-
I originally planned to organize the horror films before 2000, but yesterday after watching "The Master", I felt shocked and couldn’t help writing an article. . Of course, what I said in the previous paragraph was "nonsense". How can a classic be called a "classic" if it is not amazing? But this week I also watched another classic "Midnight Ghost Goes To Bed", and I feel that "The Arch Master" has the height that it should be as a horror movie.
I feel like a fan. There is a sense of excitement between the lines in this article. Even this film also has a common problem that horror films often have-that is, "misogynistic", but this one is for Human misogyny is not as strong as most horror movies, and the spirit of the times and doubts about beliefs (in various senses) reflected in this movie are far more than the sensory stimulation that horror movies give people. Even though many classic shots (such as falling down the stairs and owl heads) have been "tributed" and spoofed by many current film and television works, when actually watching this film, there is still a strong sense of fear that spontaneously arises. Horror can't be done by showing off cruelty and misogyny.
I think if I were to say where is the scary part of this film? Those classic shots are of course terrifying, but if you have been through the show beforehand, the sense of horror will naturally be greatly reduced. On the contrary, there is a sense of expectation and you want to know when these shots will appear.
So since it has been spoiled many times and it still makes people feel scary, where is the scary point? I think it's the way of telling stories that makes people feel creepy. For example, from time to time in the first half of the film, there will be demon faces flashing by. Although these shots are of course nothing at the current angle, when these flashing faces keep appearing, even these The bridge is too sunny, but it can arouse strong anxiety among the audience.
Of course, there are still many disturbing shots, but we do not mention the director’s storytelling skills here, but when we have seen a classic, we also have to start thinking about what we need as an audience? What we want is fast food showing off female body and plasma? Or is it a good dish that does not emphasize heart stimulation; does not show off all kinds of cruelty, and does not forget to pursue thinking about the meaning of life in addition to visual effects? In addition to the pursuit of excitement when we watch horror films, what kind of spirit do we have to pursue in this two-hour movie watching process?
Movies are of course a kind of enjoyment in popular culture, but if the value of a film is only enjoyment, then the height of the film is; however, if a film only emphasizes what it wants to express, it will only become a director in the end. I appreciate my own loneliness. What is a successful commercial film? It is not only for the audience to enjoy, but also for the audience to think about what is going on in their own era. As the only horror film in the history of Oscars, this film just reflects the thinking about that era. "Horror films" don't just stop at folk culture.
As a way of telling stories, "horror film" can not only bring the audience's panic, but also reflect the psychological state of people in an era. And the film is classic, not just the original shots and The way of telling the story also tells the people's doubts about everything in that era and their desperate thinking. And deep doubts and thinking about life are exactly what we need and lack the most in our time. The contemporary cannot reproduce the classics of the past, making these classics the only eternal ones. Although today's people continue to inherit the footsteps of their predecessors, the stories that people talk about are ultimately just the signs of that era.
View more about The Exorcist reviews
