Morality tales can be seen as using a cowardly method of making a point; science fiction and fantasy use the method because they can make commentary on current events and climates and avoid criticism for their views by claiming that one has nothing to do with the other. The Planet of the Apes series for example often used their world of talking apes to demonstrate problems with the modern world. The original Planet of the Apes and its immediate sequel Beneath the Planet of the Apes are examples of this, demonstrating through their narratives the deadly potential of mankind to destroy itself again and again, but also cruelly implying that mans destructive tern is simply the next inevitable step in evolution. Eventually all animals destroy themselves when they reach a certain level of intelligence, this notion can also be read as a commentary on different nations developing nuclear technology, eventually every country which dabble in such destructive forces will destroy themselves; not a popular notion in the late 60’s but there the message is in a main stream science fiction film and its sequel. Later, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972) would features a story about ape slaves rising up against their brutal human overseers; the film modeled a lot of its imagery and plot on the Watts race riots in Los Angeles 1965, which resulted in close to a thousand buildings being damaged or destroyed and lead to the government intervening sending in thousands of troops to quash the riot before it spread. In 1972 a studio is not going to release a film where the protagonist is the leader of the Watts riots, but through the metaphor of revolting apes they could. The modern television series Battlestar Galatica in their third season portrayed the human protagonists as the people of Iraq, suicide bombers and all. The villainous robotic cyclones being portrayed as the allied occupiers, and controlling the human/Iraq government by force. No main stream television channel would dare broadcast a programme which made the same point without metaphor. In these cases it was not a cowardly method of making a comment; it was the only way of making a comment. The commentary horror films are often making is unlike most science fiction and fantasy films because of its conservative bias. Whether intentionally or not, there is a clear antifeminist reading of The Exorcist, and to shoot a film in 1973 which made the comment in literal terms, likewise would probably not even be commissioned. It is also surrounded by the rather ugly paradox, a conservative devaluing of feminine contributions to modern life coupled with grizzly and unpleasant violence which the average Conservative in the 1970’s would have been repelled from and would probably led to the banning of its content even though it can be read as promoting a mutual cause. Like the irony of Christian groups picketing The Exorcist upon release not realizing that the film was actually pro-religious, its stance on religion and the value of faith is irrelevant when it is promoted through a film which vividly depicts a young girl masturbating with a crucifix. Wells states in his 2000 book The Horror Genre, that: “The horror text that remains ‘adult’ still carries with it the complex psychological, emotional, physical, and ideological charges of ancient folklore, fairytale and myth. In illustrating and commenting upon deep-seated anxieties of its time, the horror film thus performs a necessary social function, for to challenge and disturb is to insist upon a liberal democratic process that both reflects and critiques its socio-cultural moment. Although seemingly nihilistic in its outlook, the horror film can continually remind an audience of things about which it should neither be complacent nor accepting.”
In the television series Star Trek: Deep Space Nine for example, the human doctor Julian Bashir recounts the story of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” to his alien friend Garack. We all know the story, a young boy feels lonely or wants attention depending on which version you hear and cries wolf, the villagers rush to help him protect the livestock only to find there’s no wolf. On the second night the boy attempts the same trick, again the villagers rush to his defense and again there is no wolf. On the third night there really is a wolf, he cries out for the villagers but this time none of them come, not believing his cries for help and he is eaten alive by the wolf. Bashir explains that the story’s message is that if you lie all the time then no one will believe you when you tell the truth. Garack counters Bashir and correctly informs him that his is but one interpretation of the stories message, and that he has another: The message isn’t that you shouldn’t lie; it’s that you should never tell the same lie twice. This scene perfectly illustrates the point, art is subjective and so no definitive answer can be given to the question. The creative forces behind the films examined in these episodes may not have intended there films to be interpreted as morality tales; but if we were to apply Roland Barthes post-structurelist theory: Death of the Author then the creative intentions are irrelevant. After all what we now consider traditional morality tales might never have been intended in this way by the original author, in fact it’s very unlikely as the collective term of “The Morality Tale” would only have been applied many years later by scholars whilst looking for an all encompassing label to apply to these stories. Paradoxical at time, loosely linking in places, but the supernatural element is most definitely the key to horror movies being connected to the moral centre of nursery rhymes and folk tales. Through this aspect and without the consent of the original creative force it can be interpreted that some horror movies are indeed the modern equivalent of the classic morality tale. M.Dawson Bibliography |
|||
Morality tales are one of the last shared languages of the world, using a metaphorical story that applies and has relevance to most of the societies in the world. Like the science fiction and fantasy genre, the horror can make a commentary about events in the world without any direct narrative link to them. Not every horror film fits into the category, like The Silence of the Lambs and Se7en, if the narrative operates within the real world, then it can not be a morality tale, even if it has a moral message of some kind. The metaphor is required, even demanded. The Exorcist, Halloween, and Friday the 13th all have the supernatural element to make their message and therefore can be interpreted as morality tales.
Not all horror film interpretations are right wing and often interpretations can be placed on them, which are not at all accurate (if we can presume to denounce any interpretation as inaccurate). The suggestion that the slasher films are making a comment on the AIDS era, and warning about that virus specifically, and as with a similar theory stated earlier about vampire films, it can be called into question as the first slasher films predate the discovery of the virus. Because of the supernatural element within the narratives, horror films will always have multiple interpretations drawn upon them; more often than not those interpretations will reflect the fears of the filmmakers behind them, and the era they were filmed in. Horror films will act as morality tales, and continually warn of the changes that have occurred in that generation, warning against an unknown element. But is this a morality tale, their primary function is to instill a sense of values, the values of the author, not the fears. Or are the fears and values connected? Are our values informed by our fears or vice versa? Ultimately it is up to the individual perception of the viewer to decide whether there is a warning within the film or not, and how to receive that warning. As with the fairy tales, folk tales, and nursery rhymes of the years before the invention of cinema, it is one thing to tell the story, another entirely for it to be heard and understood correctly.
Post new comment