|
Spot-on - I personally am very optimistic about the future of the horror film. Despite the amount of bad examples it cannot be denyed that audiences consistently support this type of genre. Its development would seem to be cyclic and we've been seeing a return to a higher quality in recent years.
As regards CF, you're right, it does contain alot of gore. But a point I made earlier as regards the way Carpenter used FX in his remake of "The Thing" is valid here - I didn't think it was comical. I found the effects in that picture revolting and in that way, the movie worked for me. The same with CF - The sight of that girl slowly rotting, the fact that it was based on a real illness. Yes, it was a little far-fetched at times but compared to the circus that was "A Nightmare..." - Phones sprouting tongues, fountains of blood - I found it to be far more effective.
You're right about the independents though - The 1970s was such an exciting time in American Cinema, not least because of the apparition of the Vietnam War, but there was much more of a hands-on approach to film-making. It was Sean S Cunningham who gave the money to Craven to shoot Last House. Carpenter invented the "steadicam" in making "Halloween". Even in the early '80s, Raimi pushed the envelope with "The Evil Dead".
It's high time we had a new set of pioneers like that.
|