WHAT IS THE FIRST HORROR/GENRE FILM? in Silent Horror Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

WHAT IS THE FIRST HORROR/GENRE FILM?

Author	Comment
Rick		#21	[-]
Feb 3 12 7:56 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I recall when I was a teenager, watching FOLLOW ME QUIETLY on the late show. It's a tight, terrific little suspenser with a mildly creepy feel. But it has a shock scene that almost blew me through the back wall of the living room. As soon as I settled down, I reached for my index cards and added the film to my horror files. I now think I overreacted, but just a bit. There will always be different definitions of horror, and questionable calls for each definition. CALIGARI and THE GOLEM are less horror than NOSFERATU, but, to me, horror films nonetheless. THE AVENGING CONSCIENCE is a really meek, mild viewing experience for modern audiences, but I feel sure it was meant to scare those of 1914. For that matter, "trick" film or not, I'll bet Georges Melies wanted his bat transformation in LE MANOIR DU DIABLE to strike terror into viewers. I agree that PHANTOM OF THE OPERA is absolutely a horror film, in every (except the supernatural) sense of the word. HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME and MAN WHO LAUGHS are certainly not horror, but I still accept them into the fold, figuring the general perception of them as such for a long time sort of "grandfathers" them into the fraternity. But that's me. I say again -- I love this conversation, but yer never gettin' a definitive answer that will suit any majority. Last Edited By: Rick Feb 3 12 8:00 PM. Edited 1 times.
	Remove this ad
pulp novelties		#22	[-]
Feb 3 12 8:33 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	TServo4 wrote: Sure, but then any mystery/suspense films with moments of mortal terror are horror too. But the horror isn't the raison d'être of a mystery or suspense film, the intrigue surrounding the situation is. IN COLD BLOOD comes to mind. The film's murders aren't a a mystery, they're just dreadful, realistic and tense. I get more disturbed and filled with dread by that film than any Hammer or AIP film of the era, same goes for 10 RILLINGTON PLACE but I'd never call either horror.
pulp novelties		#23	[-]
Feb 3 12 8:40 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Rick wrote: I recall when I was a teenager, watching FOLLOW ME QUIETLY on the late show. It's a tight, terrific little suspenser with a mildly creepy feel. But it has a shock scene that almost blew me through the back wall of the living room. As soon as I settled down, I reached for my index cards and added the film to my horror files. I now think I overreacted, but just a bit. There will always be different definitions of horror, and questionable calls for each definition. CALIGARI and THE GOLEM are less horror than NOSFERATU, but, to me, horror films nonetheless. THE AVENGING CONSCIENCE is a really meek, mild viewing experience for modern audiences, but I feel sure it was meant to scare those of 1914. For that matter, "trick" film or not, I'll bet Georges Melies wanted his bat transformation in LE MANOIR DU DIABLE to strike terror into viewers. I agree that PHANTOM OF THE OPERA is absolutely a horror film, in every (except the supernatural) sense of the word. HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME and MAN WHO LAUGHS are certainly not horror, but I still accept them into the fold, figuring the general perception of them as such for a long time sort of "grandfathers" them into the fraternity. But that's me. I say again -- I love this conversation, but yer never gettin' a definitive answer that will suit any majority. If not fitting into my definition of horror, every film were talking about makes it into my collection and fits within the realm of my tastes. It's my interest in horror and ouchy drama that brought them to my attention in the first place.
TServo4		#24	[-]
Feb 3 12 11:17 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	pulp novelties wrote: IN COLD BLOOD comes to mind. The film's murders aren't a a mystery, they're just dreadful, realistic and tense. I get more disturbed and filled with dread by that film than any Hammer or AIP film of the era, same goes for 10 RILLINGTON PLACE but I'd never call either horror. But with IN COLD BLOOD, there's a morality theme that is the running thread through the events, and the killings aren't necessarily an act of evil, but the result of a botched robbery. Likewise, while the events in 10 RILLINGTON PLACE are horrific, indeed, but there's a bigger picture there (particularly the false conviction of Timothy Evans). In hindsight, this discussion has brought out the reason why I think most critics won't give horror films a pass—by (my) definition, they're purely exploitative. However, to say that a horror film is mere exploitation is also incorrect, as evidenced in the artistry of such films as BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN or THE MUMMY. J. Theakston Capitol Theatre, Rome, NY
MYST0		#25	[-]
Feb 3 12 11:53 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	IN COLD BLOOD and 10 RILLINGTON PLACE are quite horrific if you ask me. That is exactly the feeling I get from those. SILENCE OF THE LAMBS also. HUNCHBACK and LAUGHS: not horror at all. TOWER OF LONDON is also not horror IMHO. Historical dramas all. STUDENT OF PRAGUE is a horror film in that it contains all the elements that a horror film should contain. Unless someone comes up with an earlier example, I still think it takes the honor of being the first horror feature film extant at least. I can see that this will go on forever unless someone can come up with a definitive answer as to what actually constitutes a horror film. I think a key element is that there is an intent to frighten or horrify an audience, even if the filmmaker did not put that intent into the film. If it is not successful or the horror is dated and no longer effective, a horror film would probably have to contain some attempt to scare or, somehow cause fear in a person I would think. I also think a horror film should be plot driven by the horror element to some extent and not just a film with one or two horrific scenes. I am not saying that what I am attempting to put forth here is irrefutable, of course, but, I am just trying to come up with a definition that is acceptable to most of us here. I hope someone can add some other elements which could narrow it down even more. I do agree that we will probably never nail it down, but it should be fun trying to do so. As pulp novelties says: "If not fitting into my definition of horror, every film were talking about makes it into my collection and fits within the realm of my tastes. It's my interest in horror and ouchy drama that brought them to my attention in the first place." So true!
MYST0		#26	[-]
Feb 3 12 11:56 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Also.. Surely the term "horror film" did not exist in the pre sound days, but that doesn't mean there weren't any and this brings another question to mind: When was the term first used? It must have been after DRACULA and FRANKENSTEIN, no? Last Edited By: MYST0 Feb 15 12 10:35 AM. Edited 1 times.
pulp novelties		#27	[-]
Feb 4 12 12:14 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	For me a horror film is that in which horror is the primary focal-point, and both the narrative and manner of execution support that aim.
Rick		#28	[-]
Feb 4 12 12:37 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I agree that 10 RILLINGTON PLACE and IN COLD BLOOD are pretty horrific, but it's hard for me to brand a true-story film as a horror film. I'm sure there are exceptions, and maybe it's just me, but there ya go. Perhaps this is why it came as such a surprise to me when folks on this board began avidly discussing THE TOWN THAT DREADED SUNDOWN. I saw that movie when it was new and, despite the advertising, I never for an instant thought of it as a horror film. To me it was a true crime story, just tarted up for entertainment's sake. As for the term "horror film," I think it's probably true that it didn't come into use as a designation for this specific type of film till after DRACULA or maybe FRANKENSTEIN, but I do feel sure I've read it used by critics to describe individual films from the silent days. Some day maybe I'll go searching, see if I can dig out one of those references.
PhantomXCI		#29	[-]
Feb 4 12 12:42 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The most-often used term to describe (what would eventually become) horror films was "mystery". "Spook mystery" or "Fantastic film" sometimes crept in there. But PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, THE WIZARD, and DR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE were all touted by the critics as mysteries. The NY Times was still using that term when they reviewed DRACULA. I think FRANKENSTEIN was probably the first film to actually be called a "horror" picture.
pulp novelties		#30	[-]
Feb 4 12 3:59 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	When you see trailers from the late 20's -30's horror they usually promise "Thrills & Chills" and describe these films a "Strange" or Weird" stories. You start to get the feeling that Horror is a dirty word until the reissue trailers started using the term.
	Remove this ad
sthorntn		#31	[-]
Feb 4 12 9:35 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Just to confuse things even more, I would argue that the visual style of the director is more important in the determination of what is and what is not a horror film than the subject matter, per se. The same script in the hands of two different directors might yield two very different movies, one that is a horror film and one that isn't. But that's just me.
MYST0		#32	[-]
Feb 4 12 11:52 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I wonder if a good example of that would be THE GREAT IMPERSONATION. The 1935 version is in UNIVERSAL HORRORS, the 1942 version has no horror content and is not. If anyone can find the term "Horror Movie" used before FRANKENSTEIN, I can accept it as being the first film to be CALLED a horror film. I wonder if we can say that the Edison FRANKENSTEIN (1910) is the first horror film? It certainly has a horror plot. Of course, there are some very early versions of A CHRISTMAS CAROL and it has a narrative and ghosts. Does anyone refute STUDENT OF PRAGUE (1913) as being the first feature or is L'INFERNO still in the running?
pulp novelties		#33	[-]
Feb 4 12 12:44 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	sthorntn wrote: Just to confuse things even more, I would argue that the visual style of the director is more important in the determination of what is and what is not a horror film than the subject matter, per se. The same script in the hands of two different directors might yield two very different movies, one that is a horror film and one that isn't. But that's just me. Well that's what I meant when I said both the narrative and manner of execution support the aim of being a horror film. Horror can be used for dramatic impact in a non-horror film.
pulp novelties		#34	[-]
Feb 4 12 12:46 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	MYST0 wrote: I wonder if a good example of that would be THE GREAT IMPERSONATION. The 1935 version is in UNIVERSAL HORRORS, the 1942 version has no horror content and is not. If anyone can find the term "Horror Movie" used before FRANKENSTEIN, I can accept it as being the first film to be CALLED a horror film. I wonder if we can say that the Edison FRANKENSTEIN (1910) is the first horror film? It certainly has a horror plot. Of course, there are some very early versions of A CHRISTMAS CAROL and it has a narrative and ghosts. Does anyone refute STUDENT OF PRAGUE (1913) as being the first feature or is L'INFERNO still in the running? I think the Edison film was a "trick-film" done as a morality play.
Rider		#35	[-]
Feb 4 12 1:05 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	pulp novelties wrote: MYST0 wrote: I wonder if a good example of that would be THE GREAT IMPERSONATION. The 1935 version is in UNIVERSAL HORRORS, the 1942 version has no horror content and is not. If anyone can find the term "Horror Movie" used before FRANKENSTEIN, I can accept it as being the first film to be CALLED a horror film. I wonder if we can say that the Edison FRANKENSTEIN (1910) is the first horror film? It certainly has a horror plot. Of course, there are some very early versions of A CHRISTMAS CAROL and it has a narrative and ghosts. Does anyone refute STUDENT OF PRAGUE (1913) as being the first feature or is L'INFERNO still in the running? I think the Edison film was a "trick-film" done as a morality play. Have you seen it, because I would not describe it that way at all.
pulp novelties		#36	[-]
Feb 4 12 7:45 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Rider wrote: pulp novelties wrote: MYST0 wrote: I wonder if a good example of that would be THE GREAT IMPERSONATION. The 1935 version is in UNIVERSAL HORRORS, the 1942 version has no horror content and is not. If anyone can find the term "Horror Movie" used before FRANKENSTEIN, I can accept it as being the first film to be CALLED a horror film. I wonder if we can say that the Edison FRANKENSTEIN (1910) is the first horror film? It certainly has a horror plot. Of course, there are some very early versions of A CHRISTMAS CAROL and it has a narrative and ghosts. Does anyone refute STUDENT OF PRAGUE (1913) as being the first feature or is L'INFERNO still in the running? I think the Edison film was a "trick-film" done as a morality play. Have you seen it, because I would not describe it that way at all. I have, I own the DVD. For those who don't
Melkes		#37	[-]
Feb 5 12 12:32 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	MYST0 wrote: Also.. Surly the term "horror film" did not exist in the pre sound days, but that doesn't mean there weren't any and this brings another question to mind: When was the term first used? It must have been after DRACULA and FRANKENSTEIN, no? Unless you mean specifically the English term "horror film" (which can only really be used to determine the emergence of a genre in English speaking countries), the equivalent term "Gruselfilm" (still the German word for horror film) was used in the headline of an article describing Nosferatu in Der Film in October 1921.
pulp novelties		#38	[-]
Feb 5 12 1:22 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Melkes wrote: MYST0 wrote: Also.. Surly the term "horror film" did not exist in the pre sound days, but that doesn't mean there weren't any and this brings another question to mind: When was the term first used? It must have been after DRACULA and FRANKENSTEIN, no? Unless you mean specifically the English term "horror film" (which can only really be used to determine the emergence of a genre in English speaking countries), the equivalent term "Gruselfilm" (still the German word for horror film) was used in the headline of an article describing Nosferatu in Der Film in October 1921. Well there, that settles it then
hnicolella		#39	[-]
Feb 5 12 1:32 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Somewhere I have a contemporary review of "A Blind Bargain" (1922) that refers to it as a "horror film." Henry
Rick		#40	[-]
Feb 5 12 1:34 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Bless you, Henry! I was hoping my mind wasn't that far gone.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

WHAT IS THE FIRST HORROR/GENRE FILM?