On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:16 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > True, but I wouldn't consider Hitchcock mainstream "horror" for the most > part. Other than "Psycho" and "The Birds" (which, I'll grant you, are > relatively gore-free) I'd categorize his stuff as more psychological > thriller than what most of us would consider horror. I'm probably picking > nits, though. I'm drawing a pretty fine line.
I think Hitchcock created his own sub-genre of horror because he didn't use many of the traditional devices. Movies like "Marnie" and "Rope" use very little conventional "horror" cues, but they do a better job of scaring the crap out of me than slasher films. Fake blood and guts always makes me laugh out loud when I see it on screen because I picture the minimum wage earning pee-on whose job it was to stand out of frame and throw the fake blood and guts. -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
