Recently I heard someone refer to Extreme Horror and Splatterpunk as “body horror” and my head just about exploded. I have gotten used to the idea that terms like Splatterpunk and Extreme Horror have basically switched definitions in modern genre lexicon, but let's not get ridiculous. Please forgive me if that comes off rather curmudgeonly, but some words really need to stay as they are. Changing “Splatterpunk” to “Body Horror” makes as much sense as calling all motor vehicles Jeeps. So, I thought I would explain what body horror is and is not.
It seems shortsighted to call extreme horror body horror. Really, it doesn't even make sense. I think you've cleared things up for those who might be confused. At least, I hope so!
I wonder though - where do things like prolonged torture, or a maiming go? for instance someone is severely burned, by an external source, and they live?
Or a partial amputation that is halted partially through the procedure, but the injury is treated with bandages and a tourniquet so they don't bleed out, and now they have a limb between attached and detached- but are moving still?
I hear you, but it's not really a gray area. Prolonged torture or dismemberment would be considered Extreme Horror, not body horror, because the goal is to torture, maim, or kill, not to transform them into something else.
So even though in tusk the boy was mutilated- had their limbs amputated etc - it was the goal of transformation that puts it in the body horror category.
Because the horror isn't as focus on the pain of the aspect of the transformation - the torture maiming etc- but instead it focuses on the transformation.
I assume by this train of thought this also puts the human centipede concept also in the "body horror" category - even thought the transformation is mild?
I'm sorry if its extremely obvious where that lies. This is my first time truly considering the labels as I've only really ever heard them when people have discussed Cronenberg or The Thing.
I assume cenobites and a lot of Clive Barker's work also falls under a more "body horror" label - since although they torture and maim the focus tends to be on changing the human body into something else, and the pain is just a symptom of the final transformative solution?
Exactly. Human Centipede could certainly be considered body horror. It does treads the line because the transformation is pretty minor in scale though profound in effect, but it meets all the qualifications.
The best way I can describe the difference is if someone were to write an antagonist who filled someone's living body with maggots to see what happened as the maggots migrated through them, and then described what that felt and ooked like, that would be body horror. If that antagonist killed someone and left their body and maggots claimed it, that would be Extreme Horror.
I had the same reaction when someone wrote that Death Wish was a rape/revenge movie. It's a vigilante movie, and yes, there is a difference.
It seems shortsighted to call extreme horror body horror. Really, it doesn't even make sense. I think you've cleared things up for those who might be confused. At least, I hope so!
Preach 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
This is fantastic and so very important. In my opinion, we need to try to keep the terminology straight out of respect for the art of horror.
Definitely ‘86
I wonder though - where do things like prolonged torture, or a maiming go? for instance someone is severely burned, by an external source, and they live?
Or a partial amputation that is halted partially through the procedure, but the injury is treated with bandages and a tourniquet so they don't bleed out, and now they have a limb between attached and detached- but are moving still?
These things seem to fall in a grey area for me.
I hear you, but it's not really a gray area. Prolonged torture or dismemberment would be considered Extreme Horror, not body horror, because the goal is to torture, maim, or kill, not to transform them into something else.
I think I'm picking it up.
So even though in tusk the boy was mutilated- had their limbs amputated etc - it was the goal of transformation that puts it in the body horror category.
Because the horror isn't as focus on the pain of the aspect of the transformation - the torture maiming etc- but instead it focuses on the transformation.
I assume by this train of thought this also puts the human centipede concept also in the "body horror" category - even thought the transformation is mild?
I'm sorry if its extremely obvious where that lies. This is my first time truly considering the labels as I've only really ever heard them when people have discussed Cronenberg or The Thing.
I assume cenobites and a lot of Clive Barker's work also falls under a more "body horror" label - since although they torture and maim the focus tends to be on changing the human body into something else, and the pain is just a symptom of the final transformative solution?
Exactly. Human Centipede could certainly be considered body horror. It does treads the line because the transformation is pretty minor in scale though profound in effect, but it meets all the qualifications.
The best way I can describe the difference is if someone were to write an antagonist who filled someone's living body with maggots to see what happened as the maggots migrated through them, and then described what that felt and ooked like, that would be body horror. If that antagonist killed someone and left their body and maggots claimed it, that would be Extreme Horror.