Connect with us

Editorials

Gatekeeping in Gateway Horror: Why We Need to Reevaluate What the Subgenre Means 

Gateway horror holds a nostalgic space in the horror enthusiast’s heart. Many of us fixated on the genre as children, irrespective of whether the films we viewed scarred us for life. The subgenre of gateway horror (or children’s horror) is recognized as films targeted at younger audiences with frightening elements that do not cross the boundaries of suitability. Films that usually represent this subgenre include Hocus Pocus (1993), Gremlins (1984), Frankenweenie (2012), and others.  

Unfortunately, most of these narratives focus primarily on white male children from middle-class neighborhoods (Lester, 2022). In ReFocus: The Films of Wes Craven, children’s horror scholar Catherine Lester highlights how children of different ethnic backgrounds are often featured as secondary characters and suggests adult-rated horror films such as The People Under the Stairs (1991) or Eve’s Bayou (1997) are more inclusive for Black children who love horror, through being represented on-screen. 

I will further expand on this concept, i.e., gateway horror should not be defined by age ratings. We should look at the type of horror children create; what films resonate within their circles and listen to their opinions on what kinds of creepy stories they crave.  

Published

on

Gateway horror holds a nostalgic space in the horror enthusiast’s heart. Many of us fixated on the genre as children, irrespective of whether the films we viewed scarred us for life. The subgenre of gateway horror (or children’s horror) is recognized as films targeted at younger audiences with frightening elements that do not cross the boundaries of suitability. Films that usually represent this subgenre include Hocus Pocus (1993), Gremlins (1984), Frankenweenie (2012), and others.  

Unfortunately, most of these narratives focus primarily on white male children from middle-class neighborhoods (Lester, 2022). In ReFocus: The Films of Wes Craven, children’s horror scholar Catherine Lester highlights how children of different ethnic backgrounds are often featured as secondary characters and suggests adult-rated horror films such as The People Under the Stairs (1991) or Eve’s Bayou (1997) are more inclusive for Black children who love horror, through being represented on-screen. 

I will further expand on this concept, i.e., gateway horror should not be defined by age ratings. We should look at the type of horror children create; what films resonate within their circles and listen to their opinions on what kinds of creepy stories they crave.  

Horror by Children, For Children  

Thanks to TikTok and YouTube, the visibility of child filmmakers creating their own horror shorts has grown. Some even pursue it professionally, beyond the confines of their homes.  

A young director making waves in the industry is transgender filmmaker Alice Maio Mackay, who has been called “The self-aware Gen Z Ed Wood we deserve” by critic Juan Barquin. She conceived her first feature, So Vam (2021), at age 15 but already cut her teeth directing shorts since age 11. While Mackay does not position herself as a “horror filmmaker for children”, her work in directing as a child makes her work a groundbreaking contribution to gateway horror. Queerness in the subgenre is scarce, though ParaNorman (2012) has been praised for featuring Mitch as the first openly gay character in an animated film.  

Advertisement

Another filmmaker is Emily Hagins, who directed the zombie film Pathogen (2006) at 12 years old, going on to receive a Vinegar Syndrome release in 2022. In Zombie Girl: The Movie (2009), the behind-the-scenes process of Pathogen is captured as we see how she led a team of adults and children to bring her first feature to life. The documentary shows how self-aware she is as a filmmaker, noting she chose the zombie genre due to the conventions it must follow.  

There are other child horror filmmakers whose films can be seen in festivals or competitions, creating opportunities for young people to express themselves. Renegade Film Festival has a “Best Gen Z Film” category, and Killer Shorts has opened submissions for horror writers under 18. We can look to the horror child creator as a guide, as well as seek out their opinions on horror as audience members.  

Gateway Horror: Beyond the PG-13 Rating  

When my niece was 12 years old, we recorded an episode of the Kindergeist Podcast, which discussed whether horror was appropriate for children. She expressed that Bird Box (2018) should be PG-13. When I mentioned death by suicide may be too intense for young viewers, she added:   

“My generation, which is Gen Z obviously, we get introduced to social media and things at a very young age. So I learned about suicide when I was in fourth grade, okay? Which is a very young age to process. So that’s why I feel like it shouldn’t be rated-R probably, because I’m so used to seeing suicide everywhere.”  

Salem Horror Fest founder Kay Lynch’s list of “queer friendly horror for children” on Letterboxd reveals how she sees the value in including R-rated films, because most embraced gateway horror films can be restrictive to the diversity of childhood experiences. Similarly, 14 year old CommonSense reviewer named GlytchedWatchesMovies wrote that I Saw The TV Glow (2024) should be accessible to 11 year olds and above, but the film has been rated 15 in the UK and PG-13 in the US. 

Advertisement

The contrast between children’s and adults’ opinions surrounding film ratings is fascinating. In the US, the Classification and Ratings Administration (CARA) board is made up of a group of parents (with children aged 5-17) who help families decide what they can view together. However, at times it may feel adults claim that their restrictions “keep the children in mind” when in many cases, there is a desire to “control what the children have in mind.”  

Children, Speak Now  

Osgood Perkins is a director who is challenging the standard of gateway horror. In his retelling of the Grimm fairy tale Gretel & Hansel (2020), he approached the film’s intensity with the understanding that gateway horror tends to undermine the intelligence of young people. In an interview with Bloody Disgusting, he unpacks pushing against the norm:  

“Where’s Gremlins today? Where’s the thing for kids that’s just slightly too freaky that just sort of trusts kids to be able to take care of themselves and to be able to emerge out from the other side and there’s just not a lot of those. So yes, the idea was always to honor the younger audience.”  

Rated PG-13, Gretel & Hansel is an excellent example of a gateway horror film that does not shy away from crafting a dark and sophisticated storyline. Others include Jordan Peele’s Monkeypaw Productions, with their release of Henry Selick’s stop-motion Wendell & Wild (2022), which centers around a Black girl grieving the loss of her parents, and features a cast of Asian, Brown and transgender characters. In portrayals of neurodivergence, Come Play (2020) has been praised as a “horror movie that gets autism right”, showing a nonverbal 8-year-old on the autism spectrum.  

While gateway horror is cherished, it is still an underserviced niche that is very cisgender, white, and heavily influenced by the perspectives of adults. There is still a lot of work to be done in creating a more inclusive and realistically diverse portrayal of childhood in gateway horror, but one thing is for sure – without the children’s involvement, we will not be getting anywhere.

Advertisement

References

Ponce, Z. and Pajarillo, X. (2021) 1: Is Horror Appropriate for Kids? Kindergeist [Podcast]. 24 September. Available at: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/kindergeist-podcast/episodes/1-Is-Horror-Appropriate-for-Kids-e17rmst  

Thurman, T. ” Osgood Perkins on Making ‘Gretel & Hansel’ a Horror Movie for a Younger Audience.” Bloody Disgusting, 31 Jan. 2020, https://bloody-disgusting.com/interviews/3602756/interview-oz-perkins-gretel-hansel/ 

Waddell, Calum. ReFocus: The Films of Wes Craven, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781399507028 

Advertisement

Xanthe Pajarillo is a director-writer and co-host of Kindergeist, a horror podcast for children. She is currently pursuing her doctorate at University of Birmingham (UK), where she focuses on children’s horror and children as horror filmmakers. She received her BFA in Photography and Media from California Institute of the Arts and MFA in Film and Television Production from USC School of Cinematic Arts. In leisure time, she enjoys being a casual singer-songwriter, playing horror games (especially Evil Dead: The Game), attending gigs, and stuffing her face with spaghetti and meatballs.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Editorials

‘Candyman’ Turns 5: Why Nia DaCosta’s Film Still Haunts America

Published

on

The United States spent most of this year celebrating its 250th anniversary. There have been parades, fireworks, and endless reminders of what the nation wants us to think are its founding ideals. Yet anniversaries are as much about what we choose to remember as they are about what we choose to forget. There is another anniversary this year. Five years ago this month, Candyman was released. The fact that both that film and America are sharing an anniversary this year may have been an accident, but that makes it no less significant.

Released amid another national reckoning over race, Nia DaCosta’s film asks a question that every celebration of America ought to confront: Is it possible to commemorate this nation without fully reckoning with the violence woven into its history? More than a sequel to a horror classic, Candyman is a meditation on the ghosts that haunt America because it has never fully reckoned with the past that created them.

How the Original Candyman Confronted America’s Racial History

The original Candyman understood this. Released in 1992 and set in the almost post-apocalyptic urban decay that was Chicago’s Cabrini-Green housing projects, Bernard Rose’s film arrived only months after the L.A. Race Riots, a moment when this country was coming to terms with the way the country’s relationship with Black folks was shaped by decades of segregation and racism.

Most audiences saw a supernatural slasher about a hook-handed killer summoned by saying his name five times into a mirror. But beneath the horror was a far more unsettling story. Candyman was about the lingering consequences of America’s racial history and the way white America has sometimes turned Black suffering into myth instead of confronting the systems that produced it.

The film’s true horror was never simply Candyman. It was the realization that monsters can be born from histories a nation refuses to face. That is exactly where the 2021 film expands the original’s vision.

Advertisement

Nia DaCosta’s Candyman Turns One Ghost Into Many

Bernard Rose’s Candyman explored the legacy of a single act of racist terror. Nia DaCosta’s film argues that the tragedy wasn’t confined to Daniel Robitaille, the man who became the monster. The 2021 film posits that Candyman is not one man but many.

Daniel Robitaille was lynched for loving a white woman. Sherman Fields takes on the mantle of the supernatural slasher because he was beaten to death by police after being falsely accused of harming a child. Anthony McCoy ultimately becomes part of the same legend. Their stories span generations, but they are connected by a nation that repeatedly produces the same injustice under different names at different points in history. The genius of the sequel is that it transforms Candyman from an individual ghost into a symbol of America’s recurring racial violence.

Candyman Shows How History Repeats Itself

History, the film suggests, is not something that happened once. It is something that keeps happening. That is why Candyman is one of my favorite films to teach in my Film and Philosophy course.

Students walk into class expecting a horror movie. They leave wrestling with questions about history, memory, and justice. We spend little time talking about jump scares or gore. (Because, let’s be honest, there is not much of that in the film.) Instead, we ask why some histories become legends while others are forgotten, what societies owe their victims, and whether a nation can ever move forward without honestly confronting the violence that shaped it.

The Horror of Remembering What America Wants to Forget

A good horror film reveals what we fear. What makes Candyman great is how it reveals what we would rather not remember. That is what haunted me the first time I saw it, long after the credits had rolled.

Advertisement

Five years after its release, Candyman remains one of the most unsettling movies in recent years because the history it confronts is not safely behind us. The original film understood that America’s racial violence could not simply be buried, while the 2021 film showed how easily that violence can be reproduced across generations.

Its Unquestionable Legacy in Horror

As America celebrates 250 years, Candyman reminds us that commemorating the nation’s founding requires remembering all this country’s history, including the parts that make the celebration uncomfortable.

We cannot exorcise a ghost by refusing to acknowledge why it exists. Perhaps that is the film’s most important lesson. The past does not haunt us because we remember it. It haunts us because we don’t.

Continue Reading

Editorials

The Perfection of John Carpenter’s ‘The Thing’

Published

on

Sometimes it feels borderline ridiculous to gush about John Carpenter’s The Thing as much as I do. It’s gotten to the point where when I’m asked about my favorite horror film by both friends and strangers, a little bit of embarrassment tinges my expression as I answer; it feels so obvious and rarely surprises anyone. Saying I love The Thing when people expect me to bust out an obscure foreign horror film or a cerebral thriller makes me feel like a rosy cheeked child with a propeller hat and a giant lollipop. “Wow, you love one of the most popular horror films of all time, congrats!”

But it’s just the truth. The first film of John Carpenter’s “Apocalypse Trilogy”, all three of its films are among my favorites. But The Thing has a special place in my heart. It shaped my taste in horror, my taste in most media in general, to be honest. It’s become the gold standard, 10/10 baseline test for the vast majority of my reviews; it is a perfect film, so I judge other films against it. And it’s one of the few movies I have to run back to and watch yearly like clockwork (usually when I’m spending a part of winter tied to the couch). It is, in all regards, the perfect film. If it isn’t the perfect film, then it is at the very least the perfect sci-fi horror film.

So, what exactly qualifies The Thing for literal perfection? It’s a high bar to clear. This article, as informal as it is compared to most of my editorials, is an attempt to explain it.

Even if Carpenter Isn’t the Goat, His Team for The Thing Was

As far as crews go, John Carpenter’s The Thing had the cinematic equivalent of the ’96 Chicago Bulls behind it. We’re talking about an amalgam of some of the most talented people to ever grace the silver screens with their work, boasting alongside John Carpenter two of the heaviest hitters in all of cinematic history: Dean Cundey, and Rob Bottin. Now, we can debate all day about whether John Carpenter is the greatest of all time when it comes to horror directors. Personally, I’m just as liable to say Cronenberg, Del Toro, or Hooper as I am to say Carpenter.

But the key factor to remember here is that Carpenter is the coach, not the star player; the Phil Jackson, if you will. Yes, he is the visionary who directed a near perfect cast of players and composed a tale of pure, apocalyptic paranoia. More importantly, he put together and coordinated the team that would make his vision manifest as reality. And if Carpenter is Phil Jackson, Rob Bottin is the team’s Michael Jordan here, the greatest of all time.

Advertisement

(And to all my Lebron fans, I love you, but you have to sit down for this analogy.)

The Legend of Rob Bottin

Bottin’s story is borderline unbelievable, but it’s the best way to explain how abnormally skilled he is and what he brought to the table for Carpenter. At age 14, Bottin became an apprentice to the at-the-time GOAT Rick Baker after sending him a letter seeking an autograph while sharing his creature designs. He was a quick study under Baker, joining him on the ’76 King Kong and Star Wars, before bouncing to Carpenter’s The Fog and then iconic werewolf picture The Howling.

When he reunited with Carpenter in 1982, he now had 6 classic films under his belt and was moving like an FX bullet train. From ages 22 to 23, he worked on The Thing for 57 weeks in both pre-production and on set. Nearly 24/7 for 400 days, Bottin’s all-gas no-brakes work ethic made The Thing at the cost of his own health, and it resulted in him being hospitalized with pneumonia. He survived and went on to make Robocop. And at least one of your favorite films.

Because no conventional disease or weaponry can kill Rob Bottin.

The Thing Still Features Horror’s Best Practical Effects

Okay, that last bit might be hyperbolic, but the man sincerely put his life on the line to make special effects that haven’t been topped since. Not the best effects in just horror history, or science fiction history, but effects that haven’t been topped in any genre for over 44 years. Not by his mentor Rick Baker, not by Screaming Mad George, not by Alec Gillis (though shoutout to him for his criminally scrapped work on The Thing (2011), and even more criminally ignored work on Harbinger Down). I love Dawn of the Dead, believe me, I do, but he certainly isn’t being beaten out by Tom Savini’s body of work. And that isn’t to disrespect and say that all of the artists that I just mentioned are bad, they’re the best in the game! But Rob Bottin was just that much better.

Advertisement

This inevitably invites the counterpoint: “But it wasn’t just Bottin! Stan Winston and his people were the ones who worked on the Dog Thing to give Bottin’s crew a break, and that’s the best monster in the movie!”. To which I say: look me in the eye and tell me the Dog Thing sequence is better than the Palmer Thing sequence. That’s not even counting the Norwegian Thing, both Norris Things, and the absolutely masterful final creature work that was the Blair Thing. The only reason Bottin and his people didn’t win Academy Awards for their work was because they got jumped by E.T., The Dark Crystal, Conan the Barbarian, and Blade Runner all at the same time at the Oscars. It’s just a consequence of being released during the best year for movies ever.

Okay, Now We Can Talk About Dean Cundey

But of course, these effects are then supported by another true legend: Dean Cundey. Selling people on Rob Bottin being the greatest effects artist of all time, isn’t nearly as difficult as advocating for Cundey, who despite an impressive catalog of filmography, slowed down in the back half of his career. He’s often overshadowed in conversations when it comes to The Thing; it’s always talk of Carpenter’s directing, Bottin’s effects, and Ennio Morricone’s incredible soundtrack up front, and rarely any of Cundey’s work. He isn’t spoken about in the same breath as John Alcott or Michael Ballhaus, cinematographers whose work is associated with prestigious cinema because of their proximity to great directors.

Cundey might not be the director of photography your Martin Scorsese’s or Paul Thomas Anderson’s went running to, but I would be lying if I said I didn’t think he was the most important cinematographer in horror history, just for his work with Carpenter and Spielberg. He helmed three of the most influential films in all of horror with his lighting and camera operating: The Thing, Halloween, and Jurassic Park. The man’s fingerprints are automatically on the cultural DNA of all slashers, most practical effects-driven horror films, and the biggest gateway horror franchise in film history.

The Dream Team That Made The Thing Perfection

Cundey has gone on record saying that despite Carpenter’s input, he was effectively given free rein to light and frame The Thing. The man didn’t just know how to shoot effects to make them evoke true disgust from the audience, he was able to manipulate every aspect of the shot to terrify. His sixth sense cinematography wasn’t just for lighting and playing with shadows, but for the speed of camera movement, the power of his blocking, and for having a complete grasp of communicating texture and temperature.

And temperature is the soul of The Thing. John J. Lloyd’s production design of the research station and the great white expanse around it feels just as bone chilling as the film’s antagonist, thanks to Cundey. There isn’t a single flat shot in the thing, not a moment that doesn’t feel dynamic, and it’s because of Dean Cundey.

Advertisement

Now, all this being said about Bottin and Cundey, they are far from the only ones who synthesized this structurally perfect organism of a movie. Every bit of Todd C. Ramsay’s editing splices the film’s scenes together to move perfectly in-time. David Lewis Yewdall’s sound design and how it gave a voice to the horrors on screen will be etched into people’s brains forever. The point is that everyone, every single person who had a hand in making the film, helped make the movie flawless.

Like the cells of the thing from another world, each crew member on John Carpenter’s The Thing moved in concert with the next, in unison, to create the greatest sci-fi horror of all time. So, is it any wonder why 40 some years later, the film still has us all captured?

Continue Reading

Horror Press Mailing List

Fangoria