In yesterday’s quick post, I noted the zany reasoning behind Film Book’s post that horror films would be more original if only there weren’t a classifications scheme. In the quick post, I noted the idea of commercial censorship: when a company stops a person from using their resources to broadcast a particular message.
But what I didn’t note at the time was Film Book’s assumption that, in order to be more original, horror films need licence to just be more violent. ‘Boohoo! We can’t depict the slaughter of children! That would be original!’
I’m not a huge fan of many comedians because they substitute being funny for being offensive. It’s not clever or edgy to offend. It’s not original or witty to be vulgar. It’s pointless.
Similarly, horror films are increasingly less about the sensation of being scared and more about how much gore they can fit into a scene. Where’s the fun in that?
Very quietly and just between you and me, Internet, I love the thrill of being a bit scared. It’s an adrenaline rush. The heart pumps. You get that tingly feeling, partly dread, partly creepy. You come out the other end as if you’ve been on a rollercoaster.
I get none of that from slasher/gore films. Showing me all the creative ways you can cut up a body isn’t exciting. It’s dull. It’s unoriginal.
The classification system is one of the few things driving creativity. If it didn’t exist, film makers would just try to outdo the film that came before it. Oh, you raped and slaughtered 150 women in your film? In my film, we reach 151.
The classification system prevents this arms race of gore. Film makers should be looking at why they’re incapable of creating psychologically thrilling horror films instead of blaming restraints on their excess.