Five Questions: Horror Film critic and historian Iloz Zoc

If you're the squeamish type, then you may hide under the bed for this one. Five Questions invited Horror afficianado John Cozzoli to come in a talk about horror flicks. Enjoy. Moo-ha-ha-ha.

Fed up with being a corporate cubicle zombie, John Cozzoli traded in the needles and voodoo doll effigy of his manager for the more rewarding pleasure of blogging as his horror-oriented alter ego, Iloz Zoc. As a Monsterkid growing up in the 1960's, and now a horror head in the 21st century, he writes about the movies, books and creative people that are devoted to giving us thrills and chills. He also keeps busy writing the great American horror movie script and gruesome short stories. He lives in Long Island, New York, with his wife and son. Occasionally, and when his day job becomes a day-mare, he still pulls out that voodoo doll in between blog posts. In-between needle jabs he dreams of owning a movie theatre serving hot popcorn with real butter; of course, with lots of horror movies.

1) First, let’s get one thing out of the way: why Iloz Zoc?

I had been trying various pen names to use for my fiction; you know, all those stories I've got tons of notes on but haven't actually started writing yet. Incidentally, that's why I started the Zombos Closet of Horror blog: its purpose is to force me to actually write. Well, coming up with the names of the characters, like Zombos and Zimba, I needed something for my alter-ego valet character that would be equally weird. I tried various names, and then I suddenly hit on the simple reversal of my last name to see how it would sound. Bingo! It sounded loopy enough to work for the blog, and I also liked it for my pen name - whenever I get my fiction-side rolling. I thought it would be fairly obvious to family members, but, amazingly, they didn't realize Iloz Zoc was Cozzoli spelled backwards. So I think I made the right choice.


2) I once watched the 1922 horror classic Nosferatu‚ and thought it was quite creepy for its time. What is considered to be the first great horror film? What are among the best of all time?

Yes, cultural mores are really reflected in any horror film and fictional work created within a specific period. Nosferatu is so vivid due to Max Schrecks' portrayal of Dracula, and the stylistic approach showing him in all his evil glory. Unfortunately, the non-speaking role limited the overall effect, although visually, it's still quite a nightmare image.

The 1931 Dracula remains a wonderfully creepy, Gothic-styled horror film mainly due to its star, Bela Lugosi. His persona as the undead aristocrat remains a vivid image to this day, and the iconic look of Dracula that everyone tends to remember. Of course, with Edward Van Sloan and Dwight Frye, the story, although whittled-down budget-wise due to the Great Depression, still is a good one. But Lugosi is incredible. What's more, his was the first talking performance for an on-screen supernatural monster. His Dracula ushered in Universal's great horror cycle, opening the door for the later Frankenstein, Wolfman, and Mummy films.

It's a wonderful coincidence that his accent, which proved a hurdle in later films, was perfect for Dracula. The film wouldn't be as strong if it were done silently - it was released in a silent version since many theaters in 1931 still weren't sound ready for talkies. Aside from Lugosi and company, the expansive set design early on in the film (while a culmination of the gothic designs from the silents before it) is superlative here. It's unfortunate that director Browning didn't have his heart in it; the film may have been much more exciting and atmospheric if he had.

So, my answer to your question is that Dracula is the first great horror film because it led to the classic cycle of supernatural horror unleashed by Universal, which transformed into the mutant atomic horrors of the 1950's, which led to the Hammer Studios' evocative revivals, etc. That's not to belittle or ignore Lon Chaney's influence on the genre; his part as Erik in Phantom of the Opera is fantastically chilling and sorrowful at the same time. In fact, he was supposed to play Dracula in place of Lugosi. Tragically, his untimely death decided otherwise. If he had starred in it, I'm sure the film would have been entirely different due to his penchant for makeup; of course we'll never know. But his performances, which led Universal to consider doing a major horror film like Dracula, don't directly connect to that classic cycle. The advent of speaking rolls really changed the face of horror, as well as film in general.

Now, not surprisingly, my opinion would be contested by lots of other horror heads - phooey on them. However, if you wanted to look at the time-line for horror films, then, according to Wikipedia, the current consensus on which is the first horror film would be 1896's Georges Melies' film, The Devil's Castle. Who outside of a really died-in-the-wool horror head would know that? It's also three minutes long, so you can't really do much of a story in three minutes.

So, as an ethnocentric American horror film fan, I'll stick to my Gene Autry guns with good old Bela and Dracula.

What are the best? While I have some personal favorites, I'll say that the best and most influential films are Lon Chaney's silent Phantom of the Opera, and other classic Universal Studios titles including Dracula, Frankenstein, and The Wolfman. Hammer Studios' films also revitalized the supernatural horror genre and gave us notable actors like Peter Cushing, Ingrid Pit, and Christopher Lee. Films like Night of the Living Dead moved horror in a new direction and gave us the "modern" flesh-eating zombies we all love. Carpenter's Halloween introduced the supernatural slasher that would not be stopped, and Reanimator, with Jeffrey Combs, brought us Lovecraft with a humorously nihilistic twist filled with over-the-top gore. A Nightmare on Elm Street gave us a truly frightening film serial-killing monster in Freddy Krueger, and converted him into the first memorable wisecracking one in the never-ending sequels.


I could go on and on, and there are many influential foreign films that can be added to this list, but Wikipedia is a good place to learn more.


3) Can you break down the different genres? What are the main differences (if any) between mainstream and B-horror flicks? Is horror global so to speak?

How many years do you have? Really! Sub-genres equate to variations on a theme. And in horror, you have lots of variations on a theme. For simplicity, I look at it this way: you can break down horror films into supernatural horror, man-made horror, nature-made horror, slasher-psycho-killing-machine horror, creepy freaky aliens from space horror, and splatter-gore horror. Vampires, ghosts, demons, Lovecraftian alien-gods, etc, fit into the supernatural category, though with Lovecraft you can use creepy freaky aliens, too. Man-made horror encompasses most of the 1950's mutant horrors like giant bugs, and even Frankenstein. You have your mad doctors, mad scientists in the man-made horror category, too. Right now, the slasher-psycho-killing-machine and splatter-gore horror films are in vogue. Unfortunately - I say unfortunately not because they aren't valid horror forms - mostly because the focus is on visually revolting and disgusting effects, not the story.

Zombies fall into the nature-made and supernatural horror categories, though many horror heads would label Zombies as a sub-genre, too. I'm not saying you can't do that, but I like to be as broad as possible first, and then narrow down from there. Of course, many horror films overlap in their use of themes or sub-genres. The skies' the limit here. For a great tutorial on horror genres, I recommend reading Tim Dirks' article at Filmsite.org. He touches on the various genres that evolved at various times in the horror time-line, and mentions the associated movies for that genre and period. Very informative reading.

It's funny, but foreign horror films, like the Korean and Japanese films, take horror seriously. It's not an A or B or C movie labeling for them. Their actors and directors take what they do very seriously. It's mostly in America that this odd system of B and C movie labeling has evolved. When you look at the early Universal films, especially Lon Chaney's silents, they were extravagant, main-studio productions. They kept Universal afloat during the Great Depression. As you move more into the 1940's, you start seeing lower-budgeted films specifically targeted for fast production. The stories were treated with less importance, and the studios started lining up lower-status actors to star in them. So the difference between a mainstream and B-movie then was the cost, story quality, production quality, and acting roster. But the funny thing is that they were made quickly and cheaply to turn a fast profit -- and they made money!

Today, I'd not use that letter-labeling anymore. Now it's mainstream versus independent movies, and all bets are off. When you see an independent film like The Abandoned, or Head Trauma, you can't say that a lower budget means low production values. Often, it's the independent film that shows more originality, more creativity, and more professional heart than many big-budget mainstream offerings. Look at the incredible foreign films we're seeing, like Nightfall and The Maid. Hell, even Bollywood has a wonderful film, Naina.

While the main differences between mainstream and independent films are similar to the older B-movie labeling system, these days, it's more a matter of budget, actors, and distributor, not quality. Quality can vary in mainstream films as well as independents, so that's not a fair measuring stick anymore.

And yes, horror is a global art form. Even more so today with Japan, Korea, Russia, and India, lord you name it getting into it. It's also global in more overt and subtle ways. Look at the recent influx of torture and torment gore-soaked films coming out, from Hostel to Saw to Texas Chainsaw, and the boffo box office their getting. I think they are a reflection of our time. As our world descends down the ladder of evolution with terrorism and religion as rationale for evil, horror films reflect that paranoia and loss of self-control and security. As we become more desensitized by the horrors on the news, horror films have upped the ante visually on depraved human suffering - to be viewed from the comfort of your own theater seat; popcorn and soda included. And speaking of horrors, those concession-stand prices are horrific indeed!


4) Where is horror as an art form heading?

There's a positive and a negative perspective to that question. The positive is that horror is heading to other forms of distribution and expression. With this generation of media-enthused horror heads, who are technically savvy, cinematic and fictional horror is moving to the Internet, Ipod, You Tube, and more places then you can shake a severed limb at. More and more would-be creative people are producing their own horror films, with varying degrees of success, both artistically and financially. But the digital revolution is on. This is a positive development given that new generation distribution methods and media will move horror along into the 22nd century.

There are also the negatives to be considered. All this technology and mondo-accessibility to the medium, combined with the increasing psychological and sociological influences of global-warming and terrorism, will foster more nihilistic forms of horror for mass consumption to compensate. Look at it this way: Universal's horror cycle swung into full-force during Word War II. Why? Because people needed a greater horror than the real one they were facing to escape. To take a vacation from their reality with a fictional 'someone else's worse problem.' One that couldn't affect them. That helps to give you a sense of empowerment. It's a matter of becoming desensitized in order to survive the sensory-overload of constant, background fear. We all have it, though we hide it well.

Today, that fear keeps chugging along - it's now 24 by 7, on the Internet, on the TV, on the radio, on every hour of the day, every day of the week. So is it any surprise to see teenagers piling in to watch Jigsaw cruelly torture and rip victims apart in bloody chunks? They know it's not real sitting there in the theater, but they can still feel some sense of control over all the bloody mess because it's almost real. It still desensitizes them, and us, to the horrors all around us.

Horror, as an art form, may be heading toward more graphically nauseating, realistic horror story lines - ones that force us to vicariously experience someone else's helplessness and gut-wrenching fear of not being in control so we can hah-hah, glad-it-wasn't-me afterwards. I'm not so sure that's a good thing for the art form, or the audience either. Of course, I'm biased. I grew up in a time when the only monsters you feared were on the movie or TV screen (or under the bed – couldn’t resist, The Commentator). When the hell we became the monsters I'm not sure.

5) Who have you interviewed?

Wonderful directors, writers, and actors. I was uncertain whether people would respond to me - who’s this guy with a blog? I still get people asking what a blog is at conventions, and these are people you'd think would be savvy regarding blogging. But, of course, many other people involved in the horror game are.

Notable people I've had the privilege and pleasure of conversing with are directors like Ethan Dettenmaier (Sin-Jin Smyth), and Lance Weiler (Head Trauma, The Last Broadcast); writers like Jonathan Maberry (Ghost Road Blues), Vince Liaguno (The Literary Six), Kim Paffenroth (Gospel of the Living Dead), Gary Rhodes (who also directed Lugosi: Hollywood's Dracula), and Annalee Newitz (Pretend We're Dead); and actors like Lee Perkins (Carnies, Live Evil, Job).

There are many more, but you'll have to go and read about them on my blog. Hehe. So many wonderful, very interesting people have put up with my somewhat gonzo-horror style of merging reality with a fictional chaser. It's a lot of fun for me, and I also learn from the exchange. This year I'm expanding coverage of horror fiction, and music -- I recently received some fantastically creepy CDs from Midnight Syndicate, so I'll be reviewing those, too.

I consider doing an interview a value-added proposition for my readers, and it's a selfish pleasure for me. There are so many reviews for this or that out there these days. I felt the only way to make myself stand out was to have a bizarro angle - Zombos and company - and also to seek out important and interesting people in the field of horror to get their take on this or that. Sure, it helps to promote their movie, book or music, but it also provides a fantastic opportunity to get inside their heads; without all that messy, squishy gore spurting out, to boot.

Speaking of which, this has been quite a treat for me. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be interviewed!

Bonus!!!! Is there a modern day equivalent to Lon Chaney Jr or Bela Lugosi?

No one. But of course, I'm looking at a Universal glass darkly. Having experienced the classic horror films and the talents of the gifted persons that created horror cinema, I find it impossible to compare iconic actors of yesteryear's horror with today's iconic actors. It's just not the same. The two persons you mention, Lon Chaney and Bela Lugosi, were consummate professionals that could play any role. They just happened to create some of the most memorable movie monster roles, but they were still all-around actors that could tackle any part and give it their all. While I love many of today's horror actors, and I think they are highly professional and talented, I don't feel their talent can touch the breadth and width of a Chaney, Lugosi, Chaney Jr., Boris Karloff, or many of the first actors to portray horror on the screen.

Now having said that, I can say that Jeffrey Combs and Lance Henriksen are tops on my list of horror actors. I go out of my way to see their performances in any picture they're in. Robert Englund also created one of the most horrific monsters to come along, and I find his Freddy bone-chilling, but outside of that role, I've not really grown attached to his other work.