• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Sympathy For The Monster

This is a really great channel. I don't ever recall NOT being on the side of the monster in anything. It actually is disturbing for me to watch old monster movies because of this. Humans are the real monsters.
 
In the Cloverfield movie, they gave the monster visible sclera in the eyes, to indicate it was scared and panicking, like a horse.
 
And weren't most of us rooting for the bugs in Starship Troopers?

bugs.png
 
Interesting video. I watched it to the end, which is unusual for me with that type of video.

The narrator seems to be inconsistent in his use of the term, "monster".

The idea of a monster as a simple antagonist or opponent, and obstacle to be overcome is what you tend to find in genuine mythology. The hydra is an obstacle to be overcome, as is the Grendel in the story of Beowulf is also an obstacle to be overcome, although even then the monster is given some small amount of history and a veneer of motivation.

I think the difference between mythology and fiction is important. As soon as someone decides to write a story, they can choose whether to stick to the idea of "monster" as inherently the bad guy, and there to be overcome, or to subvert the idea.

In Jaws, the shark is definitely a monster in the sense of there to be defeated. It does not behave like a real shark, but seems to be invested in the fight with the protagonist. A real predator tends to go for easy prey and to avoid risks of injury.

In An American Werewolf in London, the werewolf that attacks David near the beginning is assumed to be "just an evil monster." However, when David starts to become a werewolf himself, the audience's sympathies are with him. The first werewolf is a monster to be feared, but the second (David) is a monster to be pitied by the audience, although a monster to be defeated by the people and authorities in the film.

The idea of "otherness" or "outsider status" making something into a monster spawned the later idea of "otherness or outsider status" putting something into the role of saviour of mankind. We see this in real life with the quasi religious ideas that developed during the period of UFO hysteria in the 1950s to 70s. "They" are here to save us from ourselves.

I think we now see mankind as the biggest enemy to the planet (androgenic climate change, etc.) and individual humans as the biggest threats to our own lives and safety. The serial killer, the rapist, the lawless gang members, have become the monsters that we fear in real life, and portray in films and novels. Hannibal Lecter is a monster, although he is an urbane and intelligent man. He is a monster because of his different way of thinking and behaving which is a threat to society. The gang that Clint Eastwood faces in Gran Torino is the "monster" that has to be defeated to protect society.

The latest development along this curve is that "we are all the monster": that society is it's own worst enemy.
 
Mikefule said:
...The idea of a monster as a simple antagonist or opponent, and obstacle to be overcome is what you tend to find in genuine mythology. The hydra is an obstacle to be overcome, as is the Grendel in the story of Beowulf is also an obstacle to be overcome, although even then the monster is given some small amount of history and a veneer of motivation...
Click to expand...

When you boil it down, Grendel's main issue seems to have been noisy neighbours. On that basis, he has my total sympathy.

Also, whatever you think of Grendel - his old mum loved him.
 
Pinocchio scared the crap out me as a little kid. Not surprising as it deals with themes of child abduction, transforming into animals and Monstro the whale. Its symbolism hits little kids and some adults right in the solar plexus even as they wonder why it is all so disturbing.
 
A good 'monster' or antagonist creates sympathy. The actual performance of evil is in us all; we don't all give in to the temptation.
In fiction, the 'monster' is often used as a warning - all of us could be drawn in to that part where no act is beyond thought.
Ultimately, that is why slasher and zombie-killing movies are popular; they're entertainment, sure, but it allows the enjoyment of vicious and sadistic killing without guilt.
 
Monster movies and the monsters portrayed are our fears writ large.
Hardly surprising that Japan came up with a radioactive monster.
And then John Carpenter’s horrors of our psyche during the Aids explosion with Prince of Darkness and especially The Thing, where the infection is actually played out by the computer.
Zombie movies are less to do with horrors of the reanimated dead but more to do with the shitty survivors and explaining why we, as humans, are our own worst enemy.
I think that basically, Cloverfield can be viewed as a fear of cities going to shit. But the rest of that would be politics.
Mind you, if you are that special person with a political lens, everything is politics but sometimes it’s just a man being chomped in half by a T Rex while he’s hiding on a toilet.
 
Last edited:
Stormkhan said:
Ultimately, that is why slasher and zombie-killing movies are popular; they're entertainment, sure, but it allows the enjoyment of vicious and sadistic killing without guilt.
Click to expand...
To some extent, yes.

The "monster" as a group or class, rather than as a single powerful entity, but still an obstacle for the good guys to overcome.

Decades ago, western movies showed "red Indians" (native Americans, first nations) as savages who could be mown down in huge numbers by the white guys. The films were made for a predominantly white audience, mythologising the glory of the early days of the colonisation and conquering of the land now called the USA.

Similarly, war films and comic book stories in the couple of decades after WW2 showed German soldiers as stupid and expendable, The ran around with eyes wide in terror shouting "Gott in Himmel" and "Schnell" and "Achtung!" while brave Allied soldiers mowed them down.

Also, somewhat earlier, a certain strand of fiction featured the generic savages (often "bloodthirsty") which was pretty much any black people from "darkest Africa" or various "south sea islands". Again, a predominantly white readership was invited to assume that the white man was superior, and the "savages" could be slaughtered at will according to the needs of the plot.

We then became more aware of the real history and nuance. That brought about a period of revisionist westerns in which the settlers were either the bad guys, or at least morally ambiguous, and the native Americans were wise and noble guardians of the land. The idea of the "noble savage" is a sort of "well intentioned racism". The reader or viewer feels good about themselves for seeing the virtue in the "ignorant but wise savage" and for recognising the guilt of "our own people".

Once it became unacceptable to present the natives Americans, or African tribes people, or even the German soldiers, as no more than cannon fodder for the good guys, fiction looked for alternatives to fill the same role. Tolkien gave us the orc, his own creation, which was quickly adopted as the generic bad guy, the mindless bloodthirsty and unquestionably evil horde that it was OK to slaughter.

However, we have now even reached the stage of revisionism about orcs. There are a few works (e.g. An Orc Not Like Others, Darren Humphries) which show the orc as misunderstood, or even victimised.

So given that it is becoming no longer acceptable to treat even a fictional race as "inherently evil and worthy of slaughter" the next big thing is the zombie. By definition, the movie zombie (which is nothing like the original zombie of voodoo belief) is already dead, completely mindless, and bent on only one thing: killing living people and eating their brains.

Of course, by a sort of social ratcheting effect, even the zombie is to some extent being revised, even if only in humour. The final scene of Shaun of the Dead has Shaun playing video games with his zombie friend, Ed.

It's political correctness gorn mad I tell you. Soon we won't be able to fictionally slaughter anyone!
 
Mikefule said:
To some extent, yes.

The "monster" as a group or class, rather than as a single powerful entity, but still an obstacle for the good guys to overcome.

Decades ago, western movies showed "red Indians" (native Americans, first nations) as savages who could be mown down in huge numbers by the white guys. The films were made for a predominantly white audience, mythologising the glory of the early days of the colonisation and conquering of the land now called the USA.

Similarly, war films and comic book stories in the couple of decades after WW2 showed German soldiers as stupid and expendable, The ran around with eyes wide in terror shouting "Gott in Himmel" and "Schnell" and "Achtung!" while brave Allied soldiers mowed them down.

Also, somewhat earlier, a certain strand of fiction featured the generic savages (often "bloodthirsty") which was pretty much any black people from "darkest Africa" or various "south sea islands". Again, a predominantly white readership was invited to assume that the white man was superior, and the "savages" could be slaughtered at will according to the needs of the plot.

We then became more aware of the real history and nuance. That brought about a period of revisionist westerns in which the settlers were either the bad guys, or at least morally ambiguous, and the native Americans were wise and noble guardians of the land. The idea of the "noble savage" is a sort of "well intentioned racism". The reader or viewer feels good about themselves for seeing the virtue in the "ignorant but wise savage" and for recognising the guilt of "our own people".

Once it became unacceptable to present the natives Americans, or African tribes people, or even the German soldiers, as no more than cannon fodder for the good guys, fiction looked for alternatives to fill the same role. Tolkien gave us the orc, his own creation, which was quickly adopted as the generic bad guy, the mindless bloodthirsty and unquestionably evil horde that it was OK to slaughter.

However, we have now even reached the stage of revisionism about orcs. There are a few works (e.g. An Orc Not Like Others, Darren Humphries) which show the orc as misunderstood, or even victimised.

So given that it is becoming no longer acceptable to treat even a fictional race as "inherently evil and worthy of slaughter" the next big thing is the zombie. By definition, the movie zombie (which is nothing like the original zombie of voodoo belief) is already dead, completely mindless, and bent on only one thing: killing living people and eating their brains.

Of course, by a sort of social ratcheting effect, even the zombie is to some extent being revised, even if only in humour. The final scene of Shaun of the Dead has Shaun playing video games with his zombie friend, Ed.

It's political correctness gorn mad I tell you. Soon we won't be able to fictionally slaughter anyone!
Click to expand...
There is some dialogue in LOTR between two Orcs Shagrat and Gorbag, where they reminisce about the good old days before the war and make plans to get together with some friends and go far away from the Nazgul and Sauron. A shame that this important scene didn't feature in the movies, as it showed that even Orcs were sentient beings with hopes and dreams too.
 
Last edited:
blessmycottonsocks said:
There is some dialogue in LOTR between two Orcs Shagrat and Gorbag, where they reminisce about the good old days before the war and make plans to get together with some friends and go far away from the Nazgul and Sauron. A shame that this important scene didn't feature in the movies, as it showed that even Orcs were sentient beings with hopes and dreams too.
Click to expand...
Sounds like Waiting for Godot.
 
Stormkhan said:
In fiction, the 'monster' is often used as a warning - all of us could be drawn in to that part where no act is beyond thought.
Ultimately, that is why slasher and zombie-killing movies are popular; they're entertainment, sure, but it allows the enjoyment of vicious and sadistic killing without guilt.
Click to expand...
I slightly disagree. I'm going out on a limb and going to say that, particularly slasher movies, women tend to enjoy them for the final girl aspect.

Look at Jamie Lee Curtis, the original final girl. She is one strong woman. Does she run from her unknown fear (Michael)? No. Does she leave those she is responsible for in the dust? No.

I enjoy slashers for the strong final girl. I detest the ones who run and hide, only interested in their own survival. It never turns out good for them.

Despite the fact that slashers can be quite misogynistic (see the methods of killing allotted to the women), the good ones always have a strong female character.

I have always enjoyed horror movies, in part, for the way a protagonist or antihero deals with their lot in life. The disappointing horror movie is one in which no one tries to do better with what they are given.

Horror movies are a way to vicariously and safely face our fears.

An example of a monster that I felt sad about his circumstance is Frankenstein's monster, especially in the 1931 movie. The monster himself is not the cause of his woes, but humanity and its definition of what makes a monster is. The scene with the child by the waterside innocently tossing daisies and the monster enjoying this simple encounter is very sad. He does not understand his actions and he is not malicious but humans interpret him this way. Great movie.
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
, as it showed that even Orcs were sentient beings with hopes and dreams too.
Click to expand...
Orcs were quite upset at their menu options in the army, hoping and dreaming meat would be put back on the menu.

/Sauron's accountants had probably removed it as part of a cost savings measure since they were still making payments on a bunch of fancy jewelry their boss had bought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top