By: Samuel Mortel
Over the past decade, we’ve seen a cultural revolution; some of the most critically acclaimed, culturally relevant films are in the horror genre. Throughout the history of film, horror has always been seen as a lesser version of the art form, warranting little-to-no recognition from the wider community. Now, filmmakers are utilizing the genre as a tool to communicate thought-provoking themes and reflect a mirror back at society, and the same critics who used to lambast horror as a whole have come to respect it. This change is, in large part, due to the relatively recent emergence of “elevated horror”, a term used to describe horror films that stray from the typical conventions of the genre, often with a level of artistic direction and thematic meaning that you don’t normally find in a generic slasher flick. The term has ushered horror (and cinema, in general) into a new era and added credibility and prestige to films that wouldn’t have been given a chance thirty years ago.
Despite this, there’s a growing faction that has become tired of the subgenre. About a decade removed from the “elevated horror” explosion, it has admittedly become a bit of a buzzword, but that’s no reason to throw out the phrase or act like there’s no distinction between most horror films and what can be deemed as “elevated horror”.
It seems there’s no real consensus on where the phrase “elevated horror” comes from, but films like Robert Eggers’ “The Witch” (2015) are often cited as being at ground zero of what we now think of as the phenomenon. Though “The Witch” is one of many films that laid the foundation for our current cinematic era, by far the most notable figure in “elevated horror” would be Jordan Peele.
Peele’s 2017 classic “Get Out” is one of the seven horror films in the history of the Academy Awards to ever be nominated for Best Picture. Although Peele wasn’t able to secure the award, “Get Out” is regarded as one of the most revered films of any genre this century, with Peele being cemented as one of the signature filmmakers of our time. It’s also a prime example of elevated horror. It, for the most part, can be described more as unsettling and nerve-racking than scary, having you more likely to crawl into your seat than jump out of it. From early on, it’s clear that the main character, Chris Washington, is in some sort of danger, even if it’s not entirely clear what the danger is until about the end of the second act. Most importantly, the conflict of the film is purposefully thought-provoking, using clever storytelling and tactful filmmaking as a tool to interrogate race relations between white and Black people. Using the villain or evil forces at the heart of the film as a metaphor for a deeper societal issue is a staple of elevated horror. In fact, all aforementioned qualities of “Get Out” can be used as a sort of checklist for what makes a film fall into the subgenre. A movie with even one of these qualities will probably be given the “elevated horror” label, which has grown to be quite powerful.
By giving horror films an “elevated” sheen, it adds prestige to movies many people would otherwise have no interest in, and presents a new branding opportunity. There’s no doubt that a countless number of directors have been able to pitch their movies to studios and audiences by promising an “elevated horror” experience, for better or worse. For every genuinely meaningful and artistic horror film made in the past decade, there’s probably been 10 shameless attempts at cashing in on the trend with far less tact and consideration than actual elevated horror movies. If “The Witch” was the birth of elevated horror, “Get Out” was the moment it grew wings and soared. From then on, it seems as if there’s been at least one new horror classic released every year, including two instant entries to the pantheon just this year: “Weapons” and, most notably, Ryan Coogler’s original vampire flick “Sinners”.
“Sinners” is one of the most successful movies of the year, both at the box office and in the minds of critics. It was such a success that, according to the Hollywood Reporter, Warner Bros. is planning an Oscar campaign for the film, which will undoubtedly include a “for your consideration” bid for Best Picture.
Even though the success of these films and the reinvigoration of the horror genre can be easily attributed to the “elevated horror” trend, a considerable number of horror fans see the label as an unnecessary, snobby distinction, with some horror directors like Peele and John Carpenter chiming in. In an interview with The Verge, Peele specified he doesn’t consider himself an “elevated” filmmaker. Carpenter echoed a similar sentiment in an interview with IndieWire, stating, “There’s metaphorical horror. But all movies […] they don’t have messages. They have themes. Thematic material, and some horror films have thematic material.” Peele and Carpenter’s statements are parts of a larger debate that seems to reemerge every year, with the most recent topic of discussion being this year’s “Weapons”.
The main hang-up with “Weapons” is the lack of a cohesive, easily digestible message. The film doesn’t really offer much in terms of some grand, overarching “point”, with the director, Zach Creggers, even saying so in appearances, like on The Last Podcast On The Left. Still, it doesn’t eliminate “Weapons” from the “elevated horror” discussion or necessarily speak to the sentiments of Carpenter or Peele. “Weapons” is far from a typical horror film, featuring abstract dream sequences and an unconventional structure. Also, while the film doesn’t have a “message”, per se, it certainly has themes.
In the same podcast interview, Creggers clarifies that one of the film’s plot elements is inspired by his experience of dealing with an alcoholic parent. Additionally, “Weapons” is rife with plot elements and scenes that are certainly meant to cause a conversation. This, I feel, is really at the heart of the “elevated horror” discourse.
Carpenter is right in the fact that all films, to an extent, have themes, even typical horror movies. One of the biggest releases this year was “The Conjuring: Last Rites”, earning nearly half a billion dollars globally. The film, which was the fourth installment in the Conjuring series and the ninth movie in the Conjuring Universe, did not have a critical reception to match how much money it raked in, being one of the lowest-rated films in the series. I’m sure some themes can be found in “The Conjuring: Last Rites”, but let’s not act like they’re carried with the same level of tact or craft as films like “Get Out’, “Sinners”, or even “Weapons”.
In every single art form, you can find beautiful, wonderfully crafted masterpieces gleaming with intent. You can also find lazy, soulless cash-grabs. Horror is a genre that, in particular, has historically been plagued by the latter. There are a few other art forms that would allow something as egregious as 12 “Friday the 13th” movies (that’s not an exaggeration), and this is a common problem in the genre. What about the 13 “Halloween” films or all eight movies in the “Leprechaun” franchise? When horror has all these things going against it, how do we distinguish between “Leprechaun: Back 2 tha Hood” (which is a real movie) and a true work of art like “Sinners”? Well, that’s where the “elevated horror” label comes into play.
Even if these “elevated horror” films aren’t as financially successful, they no doubt are more culturally impactful. “The Conjuring: Last Rites” will inevitably be lost to time. In the same Hollywood Reporter article mentioned earlier, it’s also alleged that Creggers’ film will receive its own Oscar campaign from Warner Bros. It’s highly unlikely that the studio will do the same for the fourth Conjuring film. The reason why films like “Sinners” and “Weapons” even have a shot at enshrining themselves in history is because horror no longer has the burden or bad rap it’s had for decades. This is all due to the revolutionary branding of “elevated horror”, which can help a film stand out from the swathes of unserious, unintellectual, and immature films in the horror genre and tells critics and audiences that the film is worthy of standing beside true cinema.