It is a conservative system that estimates spectatorship of the horror film as a non-redundant enjoyment of fear. Unable to experience redundancy, the spectator is determined to be less-than. However, like anyone, familiarity through repetition reveals breakdown; the sustained interest of the spectator reveals fear to be an unrenewable resourc. It is therefore discounted as motivation.
What drives the horror spectator to continue. As Mark Fisher says, it is ‘fascination’.
this fascination is nuanced, non-binary, and deciduous.
The horror film always provides a triangular positioning of spectatorship - between the film, the viewer, and society-as-present. It is always exercising this relationship, continually engaging the viewer. Thus so much of horror is read as sociological, a link even the most rudimentary viewer can often determine through text and subtext.
What drives the horror spectator to continue. As Mark Fisher says, it is ‘fascination’.
this fascination is nuanced, non-binary, and deciduous.
The horror film always provides a triangular positioning of spectatorship - between the film, the viewer, and society-as-present. It is always exercising this relationship, continually engaging the viewer. Thus so much of horror is read as sociological, a link even the most rudimentary viewer can often determine through text and subtext.