The terror, the shock, the dread and the fear after a horror film have been the mental disruption in my experience for over a week. This cinematic fear causes me to sprint right back to my bed at night after going to the bathroom. But how can cinematic fear be ‘pleasurable’? As Hanich (2010) mentioned, it is because it consists of “precious moments of subjective intensity”. Which includes:
Metamorphoses of the lived-body
Foregrounding of time
Instances of collectivity
What makes a film horror and why would it generate fear in the first place? Sound plays a big role here in assisting horror aesthetics in relation to the screen. Imagine for instance, if the film shows someone walking in the dark with a harsh lighting but there wasn’t any sound. It might look scary, but it wouldn’t have a significant terror impact. Let alone shocking, as almost all the time that we are shocked is because of the loud ‘bang’ sound that suddenly made viewers (or even just a listener) jump.
Hanich, J 2010, Cinematic emotion in horror films and thrillers, “Pleasures and Counterbalances”, Routledge, New York, pp. 24-36.
In this week 4 studio we’ve watched the action sci-fi horror, James Cameron’s Aliens (1986). Or what we might call it now is not as “horror” as the contemporary supernatural horror films we see in today’s cinemas. Though, Aliens does incorporate horrific frightening devices such as the dark antagonist “being” and the intense background music that puts the audience’s heightened emotional stress at the edge of their seat. What is interesting about this kind of film are the action heroine, monsters and the portrayal of female power. As Bundtzen (1987) explored, “its depiction of female fecundity, prolific and devouring, is so powerful and fictively generative”. We can see Ripley’s motivational success towards saving the child and to destroy the alien monster that threats the humanity. We can also see the powerful female alien, responsible for more of the alien reproduction and their aim to conquer human home. Both sides are eager to survive and that is the nature of all species whether it is male or female. Aliens shows the idealised motherly figures, such as the alien and Ripley to protect their little ones for the survival of their species. Further depiction of the female sexuality is complemented with visual designs such as the alien form that “resembles female genitalia…” while showing a “graphic display of female anatomy” (Bundtzen, 1987). These designs can be a rather revolting representation of femininity, but its creativity happens to encourage the promoted female power and heroine across action (or other) films as well as our society.
Here are some thoughts on various heroines as well as strong female antagonists/ characters:
Bundtzen, L. K. 1987, Film Quarterly, “Monstrous Mothers: Medusa, Grendel, and Now Alien”, vol. 40, no. 3, publish University of California Press, pp. 11-17.
“What a Day” (2016) is an experimental audio-sketch that intends to define the romance comedy genre. The approach of this sketch is to challenge the ideological boundaries (as well as its ideological influences) created throughout romantic comedy films by bending certain popular tropes and conventions while discard some others. Often stories are divided up according to patterns of conventions and there comes genres as boundaries. As Ishiguro had mentioned, “I get worried when readers and writers take these boundaries too seriously…” (2015). Hence, what would challenge this strict grouping is to create or “sketch” a genre that removes the use of one of its popular tropes and still proves the piece to be a romantic comedy piece.
According to Mortimer (2010), romance comedy is known to consist of displacement and disruption in its narrative content that is complemented with gag, comical suspense or surprise as well as the subversion of the adult world. These films are predominantly predictable; with viewers know the basic happy ending and who the characters will end up with. Rom-com films rely greatly on the journey of the characters to achieve that happy-ending. “What a Day” is an example of a rom-com sketch that denies this popular happy-ending element while comprises other tropes and conventions. Additionally, the audio piece ends ambiguously, without the listeners knowing if the couple will end up together or not. As the audio piece is a parody, it defines the typical disruptive obstacles in rom-com ideologies and mocks the romance out of the couple. While its parody imitation includes the use of humour, verbal exaggeration and subversion of the adult world with the “truth or dare” plot, the typical pop romantic music is replaced entirely with a comedic-tone music. Garwood (2000) argues, “The virtues of the ‘old-fashioned’ visions of romance held by the songs have to be accepted as credible and relevant”. The background music complemented in “What a Day” is not one of those pop songs holding traditional romance semiotics. Furthermore, the experimentation of this background music and narrative component supports that without the satisfying ending, “What a Day” is still a piece about romance and relationship and it is still up-lifting. The audio text is about the romance of the two couple and is comedic because it is a parody of that archetypal romance (beside it having an ambiguous ending).
Romance comedy is indeed about the “celebration of love and relationships while lifting central characters out of the tedium and loneliness of their normality” (Mortimer, 2010). But rom-com can also be seen as a parody of that celebration due to its construction of made-up idealisation about the happily ever after as one reconcile with another. As “What a Day” portrays, rom-com is like looking at a relationship on truths or lies basis. As explained by Grindon (2011) Hollywood rom-com promotes “widespread illusions that everyone was destined to meet their true love or that lovers united in marriage lived happily ever after”. Therefore, the genre’s usual components generates audience’s blissful daydreams that there is always a happy ending after a number of obstacles, causes them to be dissatisfied with their own relationships (Grindon, 2011). The audio piece, through its experimentation, proves itself to be a rom-com without a happily ever after. Yet, it also implements the idea that relationships are not always blissful and heaven-like, turning audiences to the worldly reality rather than constructed rom-com ideologies.
Romantic comedies are one of those films that will just put us in ease and delights. With all the laidback slow-paced sequences, pop music and the happy ending, we ought to be immersed in a dreamlike world of romantic drug. As I was doing my readings, I came across Mortimer’s (2010) descriptive text of typical rom-com characteristics and its use of conventions. There are these particular comedic tastes generated by the gag and performance that are carried out with silly witty characters and exaggeration of elements. We would also see a subversion of the adult world for a more childish approach. Mortimer (2010) identifies the conventions used among the rom-com film:
Displacement
Disruption
Gag performances
Suspense and surprise
Viewer’s predictability
Incongruity
In Nora Ephron’s Sleepless in Seattle (1993), we can see a displacement of character when Annie and her fiancé both visits her family during christmas. Her fiancé, being allergic to almost everything is put in a position of embarrassment as he loudly sneezes during the family dinner. Therefore, the basics of displacement is about the sense of things being out of place just like this example of social displacement as a source of humour. We can also see disruption within rom-com narrative as conflict or influences occurs between the two main leads in When Harry Met Sally (1989). In typical rom-com films though, the audiences have already predicted that whoever is mentioned or shown within the film poster would end up together and it is the exploration of their journey that takes upon various surprises and suspenses. As Mortimer had stated, rom-com is about “the celebration of love and relationships, lifting the central characters out of tedium and loneliness of their normality” (2010).
Mortimer, C 2010, Romantic comedy, “Chapter 4: The comedy of romance“, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 69-83.
