Hitchcock & Horror vs. Thriller

[billy bentley]

My eldest son (18) just asked how many of Hitchcock's films were "Horror", I replied that I thought of most of them as thrillers. He then asked why diiferentiate between Horror and Thrillers ? Anyone care to pitch in ?

[GoggleboxUK]

A thriller thrills and a horror horrifies.



Sorry for being simplistic but that statement really does cover it as far as I'm concerned. It all depends on what thrills you I suppose. Car chases, gunfights, punch ups? What horrifies you is a far easier one to answer for most people I imagine.



The Birds, for example, didn't thrill me in any way. The thought of not being able to go outside because of fear of attack from a menacing swarm of birds disturbed and horrified me. The fact that something I see every day was presented in a new way, as something terrible, was surely horrifying as opposed to thrilling.



I concur that the line may be blurred in many films and that's probably why we talk of 'chillers' and 'creepy thrillers'. Hammer got it right, they released a House of Horror series and a House of Mystery and Suspense series. The titles paint a big picture.

[will.15]

I think The Birds and Psycho qualifies as horror and Frenzy possibly too for one scene. I think it's possible to be both thriller and horror at the same time, with those movies maybe qualifying.

[GoggleboxUK]

I'm not sure that a film can be both. You can see a thrilling Horror or a horrifying thriller (such as Frenzy) but they are either one or the other predominantly.



That's just my own personal view of course.

[batman]

name='GoggleboxUK']I'm not sure that a film can be both. You can see a thrilling Horror or a horrifying thriller (such as Frenzy) but they are either one or the other predominantly.



That's just my own personal view of course.

I feel that Jaws covers both .... the shark brings horror while the chase for him is thrilling.



I can't think of any others offhand .... except perhaps Aliens.

[GoggleboxUK]

I'd describe Jaws as a thriller myself, there's no real horror in shark attacks because they're just doing a-what comes naturally being higher up the food chain than us.



Aliens is surely a Science Fiction movie first, an action film second and a horror film third. There's no doubt that movie is thrilling but to call it a thriller would be a serious misclassification.



EDIT: Just checked IMDB as an afterthought and they class Jaws as a Thriller and Aliens as an Action/ Adventure / Sci-Fi.

[Dave Rattigan]

Sticking a single genre label on a film can be an arbitrary process at times. It all depends what's essential to the genre in the eyes of the viewer. You could argue that Jaws and Alien, for example, are horror, since they have most of the conventions of a horror film, just as people have argued that Star Wars is a western.



To a large extent, it depends on the marketing, the stars and other conventions not explicitly linked to the narrative. Take The Phantom of the Opera, for example - basically a thriller, but it tends to have been slotted into the horror genre, with horror stars etc.



I suppose for a lot of people the distinguishing feature of a horror film over a thriller is the supernatural element, though that's not always been the case. Prior to the Universal cycle of the 1930s and '40s, almost all Hollywood horror featured merely human monsters.

[avalard]

I heard an interesting paper at the recent Bloodlines conference on British horror in Leicester, and the chap (whose name I don't recall) giving the paper pointed out that during the 1930s and 40s nearly all thrillers were marketed (in the US at least) as horror films. So much of noir was regarded as horror.



The reviews of the time also reflect this - and I think this spilled over into the 1950s and beyond.



If we take the original viewpoint then Hitchcock's films are all thrillers. Certainly thrills and shocks are essential parts of the horror process. And many of the 'horror' films I grew up watching and loving aren't really that horrifying. Its a transient process - one man's horror is another man's drama.



So I guess I'm happy saying they're both.

[batman]

name='GoggleboxUK']I'd describe Jaws as a thriller myself, there's no real horror in shark attacks because they're just doing a-what comes naturally being higher up the food chain than us. Aliens is surely a Science Fiction movie first, an action film second and a horror film third. There's no doubt that movie is thrilling but to call it a thriller would be a serious misclassification.

Surely just becase something is 'natural' doesn't mean it isn't horrific. I find the attack scenes in Jaws quite horrific, especially the one on the little boy.



Aliens is sci-fi but has horrific elements and I also find the action thrilling.



Leading on from that, Alien is IMHO a horror film set in outer space.







ps - Night of the Demon .... now there's a genre buster for you!

[billy bentley]

Thanks all. So I'm thinking "The Birds " and "Psycho" are horror flicks, there were surely marketed as such and Hitchcock's other flicks are thrillers. Any thoughts ?

[billy bentley]

avalard, what did marketing (obviously different in the US to Britain) in the 1930's and 1940's consist of ? Obviously trailers, posters and front of house displays, was there anything else ?

[avalard]

name='billy bentley']avalard, what did marketing (obviously different in the US to Britain) in the 1930's and 1940's consist of ? Obviously trailers, posters and front of house displays, was there anything else ?

I'll see if I can did out my notes and details from the conference.



I don't know that the marketing itself was vastly different.. the crux of the paper seemed to suggest that they were talked about/critiqued as horror pics...



Will come back later with more comments

[GoggleboxUK]

name='billy bentley']Thanks all. So I'm thinking "The Birds " and "Psycho" are horror flicks, there were surely marketed as such and Hitchcock's other flicks are thrillers. Any thoughts ?

I'd agree with that.



I'd also agree with Batman about Alien being a horror set in space. I'd also say Alien3 is a horror whereas Aliens is an action movie and Alien Resurrection is a Sci-Fi.

[batman]

name='GoggleboxUK'] .... Alien Resurrection is a Sci-Fi.

No, no, no .... Alien Resurrection is crap!

[lostintown]

In Marina Warner's book "No go the Bogeyman", she defines horror as a combination of terror (the fear of violence or death) and disgust (the fear of infection).



Muriel Gray, the horror writer, had suggested that most horror should be renamed as Supernatural thriller



By the above rules, I suppose that the birds attacking Tippi would be classified as thrilling but when blood begins to be seen it becomes horrific.



Not sure if that helps.

[GoggleboxUK]

It's far from crap, it's just not as good as the first 2 or the director's cut of the 3rd.



It stands up for many reasons, not least the scene where the Ripley clone sees all the failed attempts in tubes. Superb and emotional.

[batman]

name='GoggleboxUK']It's far from crap, it's just not as good as the first 2 or the director's cut of the 3rd.



It stands up for many reasons, not least the scene where the Ripley clone sees all the failed attempts in tubes. Superb and emotional.

I actually like Alien 3 .... it is very under-rated IMHO. Alien Resurrection did nothing for me I'm afraid. I couldn't engage with the characters and I found it mostly rather dull. There were one or two decent bits, the 'tubes' bit for one, but on the whole it was for me a major disappointment.



What did you think of Alien vs Predator?

[avalard]

name='billy bentley']avalard, what did marketing (obviously different in the US to Britain) in the 1930's and 1940's consist of ? Obviously trailers, posters and front of house displays, was there anything else ?

The paper was given by Mark Jancovitch - an academic who has written widely on horror and film of the 40s. I can't locate my notes...



With reference to marketing, as I understand its basically as you say. Trailers, posters, front of house displays, and of course advertising through the press (pressbooks are a good indication of this). Would be worth looking into contemporary interviews, materials in the fan mags, and radio broadcasts too.



Mark has looked into lots of this as far as I know... he's well worth reading if you get the chance. He's done a lot of work on Hitchcock.

[GoggleboxUK]

I enjoyed it.



On one hand it's very comic book but it did go some way to extending the Alien universe and explaining the origins of the creature on film. The involvement of the Wayland Corporation was very interesting too.



AVP2 was awful though.

[batman]

name='GoggleboxUK']I enjoyed it.



One one hand it's very comic book but it did go some way to extending the Alien universe and explaining the origins of the creature on film. The involvement of the Wayland Corporation was very interesting too.



AVP2 was awful though.

I enjoyed it too. I thought it was quite exciting and stayed close to the themes laid out in Alien. AVP2 was indeed terrible.



I didn't actually enjoy Predator that much (a bit of a plod I thought) .... but strangely, I really enjoyed the sequel.