Fear inspired by horror movie

Today, I feel like putting actuality aside to focus on symbols and rituals. As the leaves are changing colour and falling outside, it reminds me that Halloween is coming and once again this year I'm excited to rush to the cinema to re-watch the great classics of horror or to discover new ones.

Even if a lot of people don't takes the horror movies seriously, they represent a huge portion of the capital of the cinema industry, and they are also the best medium for the transmission of symbols, stereotypes, and rituals. They are easy to understand and normally they expose the myth and their rules without detour or subtlety. The story needs you to understand what  the symbols are or the myth it is attached to, so normally they just present it very clearly. The director also excessively uses the stereotypes so you get attached to the characters very quickly, and he can use them against you to add surprise to the production.

The horror filmmakers really try to attach the production to your worst nightmare to reach the core of your soul and awake your most basic instincts to create FEAR. What is fear? Fear is an instant reaction to danger or the apprehension of danger. It makes you want to run as quick as you can or scream as loud as your lungs allow. Don't confuse it with anxiety, which is a long term reaction to a situation that can't be avoided. Fear is not suspense, it comes after it. You can't control it unless you know what is the outcome of a situation will be.

Often I hear my friends saying: " I wasn't afraid, I just jumped at some point !" Understand, dear friends, this jump is a reaction out of your control. It is your body entering into defense mode. It is fear. You weren't anxious, I agree, but they got you at the second you jumped.

In cinema, fear is controlled, and it's where the thrill is coming from. When I say it's controlled, I mean that you won't jump in the movie trying to defend yourself against a killer or a ghost. You are spectator. You connect with the situation and your connection with the story and the characters make you feel fear, but this fear normally vanishes the second the action ends. Fear reactions in the movie are not the same as you will experience in real life. Here are the more common reactions you will feel when you are watching an horror movie: jumping, sweating, cold hands, shortness of breath, scream, or the urge to close your eyes. To be fair, I have to admit that some of those are also the result of the anxiety, but you can experience them with just fear as well.

The thrill is not coming from those instant reactions, it is coming from the suspense, then the relaxation phase of the body after fear. The movies have to be paced to give you a moment of relaxation, if not your body will never stop being stimulated and you will be tired at the end of the scene. Normally the pace should go like this: suspense, fear, relaxation. It can also go this way: suspense, fear, relaxation, fear, relaxation. Suspense makes the fear and the relaxation moments more efficient. Your body prepares itself to react, then reacts, then relaxes. Often, you can observe this phenomena in cinemas just by listening the audience. In suspense situation people will be very silent - the most stressed people can chuckle to try to relax before fear. Then, you will often hear little screams, surprised exclamations, or see people jump in their seat at the fear moment. Finally, at the relaxation phase, people are often laughing or just exhaling deeply. It is a lot of fun to go to cinema to just experience the audience ambiance. If you've never done it, you should try it, it is a real thrill.

A lot of people are addicted to those fear moments. They like the loss of control, the feeling of unconsciousness, or just the perfect moment of relaxation it gives. In some cases, it can also cause anxiety issues or numbness. Everything can be abused with consumption. If you are experiencing those troubles, you should stop your horror consumption and meet a health professional. I'm going a bit extreme on this one, but a lot of people don't take those trouble seriously. So, be responsible.




If you are looking for a good experience, you can also consider video games that involve you at another level. To experience fear without excess of suspense, you should try The House, a free game very simple that was developed by Jaylsgame. Follow this link : http://www.gameshed.com/Scary-Games/The-House/play.html.




If you are looking for a suspense and fear experience, I recommend Slender, another simple game that will test your level of anxiety developed by Parsec Productions. Follow this link: http://slendergame.com/.

I know, I went on the physical and psychological aspect more than on the mythological one. I promise, in my next post, I'm going to analyse a horror movie with my mythologist eyes and give you symbol interpretation and their link to our society.

Prejudices: Secular Movement in Quebec

Currently, there is a huge polemic in Quebec government about the secularization of public institutions. Debates on the separation of the religion and the state are open and the public reaction is divided. People speak about freedom of speech and human rights, or about freedom of conscience and separation of church and state. In the end, the government will make a decision and there will be disappointment, but for now debates are open. My friends and I can't escape these debates.

I was chatting with a friend this weekend and she brought up the subject, telling me how shocked she was about the debates. I thought at the beginning that she was for secularization, but then I realize she was shocked about the lack of the government's open-mindedness. So, I interrogated her and we debated.

As we are both non-practising catholic Christians, at first I was a bit surprise to hear her take a position against secularization. She explained to me that she didn't need to practice a religion to understand that people need it in their life, and that we should have the right to express our faith everywhere. She was using the freedom of speech argument and she was very adamant about it.

I agree with freedom of speech. Of course, who would be against it? Without it, I wouldn't be able to write this blog right now. Everybody has the right to express their ideas and I don't think the law on secularization will change that. In fact, I think this law will help freedom of speech and the following paragraph explains why.

When the government speaks about secularization, it is not to force people to abandon their practice or to shut them up. It is a concern of uniformity, so nobody is allowed to judge one another based on their belief or religion. Without the prejudices, it is easier to listen to someone's opinion and to consider it. I'm not saying it will erase all prejudices. There will still be the sex, the race, and the age prejudices, but if we can eliminate some of them, I think it is worth it to give it a chance.

Normally it's here that people against secularization start to say, "Ok! We agree, but it is not everybody that has prejudices. Plus, politicians and state workers should be able to get over those prejudices to do their work. It is unprofessional to let their prejudices blind their judgment." To that I answer that we are human.

What does it mean to be human? In the present context, it just means that as an individual, each person judges their environment in relation to their own experience. This is how society is constructed, and where all our social rituals stem from. It is normal to have prejudices and EVERYBODY has prejudices. Sometimes they are negatives-- we normally try to get rid of those-- but often they are positive and are translated by curiosity. Prejudices are often accompanied by discrimination that can also be negative or positive. For example, some company will employ handicapped people to help them to integrate into society, but other companies will avoid them for the collateral costs. In the both case, we can speak about discrimination, the first one positive, the second negative.

Let's come back to the secularization of the state. The government tries to avoid both kinds of discrimination when it is about state decisions and I don't think the public wants their delegate to be influenced by their prejudices. They want to eliminate those preconceived ideas and allow people to speak freely about state matter. I don't personally think that removing religion symbols from the state will affect freedom of speech.

The secularization of the state is not against religion. It is for the state, a place where everybody should focus on government matter, not on the culture-- unless you are the minister of culture, of course. It is also a place where everybody should be considered equal in front of each other and I think it should be the same in school.

Fleeting Art

I was walking down the street with a friend the other day. We were speaking about things when he pointed out a street artist on the other side of the street. The man was reproducing Italian painting on the sidewalk with chalk surrounded by people. My friend started to laugh explaining that only women were interesting in this kind of art. I hadn't noticed it before he mentioned it, but it was true, only women were looking at his work.

My friend continued laughing about the fact that women were interested in this kind of art as no men will ever be able to enjoy it. I was curious about his statement as I didn't understand how art could interest one gender more than the other, so I questioned him to better understand his point of view.

He said  that in Vancouver, the city of rain, it was not logical to practice this kind of art as the water would erase everything in one day and all this work would be worth nothing. He also said that men could never be interested in something so fleeting and illogical.

He began talking about another random subject, and I didn't go further into my interrogation. But it ran through my mind later that night. I though he was a bit unfair with the artist and I wanted to come to the artist's defence. I won't jump into the "girls like" vs "boys like" war; not today. I will only try to understand why this art interested this group of women the other day.

Like I mentioned earlier, the street artist was doing Italian paint reproduction with chalk. It wasn't original work. The artist was carrying and showing his source, so the passers could compare it to his drawing. I think the intention of the artist was to showcase his technique rather than his own art. So the women around him were looking a show. The artist was performing in front of them, like a singer, but the medium was different.

I had to agree with my friend on the ephemeral aspect of the drawing. I found it sad to thing that all his work will be gone with the rain, but if we compare it with a singer or a dancer, the perspective changes. Each time the singer performs a song in a show, the song is different and unique. Isn't that why we go to music shows? To meet the performer and admire the unique, live performance in front of us?

So, I have to disagree with my friend. I think the intentions of the artist were not to have a unique and durable product, he wanted to offer a performance. It is perfectly logical to watch him draw on the sidewalk.

Plus, I think there is a kind of beauty in something that last only a short time.