How should we categorise horror?

 With the Romford Horror festival fast approaching I have been thinking about horror movies and the sub-genres for which they are often accredited. I will first admit that I am no horror movie expert, whilst I have watched a fair few horror movies during the halloween period much of my horror movie knowledge comes from film analysis' and video essays on youtube. Yet, I have watched an awful lot of those horror film breakdowns. What I find interesting about horror movies is the vast amount of sub genres for which horror movies are labelled with. However, certain films often don't fit in the sub-category they are placed under and many of the sub-genres seem to lack a definitive definition which can by used as a guide to place certain movies under them. 

One horror movie that seems to not properly fit under the sub-genre it is often labelled with is the first Saw. The Saw franchise is often associated with 'torture porn' which is defined by Collins dictionary  as 'a genre of horror films in which sadistic violence or torture is a central aspect of the plot'. This sub-genre may be an appropriate to categorise many of the Saw movies and franchises inspired by it (such as Hostel), as they tend to focus solely on achieving the most gruesome death scenes, body horror and conjuring up the worst torture devices for one to be stuck in. Paying little attention to the general plot or producing well rounded characters. Yet, at the centre of the first Saw movie, at least, isn't tons of gore or the torture devices themselves but a mystery. Whilst the audiences are shown a few successful saw traps which do invoke a sense of physical torture these are but glimpses into the greater mystery the detectives are trying to solve. Indeed, the central aspect of the first Saw plot isn't the violence or gore but of a detective trying to find a serial killer and of two men stuck in a room with no means of escape. The two men, the main characters, are by no means physically tortured like many of the victims in the later Saw movies, the worst display of violence being found in a man sawing off his own leg. Whilst still somewhat horrific, a character cutting off their limb is by no means more gory or violent than many scenes in other horrors which aren't labelled as torture porn. Indeed, the torture the main characters face is more so psychological than physical, as the violence is mainly shown in flashbacks to other traps which there are only a few of. As such it seems like we shouldn't label the original Saw as torture porn, rather it seems far closer to a psychological horror, given the psychological torture the main characters face and the mystery the detective has little time to crack. The conclusion we should draw from this is that we cant class Saw as torture porn despite it most often being cited as the first torture porn film. Indeed, this shows just how difficult it is to completely understand horrors sub-genres and how hard it is to place films in them. 

Furthermore there is question to how we would define horror comedy. Whilst Scream is known for being a light parody of the horror genre, having characters break the forth wall with their inside knowledge of horror films, it is hard to say how much a horror comedy it actually is. Indeed, Ghostface is placed up there with the more serious killers such as Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees, often being taken as a serious threat in video games and other media. Ghostface is also parodied by scary movie,  indicating that it is not so much of a comedy that it can't be made fun of itself. But then what makes it a horror comedy? It can't be simply that it contains jokes as most horror movies are funny in places to ease tension. Is it because it is a light parody of other horror movies? Then this would make Shaun of the Dead a horror comedy. But Shaun of the dead isn't really all too scary, and more importantly it doesn't try to be as it has very few serious moments. Is Shaun of the Dead just a comedy with horror themes? Indeed, it seems to be extremely difficult to understand why some movies are placed in a horror sub-genre and others aren't.

Similarly how do you define a slasher, one definition states that a  Slasher film is a horror sub-genre that meets certain criteria, including an effective killer, a high body count, and non-firearm weapons. Yet, this definition seems to capture too wide a scope and  allow for films which are almost universally thought not to be horrors to be Slashers.  For example, by this definition alone a film like Seven, which is most often classed as a psychological thriller or mystery, could be classed as a Slasher film. Indeed John Doe is an effective killer who does not use guns, so surely the fact that he is the main villain in Seven should mean that Seven is a slasher and is thus a horror, despite our best intuitions claiming otherwise. Perhaps we could argue he does not meet the part of the definition which states he must have a high kill count, yet both Norman Bates and Freddy Krueger have a lower kill count on their first outing, despite the latter being considered one of the most iconic slasher movie killers. Therefore, if we count Norman Bates as a slasher killer then the kill count need only be 2 or more people (4 if we only count Freddy). So then we need another specific criteria which would separate Seven from the Slasher movie and horror genre in general. Does the Killer have to wear a mask? No, unless we discredit Freddie Krueger or the cannibals from Wrong Turn. Does the majority of the deaths have to happen on completely on screen? No, otherwise we discredit many PG Slasher movies, as many show build up to the deaths or after effects, leaving much of the killing offscreen, like in Seven. Maybe then we would have to determine a Slasher as a film that  includes a killer who stalks victims from a main group of protagonists for which the film follows. This would ultimately determine that Seven is a thriller or mystery, not a slasher, as the main protagonists in Seven are not stalked then killed by John Doe but instead a random group of people are the victims who have very little screen time.  Yet this would lead one to question as to whether other films are Slashers. For example, is Jennifers Body as slasher, it often isn't considered one, given that Jennifer isn't some mysterious killer, yet she still stalks her victims whom are all part of a main group of teenagers we follow. Perhaps that then means we need a more specific definition of a Slasher movie which is quite hard to find.  And even if we were to accept Jennifers Body as a Slasher then it seems that we have reduced slasher down to a bare bones definition of ' a film which features some being stalking a group of people for whom are our protagonists and then killing at least 2 of them'. Having a definition such as this one seems to be completely void of emotion and by intuition does not seem to capture which is at the heart of what a slasher is. Furthermore, it seems to be an arbitrary definition as there are surely slashers out there that don't fit this definition or films which fit this definition but aren't slashers. Indeed, this goes further to prove just how difficult it is to place horror movies into sub-genres. 

As such to answer the question, how should we classify horror?, I must respond with 'I don't know'. Much like trying to define Philosophy it seems that by trying to place certain horror movies in certain horror sub-genres we either must place a certain movie in a sub-genre that doesn't make sense either intuitively or logically or we must define a sub-genre in what seems to be in an arbitrary manner.