Today, please read about Samuel Arkoff, Ed Wood, and Roger Corman--all influential "B" horror/suspense film makers. As you watch it is important to consider why these films were made, who the audience was for these horrible horrors, and how these producers, directors, and film makers went on to influence our contemporary horror/suspense film making.
After reading and watching, please respond to this post with a comment about what you thought. You are free to comment on any of the following: (please refer to specific clips/films & use examples) what purpose does the horror flick serve in society? How does marketing a film through trailers entice or ruin the movie? How were horror films of the 1950's similar or different from those in our own time? And, of course, other reactions.
After viewing and commenting, please continue to work on your film projects. Those of you who have shot footage, please download and prepare the clips for editing. Those of you who have not yet started, please remember the deadline is June 7. The camera may be signed out, but please realize we only have one. Plan ahead and progress with your project.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Murky Middle (Even More Advice)
Aristotle wrote that stories should have a beginning, middle, and end. Middles can be difficult. You might have a smashing opening to a stor...
11 comments:
One difference I noticed between 50s horror films and modern horror films is the amount of violence and gore shown onscreen. Most of the 50s film trailers provoked fear in their audiences with bizarre monsters (The Little Shop of Horrors, It Conquered the World, Beast With a Million Eyes) and fantastical situations. In current times, we see the emergence of "slasher films," which rely heavily on violence, blood, and guts to create fear. Modern visual effects help with such gory productions.
On a totally unrelated note, I have actually seen the entirety of "Plan Nine from Outer Space," at a "bad movie party" with some friends. The visual effects are indeed laughable, and the acting awful.
The first thing I have to say is that these movies were damn horrible. I still find myself wondering about the random puppies in the final fight in The Raven. Now on to the assignment. Horror movies in society are a way to get thrills, for people to see what is feels like to be in a situation that would never happen, much like some of the more ridiculous comedies out there. In addition. guys used films like this to get feels from girls but that's another story for another day. I found within watching these trailers that common are in them all and I suppose in those times they equaled scary. In almost every one there is a crash of lightning mixed in with horrible lightning (see Beast with a Million Eyes and Bride of The Monster). Commonly, with today’s horror films, you see flashes of knives in almost every trailer. While our society has grown past lightning scares, knives seem to still do the trick. As far as trailers ruining or enticing the movie, the special effects in the trailers were actually enticing and I can see how some people would find these interesting, but sadly the plot elements were horrible enough to keep me and other people away.
These B-films certainly lived up to their title as being some of the worst films ever made. These movies are extremely poor quality to an almost laughable extent.
The trailers for these films used gimmicks such as unusual monsters and ominous music in order to keep the audience in suspense and entice them to see the film.
While the special effects have certainly improved in the horror films of today, the genre still serves an important purpose in society because it brings to life people's fears and shows that people can be entertained and frightened simultaneously.
Shana Harris
Ed Wood and Roger Corman made horror films that were poorly produced, even though they were B movies the films came with a lot of meaning. This films were more for a older audience. the films also had a lot to do with some sort of romance and there was always a monster or creature in the film. By viewing the films you can tell that they are B films because of the shots and actors produced. Many of the actors in the films have dramatic dialogue and acting. i believe that the concept of the films were well written, but the way they were produced was poor.
Arkzoff's films were more for a teenage audience. They focused more on making the horror on the teens. The films were not just in horror, they were also hilarious. I don't know if it was suppose to be funny or the way it was made, made it funny. They related a teen lifestyle on a horror film and that is what made the film great for teens.
These films are horror films of the 50's. They were made to be scary and were actually taken seriously. However, to a modern audience, the quality of these films are so bad that they are laughable. The tricks that are considered scary are just funny today because we are used to more violence and special effects that are less obviously fake, although we still know that they are not real.
B-films were made for the purpose of bringing people to the theatres and and entertaining an audience sometimes in a drive-thru setting. B-films often were shown after a full length production and were an extra that teenagers in particular really enjoyed.
The trailers of these films can make people want to see the movie because it gives people an idea about what the movie might be about or what to expect. However, sometimes the title itself is more interesting than the actual film and seeing the trailer can show a person what the movie is really about. It seems for a modern audience that a trailer would just make us laugh and we wouldn't want to see the movie, but for people taking the movies seriously a trailer may make people more excited about seeing a film
Of all film genres, horror is probably the one that receives the most flack and the least respect (except, perhaps, raunchy teen sex comedies – no one really likes those). But while there are certainly horror films that deserve the criticism they receive, others fit into the category of “so-bad-they’re-good” films. Horror films seem to be one of the more pointless genres, but many of them tap into the taboo topics of society, and most have such little dignity that such criticism wouldn’t necessarily harm how successful it was. For instance, Ed Wood’s film Glen or Glena dealt with transvestitism, something which, during the time-period (the family-friendly ‘50s), would be totally lambasted if it were any other genre.
The main problem with movie trailers is that they usually show the funniest/scariest/sexiest/etc. parts of the movie, making watching the entire thing somewhat un-enjoyable because little is a surprise.
I also think that there are many similarities and differences between horror movies of the fifties and horror movies now. They’re similar in that they both usually deal with shocking scare tactics, special effects (although they’ve improved by now), and a romantic subplot with hot actors and actresses. The main difference now, though, would have to be quality. Even though many horror films are still laughable (Sorority Row remake), at least the plots and effects have improved.
What purpose does the horror flick serve in society?
- The purpose that Glen or Glenda served in society was that it showed how human beings didn’t really react to well to change or strange new things.
- Movies such as It Conquered the World and The Blob criticized communism and how it would eventually bring horror and disaster to the world. These movies reinforced policies of containment.
How does marketing a film through trailers entice or ruin the movie?
- William Castle’s trailers would entice the movie because of the fact that they presented new gimmicks that would interest the audience. At times it would either bring a long a new audience or scare away people who are weak hearted and wouldn’t want to endure such frights.
- Other trailers would depend upon the choices of the editors and the reaction from the audience. Some other technique’s such as William Castle’s were either a positive or a negative.
How were horror films of the 1950's similar or different from those in our own time?
- Horror films of the 1950’s are similar to those of our time mainly with their plots. However, films such as Plan 9 From Outer Space and The Bride of the Monster don’t really have plots that fall in like with modern day horror films. However, The Bride of the Monster does relate to movie plots that include monsters such as Freddie Cougar, Jason and other monsters/demons/creatures.
- Also in most horror film movies in the 1950s the same actors reappear over and over and over such as Bela Lugosi who was one of Ed Wood’s biggest actors. Today actors usually only reappear in movies where there are sequels. They also try to experiment with different genres such as Jim Carry who is usually known as a comedy actor but also played in a horror/mystery movie.
These films were pretty bad. But I can see why at the time they interested people. The things in those horror movies like "Little Shop of Horrors" were things most people in society nowadays wouldn't really find scary but at the time probably would have been. Horror movies bring up societies fears and makes them viewable to everyone. People like the feeling of being scared and the thrill it gives. But in the 50s era many of these films were attended for boys to cop a feel on the scared girls.
It was interesting to see the trailers because they are pretty similar to those today. They use the best parts of the movie to create suspense though the ones more recently probably contain a lot more suspense because of technological advances. These trailers may or may not ruin a film. Often they create an audience for the films but there are some cases in which the trailers give away the best parts of a film and if people know that and what they see is not funny they probably won't want to pay to go see it. Also the trailers showed of the gimmicks of the films which was a possible way of increasing popularity.
The horror movies were not gory like those today are. Horror movies now show blood and violence which is probably a major aspect of their thrill.
I am almost too scared to comment. It's weird that people make movies that bad and people like them. I noticed a large portion of the comments were positive and am slightly confused, its like the transformers reviews all over again.
I noticed parallels between horror films of that time and this time, in the way that a large portion are vain attempts at horror which end up being comedy (I.E. The Unborn)
After watching these clips, it seems that the horror films add a sense of “other-worldliness” to society. People went and saw these films to add excitement. Films like “teenage werewolf” could allow an American teenager to say “oh, I guess my life isn’t that bad”.
These films were so bad they were great. It shows that people were easily entertained without naked women and really crazy special effects, which is something we have lost appreciation for.
Marketing these horror films were, in many (uh, most) cases, a necessity. At least, it seemed that way based on the lack of the films’ quality. Selling them probably got them at least some audience (but people might have ignored the claims in the trailers eventually - I don’t know). Obviously, this is still done today. Trailers can show only the most exciting scenes (that being a relative term) to show that there’s “more to come.” I don’t think they hurt the film – they don’t reveal key parts, really – but they can make it look better than it is, and they usually do.
The other interesting thing about marketing in that era is the use of gimmicks. William Castle, famous for this, had some pretty quicky ideas. Others weren’t as much, but I still think it got people into the show – a few more bucks made.
Post a Comment