Why is it that some movies are considered horror and others not? It can’t just be whether the movie is scary. Lots of movies, like Saving Private Ryan, The Night of the Hunter, and No Country for Old Men, are scary (or have scary parts) without being horror. It can’t be a supernatural element—movies like Psycho and Silence of the Lambs have nothing supernatural in them, yet most people consider them horror.
Is it just how the movie makes you feel? Is it horror if it seems creepy?
I’d like to say the addition of supernatural elements makes for a horror film but I don’t suppose that’s entirely accurate. Is Silence of the Lambs a horror movie or a thriller? Wikipedia says it’s a psychological horror film, so I guess that answers that. Typically horror is something that instills intense fear or revulsion in the audience. Was I afraid during Saving Private Ryan? I don’t think so. Did I feel revulsion? Again, no. But then I will admit the opening scenes on D-Day certainly prompted an emotional response. Shock?
Horror isn’t a distinct genre so much as a descriptor of the feelings elicited - a film can be horror+drama or horror+scifi or horror+eroticism or horror+comedy, if the emotions elicited lean more to fear and disgust, as opposed to thrills and excitement. It is of course possible to have both, in the horror+thriller.
A movie whose main goal is to scare people. Movies can have scary scenes, but they aren’t the main point.
Also movies that have the accoutrements of horror.
Although it “has multiple issues,” the Wikipedia article on horror films has some useful things to say.
Interesting question. I’d say that, in addition to having person(s) or thing(s) that are evil and dangerous, there is an atmosphere of dread or unease maintained throughout the movie.
Also I think there’s usually something mysterious or implacable about the bad or evil person(s) or thing(s) that makes their purpose or relentlessness disquieting and difficult to understand.
By those measures, “Saving Private Ryan” is certainly not a horror movie, but I think it could be argued that “No Country for Old Men” could be considered one— Anton Chigurh is an implacable, relentless figure, with a moral code that is alien to ‘normal’ people. The gas station scene where the clueless owner has no idea how close he came to death is a masterpiece of sustained dread and tension.
I heard a recent opinion (not sure where) that film genres can be defined by the involuntary physical responses the makers are trying to induce in their viewers: Laughter for Comedy. Tears for Drama. And screams for Horror.
There are elements of horror and comedy in many (most?) films, regardless of genre. Identifying genres is mostly a marketing endeavor; not an artistic one.
On this I have to agree. It makes no sense for The Running Man by Richard Bachman/Stephen King to be in the horror section but that’s where you’ll find it in a lot of bookstores. If it were another by a less well known author, it would be in the science fiction section. Arguably The Tommyknockers by King would also be classified as science fiction had it not been written by an established horror writer.
But that definition leaves out more atmospheric horror - movies that are more about a feeling of dread or discomfort than screams.
This fun article from the New York Times (gift link) lists movies that people reported as being scary when they saw them as kids. The list has the usual suspects, such as Psycho and Halloween, but some atypical “horror” films like Bambi and The Wizard of Oz. Obviously, horror films are in the eye of the beholder.
The Devil and Daniel Mouse scared me more at the time that I saw it than any other movie ever has.
The banshee from Darby O’Gill and the Little People scared the piss out of me when I was a kid.