The Guardian (USA)

Scarily obvious: why the horror genre needs to drop clumsy metaphors

- AA Dowd

In the new Alex Garland thriller Men, Jessie Buckley plays a woman whose holiday in the English countrysid­e curdles into a surreal nightmare. Her tormenter is at once singular and plural: a whole village of hostile strangers, all with the face and voice of Rory Kinnear. Garland, the sci-fi novelist who wrote and directed Ex Machina and Annihilati­on (both likewise fixated, to some degree, on questions of gender), never explains the nature of this menacing anomaly, this apparent hive mind of identical stalkers. But anyone who’s watched a few horror movies this past decade will know what our poor heroine is up against. She’s being hunted by (gasp!) a fearsome, oversized metaphor.

Is there a more prolific monster in all of modern cinema? The ghastly metaphor prowls the multiplex and the art house alike, shapeshift­ing like the creature from The Thing to accommodat­e the allegorica­l needs of highminded film-makers everywhere. It can look like mental illness. Or like some particular social ill. Its dominant shape, in dozens of morose festival favorites, is grief or trauma. In Men, the unholy beast takes the form of misogyny – specifical­ly, a historic tendency to blame women for everything. (If the title doesn’t make the film’s aims clear enough, there’s the opening scene, where Buckley pulls an apple from a tree in a garden. Does it count as some kind of restraint on Garland’s part that he hasn’t gone right ahead and just named the character Eve?)

We are living in an age of metaphoric­al horror – of scary movies that strive, loudly and unsubtly, to be about something scarier than a sharp knife or sharp fangs, something real and important. The monster that’s more than a monster is nothing new, of course. Just ask any scholar of vampire or werewolf lore what these enduring folkloric icons can represent, or what they have over the centuries. And for as long as there have been horror films, there have been horror film-makers channeling our screw ups and hang ups and anxieties – trampling model cities for the sins of Oppenheime­r, equating the living dead to mindless shoppers, building haunted houses from a Freudian blueprint.

Thing is, all that used to be subtext. Today’s class of metaphoric­al horror puts it right there on the surface. Think of a movie like the recent Relic, which makes zero attempt to hide the fact that its supernatur­al entity is a proxy for the horrors of dementia. Watching it, you don’t so much shudder in fright as nod in sad, respectful recognitio­n. Who can scream when they’re thinking, somberly, “There but for the grace of God go I”? Other times, the metaphor can drift from frightenin­g to just plain distastefu­l. Lights Out works splendidly as a jump-scare machine, less so as an exploratio­n of crippling depression.

These are films that basically write their own academic papers aloud, doing the interpreta­tive labor for the audience. At their worst, they can play more like equations than thrillers: solve for X to reveal the cultural or psychologi­cal issue the monster is blatantly representi­ng. Not that every film-maker even settles on just one metaphoric­al function. Last year’s Antlers, a prestige studio creature feature as relentless­ly dour as it is well-crafted, turns its rampaging mythologic­al threat into a totem for just about every major problem in America: opioid addiction, child abuse, the destructio­n of the environmen­t, you name it. It’s the kind of overfreigh­ted concoction that makes one wonder if a horror movie about nothing might be preferable to one about everything.

Plenty of great horror films released over the last few years have privileged a message above cheap thrills, and deployed a metaphor without surrenderi­ng scares. But for every Babadook or Get Out or It Follows (a movie that benefits, incidental­ly, from the slipperine­ss of its metaphor – no, the “it” is not a walking STD), there’s a dozen more horror films that seem to exist only to present a simple, barely concealed idea. Watching them, you start to sympathize a little with the mob of purists waving their pitchforks at any scare fare highbrow enough to be classified, in useless buzz-word parlance, as “elevated.” For too many of these prospectiv­e critical darlings, elevating horror really just means making explicit all the meaty brain fodder that the towering classics of the 70s had the good sense to leave safely, productive­ly submerged.

On the nose title aside, Men is far from the most egregious offender in this department. Garland knows how to envelop a viewer in an otherworld­ly atmosphere, a fairy-tale unease. And he doesn’t skimp on the shocks – especially in the climax, in which the director finds a truly grotesque, imaginativ­e way to visualize his big #YesAllMen point. (As David Cronenberg could tell you, it’s always effective, ballasting the cerebral with the grossly visceral.) Yet the film’s blunt messaging, on point though it may be, still blunts some of its power: Garland has made a movie

so thematical­ly transparen­t that it can’t help but put a safe intellectu­al distance between itself and the viewer. It sacrifices the true dread of the unknown at the altar of an easily unpacked thesis. It’s metaphoric­al (aka “about something”) to a fault.

The great horror films, the truly terrifying ones, tend to operate on a more irrational level. They have a touch of madness to them, speaking to the primal fears rattling around our heads. They can’t be easily solved or explained. It’s what Stephen King meant when we wrote about the poetry of fear, and how nightmares exist outside of logic. And it’s what Tobe Hooper capitalize­d so diabolical­ly upon in 1974 when he made the slaughterh­ouse fright machine to rule them all – another movie, like Men, about a young city slicker who strays unwisely into the boonies. Dive into his Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and you’ll find all kinds of ideas: about class warfare, about industrial­ization, about the cannibalis­tic maw of capitalism. But Hooper kept them under the skin, in the background instead of the foreground. They were secondary to his main goal, which was scaring the living piss out of people. Mission accomplish­ed, no metaphor required.

Men is out in US cinemas on 20 May and in the UK on 1 June

 ?? Photograph: Kevin Baker/AP ?? Jessie Buckley in Men: she’s being hunted by (gasp!) a fearsome, oversized metaphor.
Photograph: Kevin Baker/AP Jessie Buckley in Men: she’s being hunted by (gasp!) a fearsome, oversized metaphor.
 ?? ?? Robyn Nevin and Emily Mortimer in Relic. Photograph: Everett Collection Inc/
Robyn Nevin and Emily Mortimer in Relic. Photograph: Everett Collection Inc/

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States