Gregory wrote:I'm a bit suspicious of the term "art horror" and I worry that it may reinforce the notion that horror film is an unworthy genre. The same with the term "cult film."
Carnival of souls has many of the same budget constraints and genre conventions as horror films by, say, George Romero and countless others. What makes Vampyr or Cabinet of Dr Caligari more "art" than Dawn of the Dead or Texas Chainsaw Massacre? They're older, they're "foreign," and are taught more in film schools, and thus have more snob appeal (not saying anyone here is being a snob, necessarily, just exploring the content of some of this terminology). But 1970s U.S. horror films at their best are just as rich and intelligent as the best of their predecessors.
Designating horror films (and others) as "genre pictures" is using a term of abuse that for many people says that these are less deserving of serious attention. If one wants to elevate a horror film out of its ghetto, another term has to be used: "art horror" or "thriller" (e.g. Silence of the Lambs). Similarly, the terms "cult," "exploitation," "schlock," and the like are more terms of abuse used to put vast groups of films in their place, when many of them are actually deserve serious appreciation and respect. In other words, we can enjoy watching these films to laugh at them but we want it to be clear that we're not really taking them seriously.
Criterion may be doing the very same thing by creating a ghetto for "cult" and horror films. If they want to create a lower-priced line, that's great, but why make it a ghetto for films that they like but that lack snob appeal in order to avoid tainting the reputation of the rest of the collection.
I agree completely with the termonolgy that gets thrown around when it comes to horror genre related movies. I hear more "Cheese" references get thrown around then I care to admit to, and it makes my head spin. Nine times out of ten when I hear or read a review or what not and it is started by said term or something to that affect, the rest goes on to make the movie nothing more than joke (Though that may be a little harsh for me to say).
And as far as Carnival of Souls being any sort of an "Art" film, that to me is a joke. I own it, and on some level appreciate it, but an "Art" film it is not to me.
As far as Criterion doing a "Cult" line, I'm all for that. If for no other reason then how they treat their releases and what they get released. Now I do view it as a double edged sword in that very few genre releases will see the light of day in the spine number world, but I feel that a lot of other movies would get a very nice release that in all actuality shouldn't really be placed in the Criterion catolouge.
But at the same time, Blue Underground, Unearthed, Synapse, and Anchor Bay all do a really nice job on their releases. And they all put out their fair share of titles, so I'd be kind of interested to see what Criterion would be putting out if you know what I mean.
And on the same hand, are these more along the lines of El Topoesque titles or titles like A Nightmare on Elm Street. I for one would love to see them do a line for films like The Monster Squad and the likes. Films that I love with all my heart, but would look a little weird along side Andrei Rublev.
But, I'd hope that they'd do a little better job on said titles than from what I've been seeing with the Merchant Ivory Collection. A lot of those discs are very lack luster to say the least.
