PG-13 and Horror: Can They Get Along?

While taking a stroll through the blogosphere, I noticed reviews coming up for the recently released film, Prom Night. (See image on left) It wasn't surprising to discover that this was yet another bad horror movie. This has been a recent trend with horror movies, but then I came a cross an interesting blog post making the argument that a horror movie going for a PG-13 rating (such as Prom Night) is almost practically guaranteed to fail. (See image to the right) The PG-13 rating came about as an answer to those movies which were too mature to be considered PG, yet were not so bad as to be seen as an R rated movie. Steven Spielberg had an important part in this as he was pushing for something that would allow him to have the heart ripping scene in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, without having getting an R. The fact is that the teenage market is a large money making group for the film industry, and so by making movies that can still allow teenagers to go and see them without the need of a parent, this allows for more profit. So, with movies like Prom Night, horror movies are trying to reach the audience that will give them the most money. These films are thinking less about the art of making a film, and more about how the business aspect. I thought I'd look into this by responding to two blog posts dealing with these issues. The first is the post mentioned earlier, about PG-13 horror films, written by Scott Weinberg for the blog site, Cinematical. It's titled "Fan Rant: PG-13 Horror Sucks and I Can Prove It." The other post is written by Doug Nagy, co-host of The Movie Blog's podcasts, titled "Prom Night Review." It basically talks about how bad the movie was, but also mentions how ratings had an effect on the film.

"Fan Rant: PG-13 Horror Sucks and I Can Prove It."
Comment:
I could not agree with you more. Horror movies in general have been pretty bad lately, but especially those that try to go for the PG-13 rating seem especially worse. It really seems to have come down to the business side of film making, the money making, rather than the art. The result is terrible stories and sad rip-offs of good foreign horror films. There have been the occasional movies that actually are good, but they are few and far between (and Tremors, although I really like it, does not really feel like a horror film to me). It really is sad to think that the rating that originally seemed like a good way to open more movies to a younger audience now seems like mainly a target film companies want to target in order to make some cash. Rather than being a benefit, it's more of a restriction, because now film makers have to make their films fit within certain limitations rather than being allowed to stretch out and let their creativity decided how the film should be (and whatever gory results that may come along with it). I agree that it seems like the best movies are the bloody ones, like the original Halloween, or A Nightmare on Elm Street, or The Exorcist which had many other gruesome, if not bloody, scenes. Although, I feel like the blood shouldn't be key to a good horror movie. This could be partly because I'm more into the psychological aspect of horror. For example, The Ring, not the American rip-off, but instead the original Japanese film, seemed much better, and yet had less in it. When people died in the American version, they looked like drained out corpses, but in the Japanese version, they looked like they were frozen in their last moment of terror, which seemed so much creepier. There was no blood. A lot of these Asian horror films seem to be going for this psychological side of horror, and for me it seems very effective. But then, I'm also a fan of Asian cinema, so I'm a bit biased. Still, it works. How do you feel about this? It's sad that the good horror films now seem to be only found outside the U.S.

"Prom Night Review"
Comment:
Thank you for enduring such a movie so as to provide us with a review. Also, congratulations on the kittens! If I had not already decided to stay away from this film, reading your review would have helped me make the decision. Although I love all sorts of films, I find myself avoiding many these days, especially horror films. They just seem to recycle the same formula, over and over, without attempting to make any drastic, and possibly interesting, changes. So now, I just tend to avoid these films altogether. I often end up having to look outside of the U.S. to find a good horror film. I recently came across an interesting blog that was talking about how PG-13 horror films just never seem to work out, because the PG-13 rating becomes a target for the movie companies so that they can get their films out to a larger audience. It becomes more about business than art. He also argues that horror films pretty much need some sort of blood, gore, or at least some kind of shock value in order to be a good film. I thought this was interesting because you mention how the movie seems to have held off the realistic side of things (such as the lack of blood despite a slit throat) in order to keep the PG-13 rating. And, as use said, a slasher film needs blood. The term alone, "slasher," already implies that there should be blood. But how do you feel about the need for blood in general in a horror movie? Do you think it's necessary to make it a good film? It's expected with most horror films, but I feel like it's not necessary to be successful. It will require good story telling and suspense to achieve it, but I still think blood doesn't need to be a factor. But it should not be absent if what's going on in the scene requires it. Because it's true, it does seem far less believable when a dead body with a large open wound lays there without a pool of blood.