Horror movies evoke fear, anxiety and terror, as they pump adrenaline through our bodies . This excites us, before letting us go into the safety that returns as the lights in the theatre rise and we are brought back into real life. The question to be asked however, is why do we see films that evoke such emotions. In other words, what purpose do these films serve in our lives. Stephen King (1982) in his essay, Why We Crave Horror Movies expresses that we put ourselves through the heart pumping fear stirring scenes of horror movies for fun. The fun King is referring to is not the kind to relieve your typical Sunday afternoon boredom but rather a fun that is derived from watching the torture and brutal murder of people on the big screen. King
…show more content…
While there is merit in King’s (1882) analysis that human beings are conditioned in the way Pavlov’s dogs were (to behave as a result of positive reinforcement) (p. 358), it does not prove that we all have an iniquitous sinister side that needs to be let out of its cage every so often. While no human being is a model of perfection we do not become any more imperfect or mad if we do not subject ourselves to the likes of horror films. What King (1982) seems to be expressing in his effort to exemplify horror films is that they provided necessary relief for our suspected sinister side (358). In the same breath it can then be said that without this relief we would become menaces in society. Our sinister side would build up and eventually need to act out in what could only be assumed as a killing spree or fit of manic episodes. While some people experience outbursts at the barista who has messed up their morning coffee and some decide to brutally murder their neighbor many of us remain sane without viewing horror movies. If King’s theory were true more sinister acts would occur at a much higher rate then the murders we rarely hear about in our local …show more content…
When murders, individual or in mass quantity happen, it can often be linked to specifics within that group of individuals which make it more predictable that they will be killers. Some of these specifics as noted by Kluger, Kiviat, Parylc and Soyer (2007) include brain injury, extreme narcism or a history of physical or sexual abuse (p. 31) However, Kluger et al (2007) explains that the specifics noted above do not guarantee a murderer in the making. Other factors Kruger et al (2007) links to a killer instinct include age, specifically teens or older folk who have a life of frustration pent up behind them and the “opportunity and unlucky serendipity” which includes easy access to weaponry, if those you live with or encounter routinely handle conflict with violence and if violence is something more accepted in your socio-cultural or religious background (p. 34). Here we can see remnants of King’s (1982) argument in that the young enjoy horror films more and therefore could be seen as needing to exercise their reptilian brain more often (p. 358). King (1982) fails to acknowledge that older people too fall into his category of mentally ill, a category which he places us all, young and old, into (p. 358). While King makes a convincing argument, he fails to explain
While there is merit in King’s (1882) analysis that human beings are conditioned in the way Pavlov’s dogs were (to behave as a result of positive reinforcement) (p. 358), it does not prove that we all have an iniquitous sinister side that needs to be let out of its cage every so often. While no human being is a model of perfection we do not become any more imperfect or mad if we do not subject ourselves to the likes of horror films. What King (1982) seems to be expressing in his effort to exemplify horror films is that they provided necessary relief for our suspected sinister side (358). In the same breath it can then be said that without this relief we would become menaces in society. Our sinister side would build up and eventually need to act out in what could only be assumed as a killing spree or fit of manic episodes. While some people experience outbursts at the barista who has messed up their morning coffee and some decide to brutally murder their neighbor many of us remain sane without viewing horror movies. If King’s theory were true more sinister acts would occur at a much higher rate then the murders we rarely hear about in our local …show more content…
When murders, individual or in mass quantity happen, it can often be linked to specifics within that group of individuals which make it more predictable that they will be killers. Some of these specifics as noted by Kluger, Kiviat, Parylc and Soyer (2007) include brain injury, extreme narcism or a history of physical or sexual abuse (p. 31) However, Kluger et al (2007) explains that the specifics noted above do not guarantee a murderer in the making. Other factors Kruger et al (2007) links to a killer instinct include age, specifically teens or older folk who have a life of frustration pent up behind them and the “opportunity and unlucky serendipity” which includes easy access to weaponry, if those you live with or encounter routinely handle conflict with violence and if violence is something more accepted in your socio-cultural or religious background (p. 34). Here we can see remnants of King’s (1982) argument in that the young enjoy horror films more and therefore could be seen as needing to exercise their reptilian brain more often (p. 358). King (1982) fails to acknowledge that older people too fall into his category of mentally ill, a category which he places us all, young and old, into (p. 358). While King makes a convincing argument, he fails to explain