Let's face it, no one likes a snob. Snobs don't even like themselves most of the time. What snobs do like is ruining a good time for other people. While there are snobs in all areas of life, horror snobs bother me more than most (likely because I'm such a horror nut and try to be open-minded). There are several different types of horror snob that vary by sub-genre, director preference, country of (a movie's) origin, and so on. Following are a few of the most blatant examples:
1) Anti-Hollywood Snob - This breed is distrustful of any horror film that a) gets a widespread theatrical release, b) features popular actors, or c) is in any way not an independent film. These people like their films to be limited release or shown only at film festivals. Occasionally, straight-to-DVD releases are okay, too.
*Proof that they're wrong: 2009's "Orphan", 1999's "The Sixth Sense".
2) "_____ of the Dead" Snob - This particular brand of snob only appreciates George Romero zombie films and thinks that other zombie films either suck or contain creatures that are not "technically" zombies (such as "28 Days Later"). Their favorite flicks usually read like this: "Night of the Living Dead"; "Day of the Dead"; "Dawn of the Dead"; "Diary of the Dead"...
*Proof that they're wrong: 1994's "Cemetery Man"; 2004's "Shaun of the Dead" (this one is deceptive because of its title, but is actually a spoof).
3) Remake Snob - This is the person who hates either a) remakes of old American films ("Friday the 13th"; "Texas Chainsaw Massacre"; "Halloween") or b) American remakes of foreign films ("Quarantine"; "The Grudge"; "The Ring").
*Proof that they're wrong: Rob Zombie's 2007 version of "Halloween"; 2002's "The Ring".
4) Foreign Snob - We all know one of these. This snob believes that a movie cannot possibly be good if it is made in America. These are people that like to read films rather than books. Are there some absolutely excellent foreign horror films? Of course there are, including classics such as "Suspiria"; "A Chinese Ghost Story"; and, "Zombi 2" and more recent flicks such as 2006's "Cold Prey"; 2007's "Rec"; and, 2008's "Let the Right One In". But it's silly to assume that every horror film made in America is complete shit.
*Proof that they're wrong: Umm, "The Exorcist"; "The Shining"; "Halloween". I'm gonna stop now.
**Interestingly, there is a cross-breed here of those snobs who doubly despise American remakes of foreign flicks. I guess you'd call that "snob overlap".
5) Low-Budget Snob - This type of snob shuns all flicks with a budget larger than, say, "The Blair Witch Project". While it's true that too much CGI can ruin any flick, there are actually some big-budget horror flicks that are quite excellent. To be fair, it is extremely impressive when a low-budget film proves to be stellar, and there are examples of this--the afore-mentioned "Blair Witch Project" cost $22,000 to make and brought in an astonishing $240.5 million dollars!! Brad Anderson's "Session 9" is another example of a beautiful film that didn't break the bank.
*Proof that they're wrong: 1986's "Aliens", 1997's "Event Horizon".
The bottom line that is there are excellent films to be found almost anywhere you look. While some people don't like to read subtitles and others don't like their special effects to be any more elaborate than latex and corn syrup, it's important to give films of all sub-genres a chance. Remember, nobody likes a snob!!!
Blah Blah for now.
The Lamp Movie Review
1 week ago
None of these apply to me EXCEPT the "foreign film snob" and that's only because I haven't liked any of the foreign horror I've seen so far. I gave it a chance and hated it.
ReplyDeleteSo there's some pathetic justification for ya :D, if it helps - I prefer British horror to American...
Well,I'm a total remake snob. The amount made in the last decade is staggering. Most people don't even know these movies coming out are remakes. Did anyone talk about the original "The Godsend" when that piece of crap came out with Greg Kinnear in it? I think most of these film makers are the snobs for not admitting that they've either just made another sequel to an idea someone else had years before or stole a known title because their script ends up being thematically close. I'm not saying all of them are bad movies but how they are done and approached matters. When Carprenter remade"The Thing" he drew from the source material(Who Goes There)more than the Howard Hawk's version and made it more true to it. The Fog remake was as needless as the Psycho remake IMO. These people need to man up and either call it a sequel or use there own titles since alot of the "remakes" have little if anything to do with the original. Rob Zombie should be shot for Halloween. He makes Devil's Rejects and then THAT?!?! If he's such a fan of the original then why did he think he could do it better? Sorry...this topic always frosts me.
ReplyDeleteI agree that most remakes I see are crap. There are some exceptions, but I generally have more respect for those that shoot original movies. There's an old adage that there's something like 14 scripts that go around Hollywood and that pretty much every movie is a variation of on of those. It sometimes seems so. Horror is definitely an exciting genre and I think true horror fans are always on the lookout for a potential gem.
ReplyDeletePeace,
Chris
Isn't it interesting that most "Hollywood" remakes are remakes of older independent movies,though? Halloween,My Bloody Valentine,Dawn Of The Dead,Black Christmas,etc. You know,the ones hollywood brushed off to make "good and profitable" movies like"Ishtar". There's more horror scripts floating around but none that exec's have the balls to greenlight unless it's already a proven money-maker and/or franchise. Sad.
ReplyDeleteI'm a proud horror snob, and can see a lot of elements of myself in this article.
ReplyDeleteBut, I think you're wrong when you say us 'snobs' are trying to ruin it for everything else. That's silly. I love horror films, and respect them as art, and I hate to see the genre in the state it is in now. If anything, I want to see horror films elevated beyond the entertainment mindset and firmly into the realm of great art.
With a couple exceptions, most everything you listed as the 'exceptions' to rules are horrible movies. And that pisses me off. Film is of course subjective, and you could argue that those films resonate with you as good horror movies-- but that means the fault is with you. Most of the films you listed are shallow and pandering-- more concerned with catering to audiences than fulfilling an artists vision.
Why should we be suspicious of Hollywood? Because they're making movies to appeal to the widest possible audience. Their aim is accessibility, and to me that represents an emphasis on the bottom line. In my mind, horror movies should be an underground art form with a lot of borrowed ethics of the DIY punk scene.
As for Romero lovers, I agree that he is not the be-all end-all, but he is undoubtedly important.
Remakes?
Good remakes can be numbered on a single hand when it comes to horror. The only one I can say I truly love is Carpenter's The Thing. The idea of updating for a current audience is something I find insulting. Why repaint the Mona Lisa with sunglasses? Is it really so unpalateable. Film is art, and deserves to be treated as such.
As for foreign snobs, I can understand the annoyance. Many foreign films are fantastic, but to view them as intrinsically better than others is a logical fallacy.
And finally, I feel like the low-budget snob is connected with the anti-Hollywood mindset. It's not that we hate large budgets, it's that we want to support the creativity and freedom an independent filmmaker has.