MovieChat Forums > Eden Lake (2008) Discussion > How can anyone call this 'Horror'?

How can anyone call this 'Horror'?

posted 14 years ago by midnight_muse
94 replies | jump to latest

This is a crime thriller. But I see it classified as Horror over and over on the IMDb.com boards. [Edited to add: Thanks for your comments. That was a poor word choice on my part; I should have said 'violent thriller' instead. What I meant was a thriller where violent crimes are committed, not a police investigation film of course, since there are no police in Eden Lake.]

I really wish some god or other would step down from Olympus and define Horror for good and all. ;) [<------I think some of you missed the winky face...?]

I define 'horror' not merely by violent or horrifying content, but by the presence of the paranormal, the supernatural, the uncanny. [Edited to add: The latter is the broadest concept;, it need not involve the supernatural per se, but the eerie/unknown/inexplicable].

Thus, Eden Lake, Inside, Funny Games, Ils, serial killer films, etc. are NOT Horror films. But The Descent is. And Picnic at Hanging Rock. And Spoorloos... because although *technically* a thriller, there is enough metaphysical and metaphorical foreshadowing to be considered precognitive; therefore paranormal; therefore it's horror. That's how I'd classify them, anyway.

Just wondering about the thoughts of thoughtful fans who may read this board. [Edited to add: and thanks for the great discussions so far!]

________________________________________

I don't come from hell. I came from the forest.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cghurst 13 years ago

I'd suggest that horror defines something horrific, regardless of any supernatural content.

[–] spopt36 13 years ago

I hate to use strict definitions, but a claim like yours kind of begs for it. "Horror" is intense fear, disgust, or shock.
I can't claim to know how this movie effected you, it certainly got some "horror"-type reactions from me.
*EDIT: besides, if IMDB disagrees with your definition of a genre, you'll be posting comments for the rest of your life. Is Star Wars science fiction or fantasy?

[–] midnight_muse 13 years ago

I wasn't trying to suggest we should "toe the line" of what IMDb proclaims as far as genre. I was saying that if IMDb includes a particular genre under a film, it could be that more people than just me believe that film could fit that genre. :)

And hmmm... I'd say, mythic science fiction.

________________________________________

I don't come from hell. I came from the forest.

[–] joenesmit 13 years ago

Long post, but it's something I've considered a lot. It's easier to get the entire thing down at once than elaborate later. And you seem genuinely interested in hearing other peoples' opinions.

In my opinion, horror movies are movies that try to evoke feelings of horror, terror or dread. Movies whose aim it is to primarily evoke those feelings. Whether the intent is to make you think or just provide you with an escape from the drudgery of daily life is inconsequential.

This can be done in a wide variëty of ways, for example gore works, over the top crimes work, supernatural stuff works. But it often comes down to how much is shown or implied. How important the actual horror is to the movie as a whole. Often it's a combination of things, even a combination of genres.

The whole masked killer vs unmasked killer defining horror vs thriller debate is silly.

The distinction of horror movies having supernatural elements and thriller movies not having them is shaky as well. Firstly I'm probably right in seeing the distinction only involves thrillers; in you eyes supernatural thrillers are horror, non-supernatural thrillers are thrillers (correct me if I'm wrong). Clearing this up because there are many movies out there with supernatural elements that arent horrors or thrillers. But they are usually classified as fantasy, such as the Lake House or Ghost (I'd love to start a "How can anyone call this 'Fantasy' " thread on that, but thats off topic).
Secondly, where does the line between supernatural and natural lie. It's easy to define the Ring or Nightmare on Elm Street as supernatural, but what are the defining supernatural elements in Halloween (the movie, not the whole franchise). Yes, Michael Myers seems pretty tenacious, but have people never survived similar things. If memory serves me right he falls twice (and the second time we don't get to see the condition he's in) and he gets stabbed once. The typical action movie has heroes and villains surviving far worse, are they to be classified as supernatural as well, and how does that follow through into what genre they fit in, more on that later.
If the supernatural thing would be the definition Friday the 13th (the movie, not the whole franchise) would be a thriller, untill you include the very last scene 'zombie' kid Jason, then it's a horror. But if you were to take the last scene as a dream, it's back to being a thriller. That doesn't work for me, it's a horror. furthermore, movies like Last House on the Left or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre would be thrillers simply for the lack of supernatural elements. That doesn't work for me either, they're horrors.

Horror is a broad genre, like drama, action or comedy. To me, these are the only basic genres of movies, any other tag is a subgenre which can typically be applied to any of the major four. How it is further defined is classified by these subgenres. The way a movie tries to create a sense of horror, touch us, thrill us or make us laugh is what further defines it. Every movie ever made will at its core always fall into one of these categories.
Which is why I don't think a movie is either a thriller or a horror, thats comparing two different things. A thriller is a subgenre, which can be applied to any of the four major genres (usually action or drama).

I'll agree in advance that my 'major four' are sometimes hard to define, as three of the tags I use can be easily used as subgenres as well; drama, action and comedy, usually stemming from a lack of clear definition as to why those elements are present. But at its heart a movie is always either a drama, an action, a comedy or a horror movie. It comes down to what feelings the movie tries to evoke.

In the end, the harder you try to define genres, the more it becomes a mater of personal taste and opinion, but these are mine.

_____________________________________

"Werewolves ate my Platoon."

[–] zacattack9114 13 years ago

Sorry, last house on the left for me was clearly not a horror. What they were thinking calling it a horror is beyond me. Also based on another persons comment, no movies like the wickerman did have elements beyond explanation. They were not as much psychological. The people, the rituals, it all had this weird feeling to it. Now back to the comment I am replying to. Last house on the left was more of a thriller to me. I mean it wasn't horrific to me. So what, people died. This movie is pretty much the warriors except with a different story and much less cast members involved. Your argument contradicts the ending to your statement. You made it look more like it is fact what you are saying. It is an opinion. There will never be a true definition for horror, but when you classify true horror, you would like to think that there is that element of the uneplainable occuring. Something beyond. There is a difference between the word horror and horror films. Horror means disgust, but horror films are more of a haunting kind of feel. If horror is disgust, then show people sex trafficking movies and let's see how disgusted they are. They wouldn't sleep for weeks. Just state your opinion and move on rather than posting what people can find in 2 seconds on the web. What I am stating here is from pure thinking power. You cannot find these ideas anywhere in a dicitonary or the web at all. Pure power of thought.

[–] joenesmit 13 years ago

How did I make anything 'look like fact', if I had written 'In my opinion', 'I think' and 'To me' more often if would be terribly repetitive. You took the time to respond to what I've written but you seemed to not have read it.

If people dying horribly isn't in your definition of horror we simply have different views. To me Last House is a horror. It's about context.

There is a difference between the word horror and horror films. Horror means disgust, but horror films are more of a haunting kind of feel.

Wait what... Did you just say I was stating my opinion as fact and you took offense to that ? Are you that same guy ?

Beside that I wrote what I wrote in responce to the OP who seemed interested in exchanging ideas on this topic, that's what forums are typically for, remarks like just state your opinion and move on really don't contribute to that.

_____________________________________

"Werewolves ate my Platoon."

[–] zacattack9114 13 years ago

You didn't read my post at all. You just said everything that I didn't say. You quoted me and then said something completely different. I read your post and I made a sound argument. you can believe what you want to be a horror but people dying horribly isn't really horror when you think about it. If that is the case, then films of nuclear warfare and those dying of agent orange should definitely be up there as the best horrors. Why state your opinion and move on makes perfect sense is that you know you are gonna start an argument if you rag on about something. Just state your point and if people discuss it then discuss back. You were saying things like "The whole masked killer vs unmasked killer defining horror vs thriller debate is silly".
Now that is a killer of forum topics and it makes no sense because that is what this thread is about or at least part of the thread. You might as well close it down if you are not gonna discuss it. Also you did make it less of an opinionated post and more like a factual post when not everything is proven in your post. Halloween had plenty of out there moments which cannot be defined as realistic. It is quite obvious that this guy is beyond human and no.... people have not survived similar to mike myers. he has had the kitchen sink thrown at him and still survived. Eden lake is a thriller. Why? Drama elements and lots of murder that is not an out there type of feeling. It is like that actor from Drake and Josh who stars in a movie where he dies by these kids who want revenge on him as he was a bully to them and dies a pretty gruesome death. We calling that a horror film too now are we?
I know I sound very agressive but at the end of the day, you have to be very careful as to the films you use in your argument and I found the ones you used as an example don't match what you are trying to say. You have some good ideas, but some of the points you make do contradict.

[–] joenesmit 13 years ago

First off, it's getting hard to respond in ways that cannot be misunderstood as hostile, that's not my intent so please don't read too much into this. You said as much yourself on how you might sound, I'm not regarding you as aggressive just passionate about the point you're trying to make. And I respect that.

Why state your opinion and move on makes perfect sense is that you know you are gonna start an argument if you rag on about something. Just state your point and if people discuss it then discuss back. You were saying things like "The whole masked killer vs unmasked killer defining horror vs thriller debate is silly".

Maybe my opinion on this topic can't be summarized in two or three sentences. I stated my case fully aware it couldn't be condensed into two or three one-liners.
If you discount everything I said just because of what I said about the 'masked killer vs unmasked defining killer defining horror' there's not much I can say. I still think it's a silly definition to make; masked killer = horror, unmasked killer = thriller. No further (super)natural, intent or content definition, if people are killed by someone with a mask it's a horror, if the killer doesn't wear a mask it's a thriller. If you disagree with that, your opinions are so far removed from mine I can't even begin to imagine what I could possibly say that would make sense to you.
I agree it would have been a topic killer if that was all I said (if I stated my opinion and moved on...), but it wasn't. It was only a fragment, it was my opinion and I stand by it.

You didn't read my post at all. You just said everything that I didn't say. You quoted me and then said something completely different. I read your post and I made a sound argument. you can believe what you want to be a horror but people dying horribly isn't really horror when you think about it.If that is the case, then films of nuclear warfare and those dying of agent orange should definitely be up there as the best horrors.

Is there a language barrier I'm not aware of ? How can I quote you if you didn't say it. I'm probably a little bit dense but I couldn't discern your sound argument either, there were a couple of opinions in there but zero arguments. Unless you defined 'I mean it wasn't horrific to me, so what, people died' as a sound argument, which I really hope you didn't.
Again, it's about context, how the filmmakers use nuclear or chemical warfare makes a movie a horror movie or not. The depiction of something horrific doesn't turn a movie into a horror movie per definition, it's about context. It's about the way those horrifc things relate to the story, how it's depicted, how it fits into the movie as a whole.

There will never be a true definition for horror, but when you classify true horror, you would like to think that there is that element of the uneplainable occuring.

I really think there's a language issue, do you mean me when you say you. My entire case is built around me not believing a horror is defined by a supernatural element, so you can't mean me.

Another thing, are you talking about the original Halloween (1978) and the original Last House on the Left (1972) ? I'm not talking about the shiny remakes or the Halloween franchise as a whole. In the original Halloween movie Michael Myers isn't hurt more than the average action hero. And the original Last House on the Left is such a horrible movie to watch that not calling it a horror in my eyes is incomprehensible, there is no way it could be called just a thriller. If you can watch that movie and just say, "so what, people died" and mean it, there is something seriously wrong with you.

I don't know which movie with the Drake and Josh actor you mean, so I can't comment on whether that's a horror or not. Although I suspect I probably wouldn't call it a horror.

Eden lake is a thriller. Why? Drama elements and lots of murder that is not an out there type of feeling.

Where to begin. First, that's your opinion, but in my opinion you're wrong, let me tell you why, let me present my arguments. The movie Eden Lake focusses on how the couple is terrified, hunted, tortured and eventually killed, that is the context of what you see happening onscreen, It's not about contemplating those deaths, it's not about the longterm consequences of whatever happens, it's about being chased, it's about how that woman is terrorized and terrified, it's about how those things are depicted. Just because a horror movie is a bit smarter than the average horror movie doesn't automatically turn it into a thriller.
If drama elements are the deciding factor whether a movie is a horror or a thriller you must have a hard time defining a lot of Asian horrors such as Ringu or even the American remake Ring.

Lemme get this straight, correct me if I'm wrong; your definition of horror is a movie with a supernatural feeling (or 'out there feeling'), it has to have elements which cannot realistically happen. If it could happen in the real world it's a thriller, if it cannot, it's a horror ? Not quoting you there, this is just the idea I get from what you say and I could be misunderstanding you. Not trying to trap you into a statement I can tear to shreds either, by movie I mean the types of movies that are generally described as either horror or thriller. To you it's all about the presence of unrealistic and/or supernatural elements.

_____________________________________________

"Werewolves ate my Platoon."

[–] zacattack9114 13 years ago

Ok, now we are talking. I think my last point which you quoted probably was not right of me to say that. My opinion is my opinion and I stick by it, but I can understand to some extent what makes it a horror to other people. I was gonna edit my comment to include that, but silly me, I forgot so sorry about that. You got my parts of my point and you stated your point well, so really I have nothing to complain about. I mean there are other parts to my point which I can say but then that would be rambling and as you can probably tell by my posts, I am a huge rambler. I agree with you that the feeling that they get was pretty horrific and it can give the viewer that feeling of agony and fear like the characters. I also forgot to mention that to me horror can include psychological fear to an extent as long as it isn't too much an intellectual flick (mind you, I love films that challenge the mind rather than a typical mindless gorefest). I believe that it has to hold not just horrific elements leaving you disgusted, but rather that it is something inxplicable. Not necessarily to the point where it is just people randomly dying by ghouls, but I find that the kids tormenting that couple the way they did actually can be seen as youth who are poorly brought up and there are so many believable aspects. Recently, this happened in Australia as a relative of Ivan Milat slaughtered his friends in the woods. There are very similar movies to this that are considered thrillers and they are true stories of brutal murders making you feel so disgusted and you are horrified to the point where you cannot sleep like in the Adelaide murders. That had a very similar theme, but it still doesn't go into horror. I see horror in that it is supposed to be something that you don't expect, in that in life no-one can understand it and although you know it cannot happen, you still have that image in your mind, rather than knowing it can happen and having the image in your mind. Even in psycho, even though there was no genuine presence, it was that sense that the killer was being controlled and you couldn't explain what on earth was going on with him. There was something inhuman about it. What those kids did actually to some extent can be described and understood, but in films like psycho that don't have a typical supernatural presence, they compensate it with an unexplainable psychological presence that in its own way takes a physical form. Looks like I am rambling again lol, but that might explain my point a bit better.

[–] joenesmit 13 years ago

I think I get your point and it seems our differing views come from how we watch (horror) movies when trying to put it a lable on it. You focus more on content and I think intent is more important.

There is no way I could accuse you of rambling as that would be the pot calling the kettle black. You could, however, practice on your use of paragraphs.

/salute

__________________

"Werewolves ate my Platoon."

[–] zacattack9114 13 years ago

Lol, I am actually better at paragraphing than that, but no complaints from my end. I should be more consistent, but I would have to agree with you there. It is what we look for as to how we label it, which basically comes down to the individual.

[–] Rybergare 13 years ago

In Sweden we have two terms of different kind of horror, one is "skräckfilm" which simply means "horror movie" and then we have the word "rysare" that cant be translated. What I know the latter works as a word you use when speaking about the more violent and non-supernatural types of horror.
That fits here.

"I like to rock n' roll part of every day."

[–] DavidTL 13 years ago

Maybe a Drama Horror?

[–] BreakingDexter 13 years ago

I really wish some god or other would step down from Olympus and define Horror for good and all. ;) I define 'horror' not merely by violent or horrifying content, but by the presence of the paranormal, the supernatural, the uncanny. [Edited to add: The latter is the broadest concept;, it need not involve the supernatural per se, but the eerie/unknown/inexplicable].

You're a moron.

[–] rayraysworld 13 years ago

well,it definitely has horror elements and the way i felt at the end is proof of that. but it is a thriller really, isn't it? it is one of those films that is difficult to pin down and put into one single category and there are many other films that are also hard to put into a category.
so i think many of the comments on here are correct in some way.
apart from the earlier post about somebodies teacher who had a simple defintion of horror that was in all honesty a complete load of hogwarts.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] oceena 13 years ago

I always thought of horror films as the "Boogeyman" in relentless pursuit of victims. For example, 'Friday the 13th' (Jason) -'Halloween' (Michael) and 'Nightmare on Elm Street' (Freddie). Eden Lake had terrifying scenes which made me cringe, but I wouldn't call those kids Boogeymen. Midnight muse's label as a "violent thriller" was spot on.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (20781574) 12 years ago

It's Vorror Drama < yes I made this up Vorror = Violent Horror.

I think it's a subject that is hard to define as it used in such a wide spectrum of films. Supernatural, Slasher... so many to think of.

To me though horror is the subconscious.It's taking what our every day fears are made of and pushing them into an horror concept. Stuff like Jason (Friday the 13th) doesn't scare me. It's fun don't get me wrong but there's nothing beyond that because it's that element of fantasy too.

Eden Lake is in the range where I can buy into the film.

It's not removed from reality. Unfortunately where I am from you come by news clippings that don't veer far from this. For all the good we try to do and abide by there's always something horrific out there. Some people for all intentions... you know the drill. And I can see how something such as Eden Lake is plausible.

Not a nice thought but plausible and it's that fear of knowing that evil can be on our doorstep that sticks. The fear that someone you might pass in the street could be something else by night. The idea that the kind stranger is... not so kind.

For me horror is the attainable. What can happen and the ramifications if it does. I love comedy horror, Dog Soldiers is a lot of insane fun but it's just that, a film. I don't need to worry of it pushing into my life. Something like 'Eden Lake' to me that is true horror. Because it is possible and personally speaking, what's more terrifying than that?

~Willow: ..two eggs sunny side up. I remember because they were wiggling at me like little boobs - From 'Buffy'~