A large chunk of Noël Carroll’s article tackles what he believes a horror must include… a monster. (151) (To my great joy he includes a reference to the X-files which as definitely littered with almost every type of monster one can think of.) He does make sure to apply his theory of ‘emotional cognition’ the idea there must be something, in this case a monster, to elicit an emotional response, fear or horror, to horror films don’t have a big scary monster; he uses the example of serial killers such as Hannibal lector. Thus, we know a monster is to be present for Carroll’s definition of horror, but Michael A. Arnzen explores other aspects of horror, or in this specific case splatter films, narrative structure. Much like the victims of the film who often end up in pieces ‘splattered’ and spliced over the ground, so too is the narrative structure… kinda all over the place… at least in some cases. As he puts it “most revel in their lack of order and plot.” An important distinction is made by Jonathan L. Crane, “Here, unlike the films celebrated by the ironic audience, which have worth because the audience deigns to adore them, the horror-comedy is intended to evoke laughs. This time the filmmaker is in on the joke.” (146/6) although camp can be seen as something deliberate or consequential Crane sees horror comedy specifically as a genre is deliberately funny- this could end up being camp but. Horror is funny because it’s bad is not a horror comedy.
*This is very gory sorry*
It would be hard to argue this clip is not frustratingly funny yet completely disgusting… horrific. To break it down clearly in this case the bear is the monster. But bears exist (in the states at least) in nature so how has it become so monstrous. In what is obvious by the title of the film Cocaine Bear the bear is very high and actively seeking out more cocaine, taking out anyone in its way. This supports Correll’s view of something being ‘impure’ he states:
“Since in the previous section it was argued that a necessary condition for being horrified is that the emotional state in question be directed at an entity perceived to be impure-where impurity, in turn, is to be understood in terms of violations of our standing categories, concepts, norms, and commonplace expectations.” (154)
The ‘impurity’ here is thus the cocaine. A bear should not have accesses top cocaine thus the way the bear becomes monstrous is ridiculous and thus funny. When Carroll brings in the comedy aspect of horror comedy he brings attention to the importance of contrast, how things look like thy should not be together becomes funny such as tall and short. He says “Comedy, that is, naturally takes hold in contexts where incongruous, contrasting, or conflicting properties are brought together for our attention.” (153) The cocaine and its effects are out of place within the context on nature thus creating a comic contrast.
Not to just throw Freud in (I am) but Carroll comes to this conclusion on his uncanny essay, “Thus, in Freud’s theory, the road to comic laughter and the road to feelings of uncanniness are unaccountably the same.” (146) We laugh at the bear because it shouldn’t be acting like that even through the consequences are incredibly gory.
I was also considering writing about Cocaine Bear! I think you make a really good point about how the cocaine is what allows the bear to fit into Carroll’s definition of a monster, since bears are found in nature, but never bears with this level of aggression; it’s similar to his point about how human villains in movies can be monsters, too, if they behave in ways that humans naturally wouldn’t.
I think the connection between the theory of impurity and the cocaine. Being that the name is cocaine bear, this is not the shock factor which makes the film appealing. It is the execution of the impurity. In this scene it is quite well comedically timed.