What does it mean to be "Lovecraftian"?

[Parallaxicality]

There's an interesting discussion going on on Lovecraft's IMDB page about which movies are genuinely Lovecraftian and which are not. I think that Lovecraft fans in general seem to have too narrow a definition of what constitutes a Lovecraftian theme. By their exacting standards, no film (other than The Thing) fits the bill.

Personally, I don't think the Lovecraft ouvre is consistent enough for there to be anything like a solid definition of "Lovecraftian". Is Evil Dead not Lovecraftian because it mentions souls? Well several of Lovecraft's stories mention souls. Is Ghostbusters not Lovecraftian because it is funny? Well, several Lovecraft stories are intentionally funny, and I would say that any movie that contains so many deliberate Lovecrat homages (secret cults, Old Gods, gateways to other dimensions) can be considered Lovecraftian. Even Alien, a story originally conceived as a rework of At the Mountains of Madness, has been accused of not being Lovecraftian enough, because the Alien is too comprehensible. This despite the fact that Giger drew his design directly from a creature he called "Necronom IV".

[Genus Unknown]

Is Evil Dead not Lovecraftian because it mentions souls?

I'd say that Evil Dead is not Lovecraftian because it contains no Lovecraftian themes. OK, there's the evil book of black magic (NOT the Necronomicon, at least not in the first movie -- in that one, it's called "Naturum De Montum"), but that's hardly original to Lovecraft. There's no cosmic perspective, no alien gods waiting to reclaim the earth, no secret cults, no musing on the insignificance of man, no blending of science fiction and horror, nothing really Lovecraftian in any sense. The only connection to Lovecraft is the fact that the later movies called the book "Necronomicon." Otherwise it's just a fairly old-fashioned demonic possession / zombie story.

Ghostbusters and Alien, though, contain definitely Lovecraftian ideas, even if they aren't explicitly connected to his canon in any way.

[JulieH]

I will defend Spider Baby until the end of time. 

A movie about a family with a degenerative disorder that makes them devolve into basement living cannibals?
Hell yeah.

[Bob Lovecraft]

I've said it before and I will say it again: see the movie "Burrowers" and try to tell me it is not Lovecraftian. As far as I am concerned, being "Lovecraftian" is more about the dread and the inability of man to overcome evil than it is about sticking to canon ideas like cults and outer gods and whatnot. Just because a movie or TV show mentions Lovecraft, or even cameos him, that does not make it "Lovecraftian".

As for "The Thing" I know I am about the only person who does NOT see Lovecraft in that movie. Yes I know AtMoM was the inspiration for the movie. Yes I know John Carpenter specifically said that he got his ideas from that novella. I still don't care. A shape-shifter is not necessarily a shoggoth, and there is never a feeling of the kind of dread in that movie that is such a hallmark in Lovecraft's works. I have always considered "The Thing" a swing-and-a-miss for Lovecraftian horror. That having been said, I love both movies; they just aren't Lovecraft.

Bob

[JulieH]

Lovecraft had outer themes, yes, but his pointed inner dread of heredity, biological destiny and "the sins of the fathers" are just as valid a tack to take. 

Innsmouth, Lurking Fear, Rats in the Walls, Arthur Jermyn, and to a lesser extent Charles Dexter Ward and Thing on the Doorstep all deal with some "family issues" and almost nothing of full-on cosmic horror.

That being said, as a response to Bob - Have you seen the movie "Society"?  That's a similar sort of near miss (in my view) for Lovecraftianism, and yet very creepy in its own way. 

[Genus Unknown]

Hmmm... I'm gonna have to agree with Bob on The Thing. There is a whiff of Lovecraft in the design of the alien (in that it's utterly bizarre, and not just, say, a human with forehead bumps and pointy ears), and of course the Antarctic setting, but beyond that, it's a movie about paranoia, not cosmic indifference or tainted bloodlines.

Still the greatest monster movie of the last 50 years though. 

[Bob Lovecraft]

That being said, as a response to Bob - Have you seen the movie "Society"?  That's a similar sort of near miss (in my view) for Lovecraftianism, and yet very creepy in its own way. 

I haven't seen that one, and Netflix does not seem to have it. If you can point me in the right direction for a Dl or something, I will watch it as soon as I can.

Bob

[JulieH]

Sadly, Society is out of print.  I have a VHS.
If I spot it anywhere, I will let you know.

Another debatable Lovecraftian monster movie would be Deep Rising.  The monster certainly appears very Cthulian (Cthulesque?), but, as it has no actual agenda except to devour everything in sight, would it be?

And of course, there's the lovely Cast a Deadly Spell (also not on DVD, I think, dangitall).

[Bob Lovecraft]

I will defend Spider Baby until the end of time. 

A movie about a family with a degenerative disorder that makes them devolve into basement living cannibals?
Hell yeah.

OK, I just saw this one (thank you internet piracy) and yeah, that was pretty much in keeping with the themes of Lovecraft. Unfortunately, it could never decide if it was a horror movie or a comedy, so there was that. But you can't tell me that "The Lurking Fear" was not the inspiration for this movie.

Bob

PS - The adult sister in this one may have been a cast-iron bitch, but that garter belt and bullet bra combination was hard to beat.

[Inner Prop]

I wish I could remember which movie it was.  I saw a comedy-esque vampire movie where, at one point a titanic monster rises out of the seas and the hero is asked to deal with it by the other characters.  He responds that he is a vampire hunter, he doesn't deal with this, "Lovecraft sh!t."

I can't remember enough of the rest of the movie to tell how germaine that sea monster was.  I just thought it was funny since I think about that everytime I see a monster movie.  If the monster is personal and on a human level, then it is certainly not Lovecraftian.  If it is indifferent and powerful beyond the ability of the characters to deal with then it is.

How about "In the Mouth of Madness"?

[Bob Lovecraft]

How about "In the Mouth of Madness"?

Oh yeah, total shout-out to Lovecraft. And I would have to agree that the overall feel of the movie is very Lovecraftian.

Bob

[JulieH]

I know everyone sees HPL in there, but to me, MoM is a very Stephen King feel, WAY more than Lovecraft.

[Bob Lovecraft]

Lovecraft had outer themes, yes, but his pointed inner dread of heredity, biological destiny and "the sins of the fathers" are just as valid a tack to take. 

Innsmouth, Lurking Fear, Rats in the Walls, Arthur Jermyn, and to a lesser extent Charles Dexter Ward and Thing on the Doorstep all deal with some "family issues" and almost nothing of full-on cosmic horror.

That being said, as a response to Bob - Have you seen the movie "Society"?  That's a similar sort of near miss (in my view) for Lovecraftianism, and yet very creepy in its own way. 

Ok, JulieH, I finally got to see "Society" and Before I talk about anything else in it, I just have to say that if Lovecraft had ever actually described an orgy, this movie is exactly how he would have done it. Now, overall, yeah the movie is certainly Lovecraftian; the themes are all right there. First you have the secret society/cult. Next is the incest (looking at you Lavinia Whately, and the Martense family). Then you have the "everyone is against me" a la "Shadow Over Innsmouth". And finaly the shapeshifting (similar to, but not exactly like many, MANY HPL creations). The only thing it was missing was a witch who ate dead bodies and was unspeakable. Oh, and a giant elbow.

Bob

PS - The ditzy brunette in this one had a phenomenal body, too bad she was, well, never mind.

[T. Kelly Lee]

This is a really good topic - I don't feel that just throwing in the Necronomicon or mentioning the Old Ones or the Deep Ones in your story makes your genre "Lovecraftian."  I think "Lovecraftian" fiction has a very few common elements:

* The universe is materialistic.  Magic, the supernatural, and the paranormal are merely exotic sciences which we humans have yet to understand. 

* Humankind is utterly insignificant.  Not only are we not the top of the heap in evolutionary times, our evolution is really just the result of an accident. 

* The "secret" of the universe is dreadful and ultimately meaningless.  There is no good god with a benevolent purpose at the center of things but rather, blind and dumb "gods" who seem to exist for nothing more than their own amusement.  Some people can handle this knowledge and be fine, for non-nihilists, this revelation drives them mad. 

* Knowledge of the true nature of the world has been preserved to the present day through ancient books and hidden cults.  "Unwholesome" research can reveal this knowledge and usually leads to the destruction of the researcher.

* Humans are under constant threat of "contamination" from these unwholesome influences - whether it's interbreeding with apes or Deep Ones or having their brains taken out and put in jars to travel space.  Corruption of the human body is terrifying. 
 
*Dreams are highly significant.  They are more than just visions of the inner mind but can lead to higher revelation.   

[Clangador]

The Thing is based in Cambell's story "Who Goes There." If there in info. indicating it is inspired by AtMoM, I'd like to see the reference for it. Certainly it is reminiscent of it, but I am aware of no direct connection.