Characterizing an ￢ﾀﾜimpossible￢ﾀﾝ Subgenre

7KH&KLOGUHQ·V+RUURU)LOP&KDUDFWHUL]LQJDQ´,PSRVVLEOHµ6XEJHQUH &DWKHULQH/HVWHU 7KH9HOYHW/LJKW7UDS1XPEHUSS $UWLFOH 3XEOLVKHGE\8QLYHUVLW\RI7H[DV3UHVV )RUDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKLVDUWLFOH KWWSVPXVHMKXHGXDUWLFOH Access provided by University of Warwick (2 Sep 2016 12:36 GMT) THE CHILDREN’S HORROR FILM Characterizing an “Impossible” Subgenre BY CATHERINE LESTER ABSTRACT The relationship between children and horror is fraught with tension, with children typically assumed to be vulnerable, impressionable, and in need of protection from horrific media lest they become “corrupted” by it. Despite this, a number of horror films intended specifically for the child demographic have been made since the 1980s. This article situates the children’s horror subgenre in a generic and industrial context and addresses the key issues that its existence raises: the development of children’s horror as a subgenre in Hollywood; how children’s horror films, which, due to their target audience, must be inherently “less scary” than adult horror films, mediate their content, and negotiate issues of censorship in order to be recognizably of the horror genre while remaining “child-friendly”; and what pleasures the subgenre might serve its audience. The discussion concludes with analysis of the theme of “acceptance” in relation to the films ParaNorman (2012), Frankenweenie (2012), and Hotel Transylvania (2012): acceptance of monsters, of other people, and of the consumption of the horror genre as a valid children’s pastime. HILDREN ARE TRADITIONALLY CONSIDERED INNOCENT, VULNERABLE, AND IMPRESSIONABLE beings. Horror, which is typically considered a genre for adults, is one particular area of Cthe media from which children are often thought of as needing protection; however, re- search shows that children’s enjoyment of horror films goes back to at least as early as the advent of sound cinema,1 and the number of horror films made specifically for the child demographic has been steadily increasing since the 1980s. In spite of this, scholarship dedicated to this rich and intriguing area is scarce. This article therefore situates horror for children in a generic and industrial context, asking how it is possible for such a subgenre to exist if the very things that make horror “horrifying” must be excluded, or significantly lessened, in order for these films to remain “child-friendly.” This article begins by establishing the tensions at work over the course of the twentieth century regarding the relationship between children and horrific media and charts the development of the children’s horror subgenre in Hollywood. From there, the discussion turns to key critical work on “horror for adults” and genre theory, such as that by Noël Carroll, Robin Wood, Andrew Tudor, and Steve Neale, and considers how the definitions of the horror genre put forth in such works can be applied to, or are problematized by, the children’s horror subgenre. Particular attention is given to the types of monsters seen in children’s horror according to Carroll’s definition, the children’s horror film’s mediation of gore and violence and the potential pleasures of these elements, and the subgenre’s typical narrative features and structures. Reference is made throughout to notable children’s horror films of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, and empirical re- DOI: 10.7560/VLT7803 22 THE VELVET LIGHT TRAP NUMBER 78 FALL 2016 © 2016 by the University of Texas Press search on the relationship between children and frightening Frederic Wertham. In Seduction of the Innocent, his 1954 criti- media is referred to where this is relevant and adds weight cism of comic books, Wertham feared that the “corrupting to the arguments put forth. It is argued that although the influence” of horror comics would transform child readers children’s horror subgenre largely adopts narrative and for- into juvenile delinquents.7 Paul suggests that efforts such mal strategies of horror films for adults, it can successfully as Wertham’s and the later restrictions of the MPAA ratings mediate content that might be considered “unsuitable” for system were done not in the interest of protecting children children. Closing out the article, closer attention is paid to but in protecting adults from what children might become a relatively recent cluster of children’s horror films and their when exposed to “horrific” content.8 Despite attempts to commonalities: ParaNorman (2012), Frankenweenie (2012), restrict children’s access to such material, these anxieties and Hotel Transylvania (2012). The theme of “acceptance” is continue to proliferate in Hollywood and in other cultural identified in each of these and in subsequent examples of contexts, given the possibility that children might encounter the subgenre, whether the acceptance of monsters, of other horror through other, less strictly mediated channels (i.e., people, or of the consumption of the horror genre as a valid television, VHS, DVD, and the Internet). One significant case pastime for children. of this heightened anxiety is the “video nasty” controversy, occurring in Britain in the early 1980s, which sparked heated CHILDREN AND HORROR: media debate concerning what the ease of availability of AN UNEASY COMBINATION? horror video tapes, which, due to a loophole in film classification laws, were not regulated by the British Board of Film Since as early as the 1930s, horror films have incited public Classification (BBFC), would do to children who might be concern due to their popularity with children.2 “The innate exposed to them in the home.9 This debate resurfaced in 1993 threat of horror films,” writes Sarah Smith on this period, in the wake of the murder of toddler James Bulger by two “was their combination of sex, violence and the supernatural, ten-year-old boys, who were suspected (but never proved) to which broke taboos, challenged Christian values and sub- have been inspired by the film Child’s Play 3 (1991).10 verted the social order.”3 This sentiment is arguably still ap- Although these examples do not necessarily provide plicable to contemporary horror cinema, especially given the conclusive proof of the negative effect of horror on children, increased quotas of sex, gore, and violence in the genre that they do display the concern of many adults over the effect have been permissible since the abolition of the Hollywood that horror might have on children and the adults’ attempts Production Code Administration and its replacement with to police children’s consumption of such texts. These ex- the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) ratings amples also ignore the ironic result that censorship of an system in 1968. This measure intended to prevent children item often makes it more desirable; as argued by David Pace from seeing film content that was thought to distress or Wigransky, a teenaged critic of Wertham, “If a child is told otherwise “harm” them. not to read a comic book, he will break his neck to do it.”11 Kevin Heffernan pinpoints this industrial shift as be- This also alludes to the fact that many (but not all) children ing a major factor in the development of “adult horror.”4 enjoy horror and find certain pleasures in it. Such children Heffernan highlights Rosemary’s Baby (1968) as being feature in David Buckingham’s empirical study on children’s exemplary of this new form of adult-oriented horror film, emotional responses to viewing horror films and television characterized by contemporary settings, downbeat endings, programs, which revealed that, as with many adult fans of and explicit violence.5 Heffernan also identifies the common horror, the experience of fear seemed to be “synonymous motif of the “demon child” in these emergent adult horror with pleasure,” and the experience of watching horror was a films, including the aforementioned Rosemary’s Baby and somewhat therapeutic experience that allowed child view- The Exorcist (1973). Drawing from the work of William Paul, ers to confront and cope with negative feelings.12 Given the Heffernan ties this motif to contemporaneous social anxiety “taboo” nature of children watching horror, the experience concerning a loss of control of children and an increasing was also seen as a mark of maturity.13 In regard to whether or difficulty in defining the so-called culture of childhood,6 not horror is detrimental to children, Buckingham suggests an anxiety that is similarly seen in the work of psychiatrist that this depends upon the context of “how they perceive NUMBER 78 FALL 2016 THE VELVET LIGHT TRAP 23 and interpret it; and upon the social contexts in which MPAA introduced the PG-13 rating in 1984 to better warn they watch and subsequently talk about it with others.”14 parents when a film might not be suitable for children and Buckingham’s study and others like it focus almost entirely preteens. Filipa Antunes argues that the introduction of on children’s responses to adult-oriented media.15 Only the PG-13 rating was a watershed moment for children and passing mention is made by Buckingham to children’s horror horror, given that it opened further space to create horror in the form of Halloween paraphernalia and child-friendly films that were not too intense or violent to be given a restric- reworkings of classic horror texts.16 Classifying these as tive rating but were frightening enough that extra warning children’s “comedy horror,” Buckingham hypothesizes that would be needed to indicate that the films might distress they might allow children to balance negative and positive young children.21 In the following years a number of horror feelings and thus “provide a relatively safe arena in which the films were given PG-13 ratings, such as The Gate (1987), The fundamental anxieties with which the genre deals can begin Monster Squad (1987), and the anthology film The Willies to be addressed.”17 These observations will be returned to (1990).

Load more