Sandman's Screaming Room: Has Horror gone too far?

As many of you board lurkers go, I recently sat down with a nasty genre film called 'Inside'. It truly is one of the sickest films I have ever seen. This experience has prompted me to reflect on the state of modern horror, and my enjoyment of it.

About 2 years ago, people started paying attention to a film trend called 'Gorno' films. The term itself is a buzz word, which is used to dismiss films which have nothing to offer except blood and guts. Most people outside horror fandom see a certain amount of blood, and dismiss the film anyhow no matter if the gore is justified, or no matter what else the film has to offer. Gorno implies that people who enjoy these films just go for cheap thrills, hence the combination of 'gore' and 'porno'.

I don't really like that term. Some films, while incredibly gory and brutal, DO have a story to tell, and sometimes a very important one. On the other hand, I understand where the detractors are coming from.

About the time that this term became popular, I saw a report from a popular Fox News host. Now, Bill O'Reilly is a great guy, and I agree with him on almost everything. But this report bothered me.

He mentioned that modern horror films were going too far, and were too brutal and sadistic. This was after the opening weekend of Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, IIRC. Anyways, he listed off the worst offenders (SAW, Hostel, High Tension, The Devil's Rejects, TCM, etc), and spoke about the 'Splat Pack', a group of directors who constantly try to 'one-up' each other in terms of nastier and nastier films. The group he listed was Rob Zombie, Alex Aja, Darren Lynn Bousman, etc. Now, I agree that horror films are brutal nowadays, but I don't neccessarily think that they have gotten worse over the years.

There were nasty movies in the 1970s and 1980s (Maniac, Cannibal Holocaust, The Beyond), but since then, two things have changed. First, realism. Savini and Salvaletti aside, alot of the special effects back then looked only partially accurate. Looking at them, you could sometimes see how the effect was done.

Nowadays, however, with companies like KNB effects stepping up the game with every film they make, kills onscreen are more realistic than ever. There was a scene in the beginning of SAW IV that was frightening in how well it portrayed an autopsy.

Now, the second thing that has changed is availability. Remember that movie INSIDE that I mentioned up at the top? I bought it, unrated, at WalMart. Horror fans today can go to the local store and pick up any horrific gore film they please. It's all at their fingertips. The other day, I saw a copy of ERASERHEAD at Best Buy.

Way back when our parents were fighting the good fight against Disco, you had to go to a greasy, nasty grindhouse theater to see gory films. And that was if you were lucky. Nowadays, it's way more easy.

So while I may not agree that these films are abhorrent, I understand the position that they should not be so easy to view.

So has horror gone too far with Inside? I can tell you that the film would have been extremely controversial had it been released in theaters. While it would have been cool to see it on the big screen, it will make alot more money going straight to dvd. And this way, it's not rubbed in anyone's faces, and ppl like me can go and get it just as easily. Besides, if it was in theaters, it would have been SEVERELY edited.

This is the kind of film that you feel bad for watching, and even worse because it's so good, and at the same time, so grotesque. I don't know if horror has gone too far, but I do know that there isn't too much farther they can go. Soon we will be back to going to the Grand Guignol theaters, just to see people get killed.

On the other hand, horror goes in cycles. The gorno craze is winding down pretty fast, and soon hollywood will have another horror trend to beat to death.

What do you all think?