As scary as going for a walk?

It occurs to me (not for the first time, but with some additional insights of a sudden) that one of the biggest problems, as time has gone on, is that people have increasingly lost the ability to suspend their disbelief, which is a NECESSITY when it comes to film.

Musicals, romantic weepers and such are just impossible to appreciate now because one can't imagine them happening in real life. Dramas have become hopelessly over-dramatic, war pictures and westerns hopelessly too heroic (or UN-). Admittedly a lot of that's due to changing times and art forms, but a lot of that's simply due to laziness, one-upmanship (if everyone is making fun of some old type of film, then it's proper to join in rather than try to appreciate it), and the way that everything has been pandering to niche markets over the past 50 years or so. (Why bother watching old films when you can see all the new ones you like, anytime you like, in any genre you prefer?)

On top of that, there seems to be an ever-increasing tendency towards immediate justification: if a movie moves just a tad too slow, it's unbearable. After all, who wants character development when it could be replaced by more action? (As I post this, the review posted on imdb's page--subject to change, of course--complains about how slow-moving this film is. I just watched it again before I came over here, and I was honestly surprised at how FAST this film moves! There isn't a moment in it that I would consider boring or padded! It says a lot, more's the pity, that someone can actually consider this film slow!)

At least horror, and other fantasy genres, were able to transcend this by evolving into something more grotesquely modern-day than were others. Musicals and westerns, despite the occasional brave attempt at a resurrection, have been moribund for years now. Straight dramas and romances, once 90% of Hollywood's serious output, are now probably around 10%. (Before I get taken to task on this, yes, I made up those percentages, but I'll bet they aren't far off.) But then, back in those days adults used to go to the show.

Nowadays there are no adults.

As for horror, with the absence of suspension of disbelief has come the need for something to get one over his decreasing attention span. The more dialogue, the worst for the picture; the more action (and blood!), the better. Hell, eliminate much more dialogue and we'll practically be back to silent films again! (Um...would that be a bad thing?)

But the worst part is that "suspension of disbelief" involves going beyond the fact that you're watching a film, you have to actually BELIEVE it. And the farther back you go, the more alien the concepts and lifestyles of the people you're watching are, the more primitive the techniques and different the nuances of the scripts are, the harder it may be to make that jump, especially now that everyone can pick and choose which films they want and avoid all others. Films are no good unless they're "realistic," and old films aren't, and certainly they aren't realistic as far as the lives of those watching them now. And who wants to make the effort to try to understand the old, out-of-date values? Why go to all that bother, just to appreciate a work of art?

(Yeah, as if new films are any more realistic than old ones. Visualize a scene wherein someone goes into a bar for a prearranged meeting to hire a hitman. In an old Warner Brothers gangster film the dialogue would be more stylized; in a modern-day film it would be a lot cruder, with a lot more f-words thrown about. But in either case the meeting would take less than five minutes of screen time--probably a LOT less now. Realistically, in real life, that meeting would probably take over a good hour and a half, with both parties hmmming and hawing over things. That meeting would take more time than the length of the film! In other words, no matter what you think, films are no more "realistic" now than they've ever been...they're just different.)

So, to cut this short, the problem with watching "Caligari" through modern eyes is that you insist on reminding yourself that it's a FILM. You can't make the leap to thinking of it as reality (admittedly in this particular case a very stylized, psychologically twisted view of reality). For the same reason, other admitted classics like Universal's "Frankenstein" or Lewton's "Cat People" are no longer considered scary to many: they're looking at FILMS, and can't identify with them. In fact, they can't identify, from a horror standpoint, with anything less than seeing someone shredded apart onscreen, something that shocks them momentarily out of their self-imposed comfort of only watching a film. They REFUSE to make the leap, to suspend their disbelief to that extent, and so it doesn't work. (And more's the pity for them...and for the human race as a whole, since it's losing its imagination.)

Personally, if I were to walk outside and suddenly see the world-turned upside-down and as expressionistic as "Caligari," or just walk down a very lonely street late at night wondering if someone was following me, a la "Cat People," even in today's hectic world, I think I might get the jitters, if not more likely scared out of my wits...and I'm sure they would, too!


Losing your virginity, burying your pet and killing your sister...can take a lot out of a girl!