ironhorse_iv
With each coming decade, the history of horror films has always reflect the changing times, and the fears that accompany them. This documentary directed by Andrew Monument & adapted from the book of the same name by author Joseph Maddrey, tries to showcases that, by exploring its humble beginnings with silent era Gothic to 1930s Universal Monsters, to the Sci-Fi nightmares of the Atomic Age, to the present day reflection of real-world scares with 200 film clips of the various types within the horror genre, intercuts with archive news footages throughout the years. All divided into eight sections, each of which deal with a specific period of time and the socio-political context in which horror films of that era were born into. While, the idea of combining film from various sources to make something new is a controversial issue, with some people still, thinks it's stealing. I believe collage films like this, are fine, even if it seems like a glorious clip show. Nevertheless, it's still has problems in two important ways. One is the way, the documentary visually show them. "Nightmares in Red, White and Blue: The Evolution of the American Horror Film" doesn't present the film clips in their original aspect ratios, which means, that some of the film footages are zoomed way, too much to fit with the documentary's 1.78:1 frame or seemed cropped. Because of this, the film gives, somewhat half-ass blurry images of some of the subjects, tarnishing how good, these original films sources, honestly looked. Another problem with this approach, is how it cut down, on the suspense, that these scary imageries, were, original shown. It's really does strip down, the scare value. Only, leaving the somewhat distorted, out of context, disturbing fast-cut, quick blunt-force of violent gory imagery with large noises that could be, a little overwhelming to the senses & people's stomachs. The montages in this film can feel like being strapped to a chair, injected with drugs, and forced to watch films of sex and violence with your eyes propped open, as if it's 1971's 'A Clockwork Orange'. They can be a bit excessive & nauseating at times. Look, I get that the movie can't cover, all the material. That said, I love how all the film footages also supported, secondary by narrating from Lance Henriksen, whom does a great job, in establish credibility with his voice. However, I just wish, the information, that the filmmaker gave Heriksen wasn't so broad, without much context. After all, I really don't see much of a connection, in parallels between the charisma and motives of fictional antagonist Freddy Krueger of the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise and that of, former United States President Ronald Reagan, at all! Nor, how Leatherface from 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' can be compare with Osama bin Laden. Also, who though, it was a good idea, to brings in footage from 1969's "Easy Rider" and the James Bond films in a horror documentary? It doesn't make much sense. Another problem with the narrative is how short, some parts are. It really does make it seem, like they cut corners and really only skim the surface of a few pretty important moments in the evolution of the genre. I was really surprised that, the film didn't dig deep enough to explore the decline of the studio system, the rise of the independent movie movement, the advent of television, and the coming of the home video market. I get that, the movie can only go so far, but the whole sequence about the first ten years of the 2000s, seem a bit rushed. Look, I get that, streaming based viewing culture was still, starting out, when this movie was coming out, but, the documentary should had explore more, how the internet have change the industry, as a whole. It's kinda of, a big deal. Another thing, I think the film should get, some of their history, correct. After all, there were plenty of examples of events & movies, not fitting in with the chronological order, they were establishing with. Without going too much into detail, the idea that 1910's 'Frankenstein' is the first horror film is deeply wrong. I guess, the filmmakers never heard of 1896's 'The Devil's Castle' by film pioneer, Georges Méliès. Yes, I get that, it's technically, not an American film, but when talking the history of horror, you have to mention things like this, even if it's foreign. It doesn't make sense for a film to say that they will focus on Hollywood movies, yet talk about German Expressionist & Spanish Cinema and not much on Hammer Films, J-Horror or Italian Giallo. Obviously, a movie can't cover all the material that a book can, but to be fair, this movie should had been expanded into a three-part miniseries. It would had work better. The commentaries from the filmmakers, such as John Carpenter, Roger Corman, George A. Romero, Wes Craven, and others, would had more to say. Sadly, their interviews felt nothing, but sound-bites. Nothing really groundbreaking, came from their presence. It wasn't as entertaining and educational as it should had been. Overall: This documentary may not provide anything new for major horror fans, but it definitely worth seeing, even with its flaws. I just wish, it could had been better.
suspiria56
Yet again we are fed the same old treatment for a new decade. (The American Nightmare treaded much the same ground previously). Watching this latest 'historic' instalment of how cinema's arguably finest and most effective genre came into fruition, feels like a retread, nothing new, nothing challenged. Granted the first half of the 20th century is covered with enthusiasm, but it is when contemporary American horror cinema is tackled does this documentary fall flat, with an approach almost like first year academia.However, John Carpenter makes a perfect point mid-way through in that we give directors like Craven (for Last House on the Left) too much credit by saying that films like Last House on the Left was pure social commentary. Or like Eli Roth's criminally over rated Hostel. These are not great social comments on America.Indeed, Last House on the Left is an excellent film, but it is an excellent exploitation film…and a film that can only be a product of its time - i.e. US cinema became more independent following the mid-60s boom, of which European cinema had been for many years. Before that, it had been controlled implicitly by a studio system. The horror genre will always thrive through independence.With Hostel, it is again a product of its time (okay it has trite, spoon feeding themes in it, but still…). It is a reaction to how desensitised audiences have become with the genre, a marketable push again by Hollywood studios to cash in on real issues - it's painful really, and a reason why the sludge of American horror cinema at the moment is truly woeful.Another point made here also was that the barrage of updates/remakes of 70s horror has become more gory and violent linked to events in the world ….don't give me that, it is purely that we are used to dumbed down violence, not just from news reports but by the need to shock and go one step further with what has previously been made, typified again by the US studio system (can you imagine a remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre with no blood in it, ironically like the original - the studios wouldn't take the risk). The US studio system would remake anything if they could, but the marketable agenda is largely ignored. If the point was that these remakes reflected social ills, why is it that the slew of far Eastern horror, mainly from Korea and Japan, are tame versions of their original sources, not bloody, shocking versions. It is studio tactics, nothing more, nothing less. It is of no coincidence that the far Eastern originals are far superior, particularly as effective examples of the horror genre.Ultimately, the real depth to US contemporary horror was missed here again with this doc. We've heard the same trite academic stances before, over and over, with no counter argument. It is worth noting, and ignored in this documentary, that 70's US exploitation cinema is just as important in the history of the American horror film. Exploitation cinema exists outside of the studio system, away from franchises, pushing boundaries and normal expectations, much in the same way that there is a wealth of amazing European exploitation films (Italy, Germany and Spain being obvious sources of origin, yet many more beside). This brought to American cinema, certainly through the advent of the drive-in cinema and grindhouse picture house, a tidal wave of cinema free to explore any avenue, upping the ante of what audiences consumed.Despite its enthusiasm, and with the usual suspects (Carpenter, Romero, Dante et al) being interviewed, all this documentary really tells us is the historic arc of marketing the horror film….and for that motivation, misses the point entirely.
BC Kelly
Yes - a fine introduction to 'Horror' in American Film.But the singular use of the word 'Horror' does not do justice. Are many elements of Film Genres that cross over, and this Documentary gives tribute - so add Suspense, Thriller, Crime, Sci-Fi and all those other 'things' in Movies, Stories, and Tales that keep us on the edge of our seat, or huddled in fear around the campfire.Especially impressive is the Multi-Disciplinary approach. Movies and Stories don't exist in a vacuum, so factors of History and Culture are included to give further understanding of Society and how these Movies illuminate and/or reflect their Times. And although not directly mentioned, the Film does give tacit reference to Freud/Jung/Joseph Campbell's insights on Dreams, Archetypes and Myth - nothing you'd notice if you weren't aware of their work, but a taste to tease those who want to learn more.At the time of my posting are only 2 other reviews, with value in them both. Yes, a Ken Burns comparison is appropriate - has that Academic Quality. And yes, the 2000's as a decade may not measure up to those in the past. But this Film, at least in passing, does address that somewhat - plus, is difficult to write History as it's still evolving.Now, what is maybe the Greatest Thing™ ?All the Movies it tells us about, then gives the complete list, by Date, during the End Credits.Should keep you busy here at IMDb - and your 'video store' - for a while (smile)..
