- I think Staal's instincts were pretty accurate- even if his time frame was a bit off.
Except for a few examples from German silents- M & Cabinet of Dr. Caligari- early horror films WERE pretty much monster based- Frankenstein, Dracula, Wolfman, Mummy- all theway up to the 50s. You can find isolated examples here and there- 1931's Maniac, for example, or Freaks. Monster films were certainly the dominant form of horror in this era.
It wasn't until the 1960s, with films like Corman's Poe adaptations (and many other Corman films- like Bucket of Blood) that we start getting human monsters as a dominant force. There's a reason many film historians point to Psycho as the first truly modern horror film.
You want to write this paper accurately, contrast Dracula and Psycho.
|
To say that modern horror is "based on human monsters" is completely wrong though. Yes there were more films that portrayed that side of horror coming out around the 60's and beyond but what of the Hellraisers, Nightmare on Elm Streets, Candymans, Friday the 13ths, The Thing, Romero's "of the Living Dead" series, and countless other creature/monster/supernatural based horror films that were released after Psycho? Horror trends seem to change from year to year as far as marketability goes and the genre shifts its focus constantly.
If Staal was saying The Birds was the pick for a classic horror how could Psycho be a modern filck?