I Heart Horror: The Gimmick

This past weekend, Netflix delivered me a documentary that I have been wanting to see ever since I missed it at SLIFF back in 2007.   The film was ‘Spine Tingler: The William Castle Story’.   For those of you that don’t know who William Castle is, I implore you to check out ‘The William Castle Collection’ that was recently released on DVD (click here to see it at amazon.com) which also includes said documentary.   While the meat of the story is how a man who turned some B-Movies into  Grade-A events at movie theaters by offering a thousand dollar life insurance policies to attendees of one of his films if they die of fright.   While I have always been a fan of Castle and his gimmicks/promotions, this really made me reflect advertising of film past.

When films really started becoming mainstream, the majority of the films were carried by the actors and actresses who headlined or had top-billing for a film.   While Castle never had this courtesy, he knew of a way to get people in the seats.   He created gimmicks.   Believe it or not, PSYCHO by Hitchcock had a gimmick of – which the documentary points out as well – not allowing anyone after the first 15 minutes of the film has been shown.   William Castle’s audience participation gimmicks ended in 1965 with ‘I Saw What You Did’ where seat belts were installed in seats to keep you from jumping out of your seats from fright. His ideas made movie watching a bigger thing.   He wanted you to experience the film, to make the film fun.   He also showed Hollywood and other film makers on how they could promote a film regardless of the content and quality.

Ever since Castle’s entanglement with cinema, one could say – and this one believes – that the advertising for films was definitely raised.   Companies knew that they needed more than just a pretty face or a great story to make a profitable film.   What is really interesting is when you consider exploitation cinema from the 70’s.   Essentially, they are taking the Castle promotion by selling the idea or the enticement to put people in the seats as opposed to the film.   Granted, the majority of exploitation cinema was popular because of the fact of its saturation and economy driven pricing, but the advertising was one of the main stars of those films.   In most cases, the advertising was better than the films advertised (Let it be known that I DRINK YOUR BLOOD is actually a really entertaining film).

By the 1980’s, the horror genre was at it’s most visible.    Horror was seen as exploitative and during this time the slasher films came out was treated to scrutiny.   Almost the total opposite of what Castle was presenting more than 20 years prior.   The blood was flying and the boobies were unholstered.   Some say mainstream horror was at it’s finest and some say it was at it’s lowest.    In 1982, mainstream horror brought back “the gimmick” in 3D.   While 3D wasn’t anything new, in a way the major studios knew that they needed to up the ante from their exploitative counterparts.   What better franchise than ‘Friday the 13th’?   The first Friday made a splash due to it’s graphic death scenes and Paramount figured why not give them the one-two punch of having those deaths heightened in 3D!   Then 3D followed to hit some other franchises and gave us ‘JAWS 3-D’ and ‘AMITYVILLE 3-D’.   I’ve seen all 3 and the are god awful films, but the 3D added a funhouse element to it, just as Castle did years prior.

The 90’s were pretty gimmick-free. Some horror directors tried to make horror serious and scary again or flip it on it’s head to make light of some of the cliches of the genre to churn out something fresh by doing so.   The majority of the decades hits in the horror genre resulted from rave reviews, box office and a lot of quotes from prestigious newspapers and magazine contributors.

As of late, the gimmick has returned.   What is kind of odd is that in the past 5 years or less, there has been a resurgence in exploitation films – largely in part of the film ‘Grindhouse’.   That’s not the only thing that popped up from the gimmick pool either.    With 3D technology less of an eye sore, this has become one of the easiest ways to capture the heart of a thrill-seeking horror fiend.   Some also believe that it is a great tool to fight against piracy.   Will it be the pirate killer, oh hell no.   But it should still be fun to watch where 3D horror takes us.

One thing that is negative in the 3D transition is the MGM film ‘Cabin in the Woods’.   This was supposed to be out in February 2010, but it is now being delayed a year so the studio can do a 3D post-production transfer.   That’s right, it wasn’t even made in 3D, it is a post process.   This somewhat makes me worry that if this were to hit big along with Aja’s Pirahna remake, what is it to say that other films, maybe even classics, won’t be post-processed in 3D-O-Vision?

In the end, if we are going to be recycling old ideas in the end, I just want to see a film that is accompanied with the showmanship of Mr. Castle.   Mr. Castle, I miss your hi jinks.