>>The philosophical question of “What is moral?” has always been looming in the back of human minds. Different cultures pose their own theories on what is “good”—religions of all kinds give guidelines, societies’ views form rules as a whole per society, and both groups’ acceptance of whatever action is on the spotlight. So the idea of a true hero or true villain is difficult to fathom if it must be universal, considering what the hero or villain stands for can only be seen as “right” or “wrong” by a limited amount of eyes. In analyzing horror film audiences, Stephen King has given an intriguing hypothesis to this conundrum that there is no hero who can walk the Earth: instead, the planet is populated by antiheroes.
>>King did not blatantly state this of course—he was not even writing in terms of heroes and villains—but it is clear that when he brings up the boy and the “chocolate-covered graham crackers” that he is discussing if the boy chooses to be “good” or “bad” to society’s standards, which translates into if he is acting heroic or villainous (or at least in which direction he is growing). An antihero is a hero who may deontologically not have the best ethics and often he or she is very flawed, but this person still works toward their sense of order (which for an antihero would be society’s heroic sense of order). To continue with King’s example, the boy would be an antihero because he does the “right” thing for others (adoring his little sister), but he is flawed since he still commits acts of violence (slamming his little sister’s fingers in a door for fun) and he only does the “right” thing because he knows there will be a reward (the chocolate-covered graham crackers). He may not act that way otherwise. This is his flaw, but he still is in society’s eye as “good” because he is still learning and abides by his family when they punish him.
>>The purpose of “Why We Crave Horror” was to subtly say that all people are dualistic in the sense we both possess “good” and “evil” inside: normally people act to their society’s standards, but once in awhile they must let their evil which exists inside “be let loose to scream and roll around in the grass.” (King) King argues that the majority of people are more “good” than “evil”, but that the “evil” part of us manifests itself as “emotional muscles” (King) that “demands its own exercise to maintain proper muscle tone.” (King) Translation? We all have the flaw of being somewhat “evil” alongside our “good” nature, and that everyone is a bit morbid—his example was the existence of dead baby jokes. They are repulsive but for some reason they still make people laugh.
>>Horror films take this concept a bit further—instead of your average person merely thinking of something considered politically incorrect as amusing, “the fun comes from seeing others menaced—sometimes killed.” (King) In most societies (and certainly the American society King writes from), murder is considered taboo and there is an array of punishments for doing such a thing, such as life in prison or being sentenced to death. Yet watching it on screen for entertainment is okay. It introduces a dark element to any individual yet simultaneously to the masses—after all, who skips on watching scary movies? King is correct when he states, “we’re all mentally ill; those of us outside the asylums only hide it a little better.” When thinking that all people are antiheroes, heroes who seek their “good” while deontologically flawed, this makes perfect sense: horror film audiences are flawed since they enjoy watching the suffering they are supposed to be against.
>>Of course even with this flaw the antihero can be heroic, “[a]s long as you keep the gators fed,” King concludes. What he is referring to is that the antihero must use those “emotional muscles” (King) fueled by evil once in awhile in order to keep the evil within at bay. After all, one evil action here or there does not mean a person is no longer “constrained by an ethic” (Alsford 83) as any society’s hero is supposed to be. It is just that we must acknowledge the “‘beast within’, a lawless predatory creature that wills to do all the reckless wickedness that civilization, society, religion and ethics are designed to keep submerged and suppressed,” (110) which Alsford brings to our attention. What it all boils down to is if our antiheroes of society choose to let their “good” or “evil” natures rule their actions and thus their effect on the society.
>>Works Cited
Alsford, Mike. Heroes & Villains. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006. Print.
King, Stephen. “Why We Crave Horror.” http://drmarkwomack.com/pdfs/horrormovies.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment