Unity? GROOVY!
Horror films are seldom analysed critically with a view to discerning their artistic merit (White, 1971, p.1). This may be explained by the fact that, historically, horror films have been considered ‘b-movies’, failing to attract the support of prestigious studios (White, 1971, p.1). As their name would suggest, b-movies are considered one of the staples of low-culture and tend to be written off as ‘cheesy’ (Newlitz, 2000, p.59). However, I feel this condemnation of the b-grade horror film is more due to an unwillingness to examine it critically than an absence of aesthetic ‘goodness’ in the work itself. In this essay I will argue for the artistic merit of horror films by applying Aristotle’s Poetics to a film often considered a cornerstone of the modern horror genre: Evil Dead II.
Released in 1987, Evil Dead II is a re-working of the massively popular (but woefully low-budget) The Evil Dead which rose to cult status after its release in 1981 (Internet Movie Database, n.d.). EDII follows protagonist Ash as he battles with a fearsome host of demons and zombies that have been inadvertently unleashed by a bumbling academic in the woods surrounding a small cabin in the middle of nowhere (Raimi & Tapert, 1987). On the surface, it is difficult to comprehend how Aristotle (writing the 4th century BC) could attribute any value to such a film. However, many of Aristotle’s criterions for artistic merit are undeniably applicable to EDII.
In order to consider EDII through the lens of Poetics, it must conform to Aristotle’s conception of ‘tragedy’. Aristotle is generally considered to have had rather a low opinion of comedy, and ignores it almost completely in Poetics (save to point out its inferiorities in comparison to tragedy) (Shields, 2008). . Aristotle defines tragedy as an imitative art that represents men as better than they are in real life (Aristotle, 335BCE/2007, p.3). This is a problematic statement since the meaning of ‘better’ is ambiguous, however I believe Aristotle is suggesting that in tragedy the conflicts are of a more significant gravity than those often faced in real life, and that the characters respond to these conflicts in a way that we would not expect a real person to respond (perhaps with greater bravery, courage or wisdom - or even greater cruelty). By this interpretation, I feel EDII complies: it is doubtful any of us have experienced a life and death struggle with zombies, nor that, if we were in such a position, we would be able to fight so bravely and unrelentingly for our survival as Ash does. Therefore EDII is, for Aristotle, a tragedy.
Aristotle states that the ultimate aim of tragedy is to inspire both fear and pity in the audience (Aristotle, 335BCE/2007, p.9). Pity, he says, is aroused by unmerited misfortune befalling the characters (Aristotle, 335BCE/2007, p.9). This is inarguably evident in EDII: none of the characters deserve the horrors that befall them during the course of the film. Fear, Aristotle continues, is evoked when we see these misfortunes occur to people like us (Aristotle, 335BCE/2007, p.9). All the characters (and Ash in particular) are sufficiently ‘normal’ for us to relate to. They display no special qualities that have brought them into their current predicament - it could just as easily be us, battling with the forces of evil in a cabin in the woods. Aristotle goes on to suggest that the greatest fear and pity arises from a tragic action between two friends (Aristotle, 335BCE/2007, p.10). EDII displays this kind of tragic action repeatedly: Ash is forced to behead his girlfriend Linda because she has become possessed, Annie must help Ash to destroy her possessed mother Henrietta, Ash has to sever his own demonic hand, and so on. In watching these normal, relatable characters grapple with these horrific moral decisions we are certainly inclined to feel both fear and pity.
For Aristotle, the most important part of a tragedy is plot, as “…without action there cannot be a tragedy; there may be without character…” (Aristotle, 335BCE/2007, p.6). In this respect Aristotle could not fail to look favourably upon b-grade horror films: in most, character is almost incidental, the film driven instead by formulaic plot (White, 1971, p.5). EDII is no exception. Whilst character and plot are doubtless inextricably linked, without the plot EDII would fall apart. Its characters themselves are not especially compelling. It is the situation they find themselves in and their actions /reactions to it that drive the film.
The structure of plot is very important to Aristotle in determining the beauty of a work, which ought to be “…complete, and whole, and of a certain magnitude…”(Aristotle, 335BCE/2007, p.6). By complete/whole, Aristotle means possessing of a beginning, middle and end, all of which follow on from each other logically according to ‘causal necessity’ (Aristotle, 335BCE/2007, p.6). Despite theoretically being a sequel, EDII’s beginning requires no prior knowledge to be understandable to the audience (Ash and Linda are driving to a cabin in the woods for a romantic getaway - the plot unfolds from here, and we need know nothing about what came before). The plot progresses logically, each action and event naturally following those that preceded them (Ash and Linda arrive at the cabin, Ash finds an old tape recorder, Ash plays the invocation of the Evil Dead, Linda is possessed and becomes a zombie). Whilst it could be argued that the ending (which paves the way for the sequel Army of Darkness) does not complete the narrative, I believe that the film displays sufficient foreshadowing (the picture of ‘The Hero from the Sky’ in the Necronomicon) that Ash’s appearance in the 1300s is not completely inexplicable or confusing to the audience. Whilst the ending paves the way for a new story, it still acts as a satisfactory completion to the existing narrative. Magnitude, Aristotle states, dictates that a work cannot be beautiful if it is too big to take in all at once, or too small to be properly considered (Aristotle, 335BCE/2007, p.6.). In film, this is a consideration of length rather than physical size. At 85 minutes, EDII is quite easily embraced in one sitting, and therefore is of ideal magnitude for Aristotle.
Unity of plot is also important to Aristotle: a plot ought to consist of one main action with minimal subplots (which should all be relevant and necessary to the progression of the central narrative) (Aristotle, 335BCE/2007, p.7). In EDII there is one primary action: the struggle to defeat the Evil Dead. All subplots tie into this main plot, and none are extraneous or unnecessary: for example, Jake and Bobby-joe are needed to create tension in the group when Bobby-Joe goes missing, resulting in Jake flinging the exorcism ritual into the cellar which gives rise to the penultimate scene in which Ash does battle with Henrietta. The subplot with the professor is needed to explain the presence of the Necronomicon in the cabin, as well as to explain how the Evil Dead were unleashed. Annie, the professor’s daughter, is required to provide someone who can translate/read the exorcism ritual - and so on.
For Aristotle, there are two kinds of plot: simple, and complex (Aristotle, 335BCE/2007, p.8). Of these, the complex is the more desirable, as it displays a change of fortune heralded by a recognition and a reversal (Aristotle, 335BCE/2007, p.8). In EDII, the recognition comes when Zombie/Evil Ash discovers his dead girlfriend Linda’s necklace. Though he is possessed by the Evil Dead, he is able to recall his love for her and mourn her loss, whilst simultaneously recognising what he has become. This recognition enables Ash to revert to his good/human self and fight off the possession. It also prevents him from killing Annie. Whilst this may be too literal an interpretation of ‘reversal’, I believe Ash’s physical change is symbolic of his inner reversal throughout the course of the film (from cowardly jerk to hardened ‘hero from the sky’). In addition, this recognition marks a reversal of fortune: from that moment on, Ash is able to pull himself together, do battle with the physical manifestation of the Evil Dead, open the portal and send it back to hell.
Aristotle goes on to assert that the best tragic heroes suffer misfortune as a result of some error or frailty within them (a fatal flaw) (Aristotle, 335BCE/2007, p.9). In EDII Ash’s fatal flaw is perhaps not as clearly defined as Aristotle would have liked, but it is still evident. Had it not been for Ash’s curiosity (which led him to investigate the ‘abandoned’ cabin with Linda, as well as to play the professor’s tape recorded invocation) he could have avoided the horrors that later befell him. Further to this, Aristotle states that all characters should be good and possessing of valor (save for women, for whom valor is improper) (Aristotle, 335BCE/2007, p.10). Despite the level of violence and gore in EDII, it can still be argued that when Ash kills he does so out of a perverse kind of morality: since the creatures he kills are wholly and irredeemably evil, the act becomes not one of murder but of necessity. In order to save his own life (and to attempt to save the lives of his companions) Ash has no choice but to brutally murder the possessed. The other characters are good to varying degrees (Jake risks his life to save Bobby-Joe, Annie and Ed make their way to the cabin to discover what became of Annie’s father, etc.), though Aristotle may not have thought much of Annie’s ‘improper’ displays of intelligence and valor.
Whilst there are elements of EDII - and, indeed, horror films as a genre - that Aristotle may have found objectionable (most especially their reliance on spectacle to arouse fear and pity in the audience), I feel any and all objections can be defended using Aristotle’s own argument in XXV: “...in examining whether what has been said or done…is poetically right or not, we must not look merely to the particular act or saying, and ask whether it is poetically good or bad…we must also consider….whether, for instance, it be to secure a great good, or avert a greater evil…” (Aristotle, 335BCE/2007, p.14). In other words, any transgression from the ideal execution of tragedy as dictated by Aristotle is defensible by an appeal to artistic intent. In the case of EDII and other films of the genre, reliance on spectacle and the impossibility of plot (i.e. zombies, demonic possession, etc.) can be excused since they are designed to evoke horror, fear and pity in the audience. I believe that, for Aristotle, the ends would justify the means.