Higher Ground

There has been some recent consternation regarding the term "elevated horror," as it pertains to certain movies in the horror genre. I've read an article expressing disdain for the terminology, making the rounds on social media, and felt compelled to share my own thoughts on the subject. Truth be told, this is something I've been wanting to write about for awhile.

Those who know me, know I love watching movies and talking about movies. I like horror films in particular. Always have. As a kid in the 1980s, I'd spend way too much time watching the Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm St. entries on HBO with my friend, Derrick. And now? I watch many of those same movies, partly for the '80s nostalgia, partly because they're kind of comforting. There's a whole psychology about why some folks find these kinds of films calming. They're not high art, but they are, at least for some, entertaining.

In recent years, certain movies in the horror genre have garnered the previously unthinkable -- acclaim and respect, at least from more mainstream critics. Films like The Witch, Hereditary, Midsommar, It Follows, The Babadook, and The Lighthouse have collectively generated a new buzz term: elevated horror. This bit of parlance has caused some in the horror aficionado community to bristle. 'Evelated' often means 'raised,' or 'aloft.' Some have construed this to mean 'better.' I suppose it could be looked at that way. But, is 'better' always to be conflated with a snobbish pretense? I'm not so sure.

I, for one, have used the "elevated horror" term, yet meant no disrespect by it. I mean, look... it could very easily be argued that The Lighthouse is a better movie than Friday the 13th Part 2. And yet, I like both of them. In fact, I kind of love Friday the 13th Part 2 and, if given a choice of which one to take with me to a deserted island, I can honestly say it wouldn't be The Lighthouse.

People on social media who talk about cinema with one another will sometimes joke about whether they refer to something as a "film" or a "movie." Again, a lot of the time it's done in jest -- the words are often used interchangeably -- but, if we're being pseudo-serious here for a moment, Hereditary is a film, and The Slumber Party Massacre is a movie. I like them both, but one is more well-put-together than the other, has higher-caliber acting, and is otherwise better made. No shade on the other.

It's odd, because the author of the piece I initially link to this in this post writes:

"In a vacuum, there's nothing wrong with arguing that one horror (or any) film might be better than the other. The foundation of critical analysis art relies on this base premise."

That's all true. What it does, however, is create a hierarchy among art (if we're looking at movies as an artform, which we should). And, while such echelons may be subjective, there's no getting around that being supportive of critical analysis, and acknowledging that one horror movie may be better than another, is in fact the antithesis of being disgruntled over the 'elevated horror' terminology. The Conjuring and Midsommar are both really well-made horror movies, but the former is more populist than the latter, and it's okay to admit that, or at least hold such an opinion.

Earlier I wrote that I've been wanting to write about this topic for awhile, and what I meant by that was how often I'll see folks lump well-regarded films into the horror genre. Take the following three as examples: Psycho, Jaws and Alien. They are great movies, to be sure, but are they horror? I would argue the first two are thrillers, and the last is science-fiction. 'But Matt,' some people have argued, 'can't a movie fall into more than one genre?' Of course it can, but, for the sake of clarity, we most often go with a film's primary genre as its identifier. And, primarily, those movies are not horror films.

There is not -- or at least should not be -- a correlation between a movie having horrific elements and it therefore falling under the horror genre. The "Is it safe?" scene in Marathon Man is horrific, but Marathon Man is not a horror film.  No Country For Old Men is a taut and suspenseful film that features several grisly kills, but it's not a horror movie. They join the aforementioned Jaws, Alien and Psycho triad as films held in high esteem that the horror community tries to include, to perhaps provide the genre with more legitimacy than they think it has.

And there's the rub. For as long as I can remember, the horror movie genre has been regarded with disdain by a lot of critics and certain audience demographics, and fans have been craving for it to be respected. That's why highly regarded films that aren't necessarily horror are readily tossed under the category's umbrella, even if they are primarily another type of movie. The desperation for a sense of legitimacy is, ultimately, unnecessary. Who cares, really? Like what you like. That's why I'd rather re-watch Chopping Mall over Midsommar any day.