The reason I saw The Evil Dead for the first time was because of a quote I read in our video store's catalog. "The goriest film of all time," it advertised, and, as a pre-adolescent kid with too much time on his hands and poor parental supervision, I knew I had to see it. That was not the first time I had been lured by the promise of over-the-top effects, but it was the first time I found a film that delivered on its promise.

After discovering my love of horror films, I found myself exploring all the dark corners of the genre, especially any film that claimed to be shocking or filled with the red stuff. Faces of Death, Dead Alive, Re-Animator, those were the movies I sought after. But why? What value does the splatter film have in the realm of horror, or film in general?

The splatter film is not a new invention, nor did it begin solely with H.G. Lewis' exploitation flicks (we'll get back to him in a minute), though he may have heralded the modern era. The splatter film has its roots in the grand guignol. Originally a Parisian theater founded in 1894, Le Théâtre du Grand-Guignol specialized in horrific plays which concentrated on desecration of the flesh, and its founder, Oscar Metenier, judged the success of his performances by the number of people who fainted during performances. The theater's name became a style unto itself, emphasizing graphic depictions of death.

This style was adapted to film with such early shockers as Psycho and some of the Hammer Studios films, which didn't shy away from showing a little blood when called for. True splatter, though, began with the works of Herschel Gordon Lewis, who released Blood Feast in 1963. This was followed by Lewis' other efforts in the guignol/splatter milieu such as The Wizard of Gore and Two Thousand Maniacs! Let's not kid ourselves about his movies. They are not good. The acting, writing, direction, sound and music all reek of amateur status. The only reason they achieved notoriety, then and now, is because his films were the first to show some of the more grotesque methods of shrugging off this mortal coil.

So, despite lackluster execution, Lewis was giving audiences what they wanted, or, at least, something they wanted to see if they would admit it to themselves. If the splatter sub-genre had only been Lewis' exploits, it might have come and gone. But, a good

idea is a good idea. So, when a scruffy, bearded Pennsylvanian named George A. Romero came along and married the grotesque with true social commentary, we horror fans could hold our heads high. "Yes," we would tell anyone who asked, or paused on the street, "what he films is horrible. But so is the racism ripping our country apart. That's what he's talking about!" And the classic Night of the Living Dead was followed by Dawn of the Dead, a superior movie in almost every way, including the gore, supplied by relative newcomer Tom Savini. country apart. That's what he's talking about!" And the classic Night of the Living Dead was followed by Dawn of the Dead, a superior movie in almost every way, including the gore, supplied by relative newcomer Tom Savini.

The thirst for blood had been reawakened in horror fans, and films like Maniac and Friday the 13th offered up buckets of the stuff, parading victims before masked or deformed or just plain crazy killers. The slasher film is a subgenre all its own, but it shares some of the same territory as the splatter film, both exploring that worst case scenario - what if someone carved me up like a Christmas goose? What would that look like? And the practical effects that made these

So, now that the art of gore was a real thing, directors began making films to showcase these artists. Carpenter's The Thing is an incredibly juicy film, filled with slime, blood, twisted flesh and crawling heads. That's a splatter film, kids. A little less known were films like Bad Taste and Dead Alive from Peter Jackson, both of which turned the gore up to eleven. The previously mentioned The Evil Dead, despite a far lower budget, managed some gruesome effects, as well. The difference in Jackson and Raimi's approach to these films versus the typical fare was a genuine creativity, and sense of fun, that many more recent splatter exercises display. These are legitimate and smart directors, who happen to like a bit of grue in their films.

There are certainly other examples of splatter, whether it be works from Lucio Fulci or Eli Roth, more recently, but I believe our time line is in place. Now, back to the matter at hand. Are these movies worth watching in the first place? I believe they are, conditionally. Sometimes, a good movie is a good movie. The Evil Dead is gory as all hell, but it is also a tense chiller that has as much in common with Hitchcock's suspenseful tone as it does with H.G. Lewis' brainless bloodbaths. Secondly, these movies do serve a purpose, particularly during adoescence. One of the curses of being human is the knowledge that we, and everyone we know and love, will die. These movies put this notion in our faces, painted bright red, so that we are forced to deal with mortality at its most extreme. Maybe that's not a tried and true psychological hypothesis, but I do believe that for some, these movies aid in the development of that horrible understanding that all life ends. Does it do it in a particularly healthy way? Probably not. But, it does provide that release.

And here's where I go off the reservation. I don't like these splatter films, anymore (I am, of course, reserving the right to totally disagree with myself on specific films). When I was a kid, I loved to see what some FX creator imagined entrails would look like yanked out. Now, there better be a good reason for that scene in the films I watch, or it just doesn't fly. There are too many great make-up artists out there for that to be the sole selling point in any film. You better have character, or concept, or style, because the gore just doesn't cut it, anymore. I defend Hostel as a great look at American intrusion around the world, but Hostel 2 felt like a splatter flick, and that doesn't fly with me these days. For those of you who say you love splatter, I say you probably will until you learn how to drive. The ironic thing about splatter directors' urge to to show more has left me in that very state... wanting just a little bit more out of my movies.

nightmares possible were becoming their own art form, thanks to supremely talented artists like Savini, Rob Bottin, Stan Winston and Rick Baker. These guys knew how to show a horror nerd a good time, and seemed to enjoy themselves doing it. Savini, in particular, lights up in interviews when he discusses an especially nasty effect he's conceived.

There is some merit to that concept. Death truly is the great unknown, and the most realistic fear we share. We will all die. Our bodies, whether through disease, misuse or accident will eventually stop working and our lungs will cease to fill or our hearts to pump. Being the bags of meat we are, it is fascinating, then, to see its contents. Outside of surgery or roadside accidents, we do not get the opportunity to see what lies beneath the skin. Thus, the splatter film does provide a service - that of feeding our curiosity to know what's going on inside our flesh, and, usually, what that stuff would look like if it we're pulled out at a most inopportune moment.