Theory over Brecht, Fetish, and Marketing

A Spoonful of Brecht, A Dab of Fetish, and A Small Taste of Marketing

By: Carl Jason Tondo

  As the horror genre progresses, films of this particular genre start to become complex. It turns out that horror films use classic theories that envelop the audience with thrill, suspense, and fear. These theories include Brecht, fetishism, and marketing. Brechtian theory is particularly interesting because it deals with self-reflexivity and identification. Following self-reflexivity, fetishism is introduced and encourages the idea of sadism to the audience. How does this work? An example of this is seen from the film Henry; it has a specific scene of a documentary showing the killers murdering an innocent suburban family. After viewing the documentary, the camera pans backwards to show that we, the audience, watch with the killers sitting on the couch. With this, Sconce argues, "One left the theater provoked into thinking about the complexity of human evil...." (104). The audience realizes that they are put into a self-reflexive thought of whether to approve of the scene or not. This challenges the audience, as they are left to be thrilled by sadistic desires if they approve of the scene or be fearful of being considered as a monster if they do not. The other branch of the Brecht theory is identification.

  Within identification, we are introduced to primary and secondary identification. From the Sconce article, Christian Metz mentions,"With what does the spectator identify during the projection of the film?" (107). This poses as a good question for the audience because identification within film is important. Primary identification places the audience to identify with the camera or the cinematic image. An example of primary identification is when the audience identifies with the God Hands from Cabin in The Woods. Secondary identification would mean that the audience identifies with a character of the film. An example of secondary identification is when we follow a character and can't help but be coerced to identify with the particular character. Scone mentions, "Brecht's theories in the cinema felt that if viewers were made aware of the relationship between film and spectators, they would be able to maintain a certain distanced and critical engagement of the film"(109). In short, the idea here is that the audience would be more engaged with the film due to self-reflexivity. Interestingly enough, the film Funny Games make it so that the audience is made to side with the family. 

 Paul breaking the 4th Wall (Also an example of Self-reflexivity)

Paul coercing the audience to side with the family

  Following the Brecht Theory, fetishism will be covered. In the Scone article, Mulvey argues,"that the pleasures afforded by Hollywood cinema are voyeuristic and often sadistic, placing women as objects to be confined and controlled by the male gaze" (109). With this, fetish doesn't come alone because it brings up other topics: the male gaze, voyeurism, sadism, and the oedipal complex. But not all of the topics branch from fetishism. If anything, Freud's theory over voyeurism is the key topic that includes topics of the oedipal complex and male gaze. Scone argues, "There should be a chilling moment of self-recognition as the viewer cnsiders how voyeurism and sadism are so strongly linked...."(117). This also gives us the idea that Brecht, Freud, and Fetishism is connected to each other.

 

Paul encourages the mom to strip while the child is being choked. 

(A clear combination of voyeurism and sadism)

   Anyway going forward with the fetish idea, it is used as a supplement for added thrills within a horror film.  To stray off a little, every viewer has a different fetish. This means that a viewer has a decision to side with the antagonist or the protagonist. Going back to the film Funny Games, the film doesn't give us that type of decision, so the audience is left to side with the victims and forces every viewer to experience and identify with the victims. Scone also adds,"If such self-recognition does occur, it would be a classic example of distanciation, the spectator made critical and self-aware of the politics of representation through a self-reflexive device...."(117). This is probably the reason many audience members are sickened by the film Funny Games.    

   With all these theories thrown around, the audience or critics must be wondering about the reason for the creation of these films. Are these films made for thrill seekers? or are they made to develop a political opinion? Scone argues,"there is the economic power of the teenagers, whose tastes rule the contemporary marketplace in film"(119). This gives us the realization that the younger generation is a major influence towards horror films. Nightmare on Elm Street, Freddy's Dead, and Cabin in the Woods are films that support this theory. If anything, Cabin in the Woods roasts and creates a parody over the idea of teenagers within the horror genre. All in all, directors will seek to use the interest of the younger generation to create the newer films. Hopefully, these new horror films will use Brecht's theory, Freud's theory, and fetishism to cover the audience with fear and thrills. And encourage them to critically engaged over the film just like in past films.

Work Cited

            Scone, Jeffrey. “Spectacles of Death: Identification, Reflexivity, and Contemporary Horror.” Film Theories Goes to the Movies. Jim Collins, Hilary Radner, and Ava Preacher Collins. London: Routledge. Psychology Press. 1993. Print.

            Funny Games. Dir. Michael Haneke. Perf. Susanne Lothar, Ulrich Mühe, Arno Frisch, and Frank Giering. 1997. Film.