You have to watch this video from YouTube and give to answer for each question. You have to completely sentence. I put link under you can see it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HbrQBExxvw&feature=youtu.be
1-The documentary's host, Mark Gatiss, focuses this particular section of the documentary on the horror films that were produced in Britain. Throughout the video, he mentions that the productions are "distinctly British," by which he intends to contrast them with the American horror pictures that pioneered the genre of film. Having now seen parts one and two of A History of Horror, what comparisons and contrasts can you find between American and British horror films? Which country's films do you like or find the most intriguing and why?
2-Two of the most famous British horror actors are Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. They had individual starring roles and also frequently costarred in the same productions, much like their Hollywood counterparts Karloff and Lugosi. Also like Lugosi, Cushing and Lee seemed to tire of the endless sequels they played in. Though the two pairs' acting styles differed greatly, the public appreciated both. What do you think accounts for the success of the four men, especially Cushing and Lee? Are they stars in their own rights, or are they merely Britain's answer to Hollywood's most famous monsters?
3-Near the end of the documentary, Gatiss makes a comment about the rules of British horror changing in that "sensation had suddenly overtaken suggestion" by the time horror films began to fall out of style. Though sexuality is almost always at least subversively present in any work of horror, by the '60s, female nudity was practically required in a horror film, and rape was no longer hinted at; it was explicit. Does this shift make the later productions more or less horrific than the earlier ones? How so?