Times Insider explains who we are and what we do and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.
Some 10-year-olds might shield their eyes while watching a horror movie. But at that age, Erik Piepenburg was glued to the screen.
Growing up in Cleveland, Mr. Piepenburg developed a love of all things horror. Every Friday night at around 11:30, he and his grandmother would turn on the television, flip to channel 43 and hope to find one of their favorite black-and-white films playing — horror classics like “Dracula,” “The Wolf Man” or “Frankenstein.”
A former Theater editor for The New York Times, Mr. Piepenburg now uses his monstrous knowledge of the horror genre to write about it in a column for the Movies section. Every week, he recommends five recent horror movies — of the supernatural, psychological or otherwise terrifying kind — that are worth streaming.
He’s not partial to any one subgenre, but he does have one hang-up: “If I see one more movie about people going to a cabin in the woods or moving to a haunted house, I’m going to throw my hands up,” he said in a recent conversation.
Here, Mr. Piepenburg shares his thoughts on some of the year’s greatest scares, the current golden age of horror and the unforeseen twists and turns of writing about monsters. This interview has been edited and condensed.
Where did you get the idea for your column?
My editor, Mekado Murphy, had wanted to start a horror column during the coronavirus pandemic, when so many people were forced to stay home and stream films. I offer readers films I think are worth watching in a sea of horror movies — some of which are awful and others that are terrific.
I try to watch — or, at least, get through — two to five horror movies a week to make my deadline. I’m not complaining; I think it’s great that we are having this golden age of horror movies, but I would love for someone to tell me what comedy movies I should watch.
What contributed to this golden age?
There have been several golden ages of horror. There were the psychological thrillers and exploitation films of the ’60s and the slasher movies of the ’80s. I think what’s happening right now is that we are living in such uncertain times in terms of politics, environmental issues, civil rights issues. Anytime there’s global uncertainty, horror movies respond. They hold up a mirror to society and say, “Look at the monsters we’ve become.”
So it should come as no surprise that at a time when the world seems topsy-turvy, horror filmmakers would decide the time is right for them to explore why.
On the 50th anniversary of “The Exorcist,” you and other Times critics wrote essays that re-explored the film. What story did you want to tell?
Mekado told me that he wanted to do this interactive package for the movie. We had a conversation about ways to cover the film and I jokingly said that I always saw “The Exorcist” as a queer movie, and it stuck. I was glad to have the chance to explore the possession in the film through a queer lens. It’s fun to think about the ways in which “The Exorcist” — and most horror movies — aren’t just about the monsters, but the people who create them and what the monsters represent.
In an article from this year, you also described “M3gan” as a gay movie. Do you think gay audiences have a special affinity for horror?
Well, I think all horror movies are about one of two things: trauma or gayness. That’s just my queer-theory lens that people can accept or reject. But in horror movies, there’s often this notion of otherness — of the monster existing outside of societal norms. I think queer audiences can align themselves with villains who feel like outsiders, like no one understands their feelings.
I also think queer audiences appreciate the outrageous, camp quality of horror. “M3gan” is a perfect example. The villain is a demon that you kind of want to be friends with. I know people in my life who can be monsters, but I love them anyway.
What trends are you seeing in the horror genre right now?
There’s certainly a lot of Covid-inspired films — movies about being locked up inside and fears about contagions. I would say another trend is the slow-burn horror movie, one that takes time to unfold instead of hitting you over the head with monsters, explosions, ghosts and conventional horror scares. The slow burn delivers tiny moments of unease so that by the film’s end, your entire body has become so tense that it’s hard to shake. Those are some of my favorites.
What’s a recent horror movie you wish everyone would watch?
There’s a film called “The Hole in the Fence,” which I wrote about in my column. It’s about a group of young boys at a religious camp who undergo a sort of “Lord of the Flies” experience. It’s terrifying and has almost no gore, but it really got under my skin. There was another movie that I saw in January called “LandLocked.” Again, there’s no gore. There’s no monsters. But it is a quietly effective horror film. It made me cry. It’s a treat when I can watch a horror movie that moves me so much that even as my heart is racing, I tear up.
Is there a horror-related topic you want to explore next in an article?
There have been a couple of experimental horror films that toy with form, structure, sound and visuals, like “The Outwaters” and “Skinamarink.” Sometimes the screen will go black or the audio will be distorted. Experimental horror challenges viewers not only to understand horror through monsters, but through the physical experience of watching the film. I think we’re going to start seeing more of those in the future.
