« July 2008 | Main | September 2008 »

August 28, 2008

A short break

School is starting soon.  When did summer start going by so fast?  I still can't believe I'm already a junior.  I feel like I should still be in about eighth grade.  Not that I want to repeat the past few years, they just seem to have gone by way too fast.

I'll be graduating next year.  That is so weird to think about.  I remember worrying about going to college, now I have to worry about going to grad school and entering life and the real world.  I guess this happens to everyone though, this realization that it's time to grow up.  And maybe it's happening just a little late for me, since I've been on my own for almost three years now.  Soon I'll have to get a real job in my real career with my real education and buy a real house and have a real family.  How weird, they try to prepare you for your whole life, with high school and college, but then when you actually get there, you have no idea what to do.

I like being independent, but at the same time, it's nice to have someone there for you.  And now it's just me, no parents to protect me and tell me what to do.  But I'm glad.  There's no better way to grow up than to be forced into it.  That way there are no excuses, you have to just suck it up and do it.

Women in Horror

I thought I’d spice it up and share the paper I wrote about feminism in horror movies.  I got an A.  I don’t necessarily believe all the theory I present, but it's interesting anyway.

Fear of the Feminine

“All they want to see is demented madmen running around in ski masks hacking up young virgins.�

Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall), Fright Night

The horror film is one of the least respected genres of cinema, and yet many of the values of culture today are shown within the context of horror. Scary movies reveal what frightens society most through monstrous representations and gore directed at victims who are feared by the public. These films show heavy symbolism especially in the portrayal of females and femininity, through images of sexual intercourse, fear of castration, and the strength of females. Horror films, and specifically the slasher subgenre, are famous for portraying women as hypersexual damsels in distress who are usually murdered within the first five minutes as punishment for their indiscretions. This tactic is used to great effect in such films as Friday the 13th and Halloween. Another standard of horror is the depiction of females as antagonists, which is a reflection of men’s pathological fear of women and menstruation, resulting in castration anxiety. The Exorcist and Carrie are both good examples of making the female monstrous and horrifying. However, in recent years, there has been a positive step within the horror genre toward the heroic woman in films. In movies such as The Descent and A Nightmare on Elm Street, women can be seen defeating typically male villains and exhibiting strength and intelligence. Women in horror films have come a long way, moving from victim to heroine, and I think that this change signals the acceptance of the power of women in society and can only be a step forward for feminism.

A horror film is defined as any movie specifically designed to cause fear, anxiety, or discomfort through a variety of monsters, supernatural beings, or frightening situations (Rasmussen 1). But behind all the blood, gore, and mayhem, horror films reflect a wide variety of societal views through symbolism and victim choice. The female subject is shown in horror movies in different ways through time and I believe that the present portrayal of the feminine shows progress toward acceptance and equality between the sexes (Thornham 251). Women are beginning to come into their own in the horror genre, showing that they are as strong as men and are not the sexual objects they were once perceived as in classic horror. Slasher films and films with women as villains are still being made, but the force and power of women in horror cannot be ignored (Thornham 238). Although much progress is still needed, this is a step in a positive direction and can only signal more change to come.

Women as victims have a long history in horror cinema, popularized in such classic gothic horror films as Dracula and Frankenstein (Freeland 4). These films portrayed women as frail, beautiful creatures needing to be rescued by the male protagonist from the clutches of the vaguely sexual male villain. But the subgenre only truly became popular (and disturbing) with the introduction of the slasher film, which shows a murderer stalking mainly female victims with a knife or other weapon, brutally murdering these sexually independent women very early in the film (Thornton 236). The first true slasher film is widely acknowledged to be Psycho, Alfred Hitchcock’s masterpiece about a psychotic killer of women who is obsessed with his own mother (Psycho). In all films following, the phallic knife used as the standard method of murder speaks volumes about the symbolic punishment for these women. Because most of these females are shown early in the movie as sexually active, they are guaranteed to die first (Thornton 238). The fear of a sexually independent woman is revealed through her death, when the male killer thrusts his knife into her, taking away her sexual power through the symbolic rape of her body. “Horror is cultural apparatus for keeping the sexually active woman in her place� (Badley 102). With the knife’s penetration, the sexually frustrated male serial killer is taking away all of the woman’s sexuality and showing his power. In the majority of slasher films, this formula of the male killer targeting female victims is used to repress women and take away any power they may have had, thereby making them non-threatening to men because they hold no sexual control (Freeland 185). Male sexuality can then be shown through the act of murder, since most killers in slasher films are sexually repressed themselves (Freeland 187). Only through penetration and murder can these men find sexual freedom.

The women in slasher films are often objectified and shown as nothing more than sex objects. For example, in the Friday the 13th series, many of the women are seen half clothed and hyper-sexualized, taking away the audience’s ability to sympathize with them because they are seen as less valuable. The plot of the films takes place at a summer camp, which makes the women easy targets to be picked off by the killer, who wants revenge after drowning as a boy because the camp counselors were not watching him (Friday the 13th). The full rage of the murderer comes out most strongly in the cases of the females because of the inadequacy he feels as a male (Clover 32). Classic slasher films usually show a direct cause and effect link between sex and death, with murder serving as a symbolic punishment for any kind of immoral intercourse. “Killing those who seek or engage in unauthorized sex amounts to a generic imperative of the slasher film� (Clover 34). The symbolism illustrates a kind of unconscious moral lesson to the viewer that if he or she strays from the path of good behavior, the result could be death.

Another staple of the horror genre is the classic 1978 film Halloween, which chronicles the tale of Michael Myers, the demented killer bent on the massacre of his younger sister (Halloween). When Michael cannot reach his sister in order to slaughter her, he substitutes other young women in her place in order to justify killing them (Clover 24). Myers does not seem to care whether he kills the right girl; indeed, all females seem equal to him and killing any number of them does not bother him. He is a killing machine and nothing can truly stop him, not even the ingenuity of the main female character, who is able to repeatedly injure him but can never quite get rid of him (Clover 30). This seems to prove the idea of the superiority and strength of men over women and the fact that the males in horror films always triumph over the females. Women are shown as being weak, inferior, and less intelligent, and male killers in slasher films can never be defeated by the heroines. Slasher films usually promote the ideals of male superiority and the defeat of the feminine, but more recent films reject these stereotypes.

The slasher genre does not represent the only portrayal of females in horror cinema. Horror movies eventually moved on to newer representations of women as villains, the main source of evil in the film. These women represented the fears men associated with the female sex, and they became more terrifying than their male counterparts because of their lack of femininity and their portrayal of normally masculine behaviors. Because these women deviated from the norm, it was easier for men to see them as demonic or sinister (Thornham 256). Yet the female as villain also symbolizes the male fear of menstruation, evidenced by the large amounts of blood surrounding these characters. Although male killers in horror movies are also surrounded by blood, the association of blood with the female sex in modern horror cinema confirms her connection to sin and evil. Many horror films define women’s sexuality as “the source of all evil and menstruation as the sign of sin� (Thornham 256). Women as villains become synonymous with horror, shame, and sin because they are the source of blood.

Many horror films such as The Thing, Poltergeist, and Videodrome use rich symbolic images to represent the female genitalia in order to frighten the audience (Thornham 261). The vaginal representations in horror cinema usually give birth to some horrible monster or suck in some unsuspecting victim, showing the fear especially of the mother’s womb. These images terrify audiences because of their association with the “black hole� of the mother’s womb, which proves to men the concept of castration. The empty space seems to remind the male audience about what is missing. Barbara Creed explains that the main reason why men are also frightened of menstruating females is because of castration anxiety (Thornham 256). The woman’s body becomes the symbol of the incomplete male because of her lack of a penis, and as a result, she must bring her rage against others in the form of murder and horror because of her jealousy. The male sees his own castrated self in the part of the woman because of what she is missing, so he portrays her as evil and wicked.

One of the most famous representations of woman as villain in a horror film is that of Carrie, the shy, quiet high school student who suddenly develops telekinetic powers and uses them to take her revenge on the other students at prom (Carrie). Carrie, based on the book by Stephen King, was one of the earlier horror films to show the woman fighting back, and even though she was clearly evil, female audiences seemed to cheer on her rampage because they understood her pain (Freeland 57). The first scene of the film shows Carrie getting her first period, with her powers developing soon after (Carrie). Carrie’s power seems to come from her menstrual cycle, which is why she causes so much fear within the male sex (Clover 3). Men fear a woman’s sexual power and the fact that one day women could become equal to men using their sexuality. Carrie’s behavior only becomes evil once she has fully accepted her feminine power, showing the male fear of female domination (Clover 4). Contrasting slasher films, which depict women as weak and repressed, Carrie and her fellow female villains become the strong characters, so men must represent them as evil and strange. They are seen as abnormal because it is unusual to see a woman with that kind of power. Carrie triumphed over the stereotypes of classic horror by becoming a female villain that an audience could understand because she started out as a victim.

One of the most memorable scenes of Carrie is the climax at the high school prom, when a bucket of pig’s blood is dropped on Carrie in order to embarrass her, although the prank backfires when she slaughters her classmates (Carrie). Creed sees the pig’s blood as a symbol of menstruation because of its occurrence during a moment of intense pleasure and in a time of Carrie’s life when she is undergoing a great change (Thornham 256). Throughout the film, women are also referred to as pigs, and the flow of the pig’s blood represents the shame associated with menstruation and the beginning of womanhood. It is especially fitting that Carrie first uses her powers for evil (representing her passage into womanhood) immediately after being drenched in blood, becoming truly wicked only when associated with menstruation.

Another great example of the woman as a villain is shown in The Exorcist. Widely acknowledged as the scariest film of all time, The Exorcist tells the story of a young girl, Regan, who becomes possessed by the devil and must be exorcised by a priest in order to save her soul (The Exorcist). The film follows the same fear of menstruation, since Regan is possessed just before reaching puberty and she is transformed by the demon just as she would be by womanhood. But the change that Regan experiences in the film represents the complete opposite: through demonic possession, she becomes more masculine, with a deep voice, aggressive speech, and great physical strength (Clover 103). Regan’s body becomes perverted and “the foulness of woman is signified by her putrid, filthy body� (Thornham 256). She is seen as less of a woman and the corruption of her innocence and femininity provides the terror of most of the film. There is some terrible power seen when the young, innocent girl is transformed into a snarling, masculine beast because it is so unnatural. Males fear the power of females especially when females become more masculine, so Regan as a woman is seen as disgusting, dirty, and strange.

The film presents Regan’s predicament as a direct result of her lack of a father or any other male influence in her life, since she is raised by a single mother. Once possessed, Regan can only be saved by another male, the priest who becomes her new father figure (Thornham 256). She is shown as both a victim and a villain, and a woman in her situation can only find redemption in the male sex, according to the film. The film serves as a “lesson on what happens to the woman who drifts out of the orbit of male control� (Clover 103). Regan’s savior, Father Damian Karras, has himself lost religion and only through Regan can he regain his faith. In effect, he uses Regan for his own means and her pain brings him strength (Clover 88). Even the demon oppressing Regan is male, so she is truly being pushed from all sides by male influences, whether good or bad. Her life and her fate lie in the hands of men and she has no control over her own destiny. This signifies the desire of the male sex for control over females, again because of the fear that women will gain power in society (Clover 102). Regan made such a compelling victim/villain because of her original innocence and femininity, but it was her eventual masculinity that caused terror.

In recent years, horror films have taken a better turn toward equality for women as heroines. The concept of women as heroines has been used in many older horror films, but the women in those films were usually portrayed as weak, frail, and dependent on men. They represented innocence and beauty, often becoming the sexual fantasy of the film’s main villain, with no chance of saving themselves without male intervention (Rasmussen 7). But the women of modern horror can take care of themselves and do not rely on males for help. They utilize their femininity in order to defeat male villains and their strength frightens men because they hold the power in these films. Although slasher films and films with women as villains still exist and are made quite often, the occurrence of heroine horror has also grown into a powerful force in the modern genre.

An earlier example of the strong woman in horror actually occurs in a classic slasher film, A Nightmare on Elm Street. In the film, a monstrous child molester named Freddy Krueger stalks teenagers in their dreams for revenge after being burned alive by their parents (A Nightmare on Elm Street). Although the other female characters are murdered, the film’s heroine, Nancy, is the only one to figure out Freddy’s method and motives, and therefore is the only one to survive, even appearing in two sequels before being killed off (A Nightmare on Elm Street). As a character, Nancy is interesting because she could have become just like any other disposable woman in a slasher film, but she rises above the stereotype and becomes a heroine, showing courage in the face of evil. Nancy counters Freddy’s masculinity by using her own intelligence and strength against him, showing him her power and control as a woman. “When he enters the house, she dares him to come at her, then charges him in direct attack� (Clover 38). Nancy is a girl who is not afraid to fight for her life and believing in her own strength saves her in the end from Freddy’s clutches. At the beginning of the film, she seems like any other girl in a slasher movie, but by the end she has accepted her role and uses her feminine strength against the villain.

One scene in the film seems to show Freddy’s supposed power over Nancy and the fact that she is unafraid to fight back. After her first encounter with Krueger, Nancy takes a bath in order to rest from her stressful day and falls asleep in the tub (A Nightmare on Elm Street). The audience does not realize she is dreaming until a clawed hand rises between her open legs in the bathtub. The symbolism of Freddy’s intentions in this scene is obvious: as a male, he feels he may dominate Nancy and take advantage of her (Clover 76). Nancy is completely exposed, vulnerable, and powerless. But Freddy underestimates the power of women, a mistake that many other men in modern horror films have made, and it becomes his downfall. Nancy uses his own power against him, representing the ability of the female to use the phallic weapon against the man, meeting him on his own terms (Clover 49). Freddy, as a male, fears Nancy’s ability to abandon her femininity and become like him in order to fight back, in effect using his sexual repression and deviance against him. This is a common theme in horror films that portray women as heroines and I believe that this trend will only continue to show the strength of the female sex.

A more recent example of the courageous female in horror cinema showcases feminism and women’s strength without including the oppressive male villain. This is important because it shows that women need neither male help nor male hindrance to achieve their goals. The Descent, released in 2005, chronicles a group of women as they explore a remote series of caves in the Appalachians, eventually becoming trapped after a large cave-in. Only after searching for a way out do they discover that they are not alone: they are actually surrounded by humanoid creatures that have evolved underground and stalk them through the caves (The Descent). The film features only female main characters and each is shown as an independent, confident adventurer. Exploring these caves, with wide tunnels that obviously symbolize female genitalia and exploring their own femininity, the group must escape without male aid from an enemy that is not purely masculine. The women use their femininity to their own advantage in order to exploit the weaknesses of the creatures. In a nod to the final scene from Carrie, one of the women emerges from a pool of blood, covered head to toe just as Carrie was after the prom, which represents her acceptance of her womanhood, using the symbol of menstruation against the enemy (The Descent). The women of the film are not frail damsels in distress and they hold their own in situations that show their physical and mental strength. They don’t need the help of men because they hold their own power in a negative situation. The film is interesting because it does not include any male characters, but the women still try to overcome the monsters on their own. Because of their strong personalities and independence, the group of women is able to confirm that they can be just as courageous as their male counterparts, proving that a woman can make it in the world without the help of a man.

The Descent and A Nightmare on Elm Street indicate a new movement in modern horror toward equality between the sexes. While I don’t believe that sexist horror films will every fully disappear, I think that the direction the genre is moving toward is more positive than it has been in the past. Women are being accepted as legitimate heroes with true strength and willpower in a traditionally chauvinistic field of cinema. No longer are men the saviors of the genre. Women are beginning to play an important part in horror, not just becoming easy victims. However, many still see horror as a negative impact in film, mainly because of the extreme violence and degradation against women. But one could argue that many different genres show excessive violence as well, and women are not portrayed as they once were in classic horror. The times have changed and the portrayal of women has changed along with them. I agree that horror is not a genre for everyone, but it should at least be appreciated as a legitimate art form within cinema. If scary movies continue to move in the positive direction they have been leaning toward, the genre may become more respected and equal to other genres of cinema.

Through the medium of the modern horror film, one can view the real fears that grip society even today. Although there may not be a real Freddy Krueger or Carrie, scary movies reveal what haunts culture most. The power of women and femininity is a recurring theme in horror cinema. By portraying women as victims or villains, men have repressed the true power of the female because they fear it. Through the symbolism of penetration and menstruation, these films have tried to show women as tools of only sin and sex. But recent films have broken through the stereotypes and shown women as heroines, taking their lives into their own hands. The women of modern horror do not need the help of male figures and they often triumph over male villains. Horror cinema has come a long way since the classic slasher flick, but there is still much more to accomplish. Although sexism in horror movies may never be fully vanquished, great films have been made showing the strength and equality of women. If this trend continues, horror films may see a day when women are no longer portrayed as weak, frail, or inherently evil. Perhaps once women are respected within horror films, the genre itself will become a more legitimate form of cinema.

 

Works Cited

Badley, Linda. Film, Horror, and the Body Fantastic. USA: Greenwood Press, 1995.

Carrie. Dir. Brian De Palma. Redbank Films, 1976.

Clover, Carol. Men, Women, and Chainsaws. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1992.

The Descent. Dir. Neil Marshall. Celador Films, 2005.

The Exorcist. Dir. William Friedkin. Warner Bros. Pictures, 1973.

Freeland, Cynthia A. The Naked and the Undead. USA: Westview Press, 2000.

Friday the 13th. Dir. Sean S. Cunningham. Georgetown Productions, 1980.

Fright Night. Dir. Tom Holland. Perf. Roddy McDowall. Columbia Pictures, 1985.

Halloween. Dir. John Carpenter. Compass International Pictures, 1978.

A Nightmare on Elm Street. Dir. Wes Craven. New Line Cinema, 1984.

Psycho. Dir. Alfred Hitchcock. Shamley Productions, 1960.

Rasmussen, Randy Loren. Children of the Night: The Six Archetypal Characters of Classic Horror Films. USA: McFarland & Company, Inc., 1998.

Thornham, Sue. Feminist Film Theory. New York: New York University Press, 1999.

August 24, 2008

Olympics

I thought I’d switch things up for once and write about something not-so-scary.  At least not for the viewers.

Before this year, I thought the Olympics were super boring.  I hated them and didn’t understand how anyone could possibly be entertained by them.  I don’t know what changed my mind, maybe because I’m older now or they had a good marketing campaign or there were some well-publicized athletes.  Whatever it was, I couldn’t get enough of the Olympics.  For me, huge sports competitions like this are both fascinating and frightening.  I can’t imagine getting all the way to the games, representing yourself and your country and then blowing it all because you had a bad dive or you weren’t quite as fast as usual.  How do you recover from something like that?  Every time someone lost, I felt so bad for them that I couldn’t even watch anymore.  Like when that thirty year old female diver messed up really bad on her first or second dive because her legs weren’t straight enough.  This was her last meet.  She was expected to win or at least be in the top three.  She was dead last.  I felt so bad for her, she was crying at the end and stuff.  I wanted to cry.  These people devote their whole lives to these sports, and while I normally hate sports, I can’t help but admire their persistence and devotion.  But how awful that must be to train your whole life just for this one day and then it’s gone in just a second.  What’s left in life?  That’s pretty depressing, so I guess the Olympics are good for promoting teamwork, sportsmanship, and bringing together the world.  But for those individual athletes who mess up, it must suck.

Plus all the other athletes have to put up with everyone talking about Michael Phelps all the time.  I bet the other parents of the swimmers say, “Why can’t you be more like Michael Phelps?â€?  He’s amazing, but that would just suck to be up against him or to be even on his team.  Constant comparisons, I guarantee it.

And the whole China thing was big too.  It was amazing that they took out that whole chunk of Beijing just to host the Olympic games.  I think overall though, it’s good to promote these sportsmanlike ideals and world togetherness.  I hope the next Olympics is as dramatic and epic as this one.  And what am I supposed to watch for the next four years?

Are You Afraid of the Dark?

From what I’ve heard, most of my peers have watched this show at some time or another.  It ran on Nickelodeon during the Saturday night block called “Snick,â€? which I don’t think they do anymore.  I don’t know why, I loved Snick.  I think for a lot of kids in the 90’s, Are You Afraid of the Dark? was their first taste of horror and it was the show that scared us the most.  I’ve watched a few of the episodes more recently and I am questioning why anyone actually watched this show.  It’s not only ridiculous, but it’s not even scary and the acting is terrible.  Those little Canadian kids piss me off.  So I just looked through a list of episodes and chose two to describe in detail.

The Tale of the Dollmaker

This one really scared me at the time.  The girl turning into a full-sized doll freaked me out, especially when her porcelain hands fall off and the other girl has to put them in her pockets.  Is that really appropriate for children?  That’s really scary, I think.  And why would anyone build a giant dollhouse in their attic anyway?  I know I haven’t seen this episode in awhile, but I honestly don’t remember any real explanation of that dollhouse.  What gave it the power to turn little Canadian kids into living dolls?  Why didn’t anyone just burn the damn thing down?  Why didn’t that first girl try harder to escape?  It’s like she just got in there and thought, “Hmm, this is a nice place.  I’d like to go home, but I think I’ll just wait here a few years for some other stupid little girl to save me.  Oh, look, my hands fell off.  I’ll just sit on this chair and hope my parents come looking for me soon.â€?

Didn’t she get hungry?  Is there a bathroom in that dollhouse?  Do her parents even care about her?  I think this one scared me so much because it seemed so hopeless.  I know she eventually got out, but how depressing is it that that little girl had to just hang out in that dollhouse for months or years or whatever?  What is there to do in an attic dollhouse?  She missed school, friends, and the most important parts of childhood.  I guess I’m over-thinking this, Nickelodeon doesn’t care about those things.

The Tale of the Dead Man’s Float

This one scared my sister, and still does in fact.  I think it was just that bloody red monster guy, who slowly moved his head back and forth as he walked.  It’s really just a stupid idea when you think about it.  But that’s what horror anthologies are: stupid.  They have to think of new and quirky horror ideas, they can’t just recycle zombies and vampires and werewolves, they have to think of their own ideas.  And most of them are idiotic, especially the low budget kid show versions.

I do remember thinking the little love story thing was cute, but the janitor was kind of creepy too.  I think the pool monster man came from a graveyard under the pool or something (how original), and the main characters find the pool and use it for their swimming lessons.  Oh, and some kid drowned in it in the 50’s while his big brother flirted with some chick (it’s TV Y7, remember.)

The kids in this show have no concerns for consequences.  Swimming by yourself in an abandoned pool, probably not a good idea.  The water probably wasn’t even clean.  I think they deserved to be chased by the pool man.  He was probably going to give them safety warnings when they killed him.

August 18, 2008

Stephen King: Misery

I know I just did a Stephen King post, but I was in the mood for another, so humor me.  I love this movie.  I loved it so much that I read the book.  Kathy Bates (who I hinted at to those who paid attention to the last post) is hilarious and terrifying as Annie, the crazy nurse who kidnaps Paul, the author of best-selling romance novels about Misery Chastain, some stereotype of a Southern belle or something, I was never quite sure.  The details aren’t all that important to me here though, it’s the performances.  Kathy Bates rightly won an Oscar for her crazy antics, and I like to think that she also won my heart, but I guess that’s just a personal opinion.

So basically Stephen King loves to write about writers.  He’s shown this time and time again, and I’m not even going to make a list of books in which he proves this, because it’s been done too many times before by better people than me.  So just imagine I just listed a bunch of examples, and you’re really impressed with my knowledge of film and literature.  Does Stephen King put himself into these roles?  I don't know, that would be kind of creepy but I guess that's what I would expect from the director of Maximum Overdrive.  (Did anyone else hear that reference in Pineapple Express?  Great movie, by the way.)

Misery is so good because it's so over-the-top, with Kathy squealing like a pig and hobbling Paul's legs, a horny old couple who are actually pretty cute together, and (in the book) a pretty interesting re-write of Paul's original ending to Misery's story.  That's the whole point of the book, Annie is Paul's #1 Fan and she wants him to rewrite his last novel so that Misery doesn't die.  I'm sure there are many Harry Potter fans who wish they could pull a similar trick with J.K. Rowling, especially those slashers and Harry-Hermione-shippers.  And really thinking about  it, there are a lot of movies and books that I would want the endings changed to.  Not saying I would kidnap the artists involved, but interesting concept nonetheless.

I think the more horror movies I watch, the creepier my personality becomes.  Or maybe I was just always like that.

The greatest contribution this film has made in my life is probably Annie always calling Paul a "dirty-birdie."  I love it.  My sister and I say it all the time, it's a great insult when you're in front of your parents.

Oh, and back to the hobbling thing.  That is sick.  I know people freak out when they watch it in the movie, and for those who haven't yet seen the film (because I know after you read this blog post you'll rush out and rent it), I'll explain: she puts a cinder block between his legs and hits each foot from the outside with a sledgehammer, effectively breaking his legs by bending them around the block.  Just watch it, it makes sense.

But in the book I think it's worse.  She chops off his thumb and foot with an axe and then goes crazy even further, and the ending is truly terrifying.  For a non-supernatural story, King does a pretty darn good job.

But what do I expect from the guy who wrote about a killer clown-spider-thing who tries to kill John-boy Walton and Jack Tripper?

August 14, 2008

Minor Adjustments

Quick note, I edited my posts because I got a new job and I didn’t want anyone I work with to read this and be offended.  No worries though, I just took out some swear words.  No big deal, just a heads up that I censored myself and therefore I should be shunned in the blogging community.

Just kidding, I hope my one or two readers still enjoy my posts.

Love,

Cassie

Stephen King: The Mist

I think I can accurately review this one because I’ve read the book and seen the movie.  The book was great.  The movie, not so much.  Let me correct that actually, the ending of the movie was terrible.

The whole point of the book I think is that when something deadly happens and people are trapped in a situation, they do very bad things to survive.  Instinct kicks in and they start following someone or some believe, causing all reason and law to leave the room.  Obviously King also focused on the creatures outside the grocery store, and the descriptions were really scary, but I think it was the humanity that made the story what it was.

Not so in the movie.  They didn’t even really include the scariest things, at least not in the way they were described in the book.  I know you can’t watch a movie and judge it compared to a book, I realize that some things don’t work on screen, but I don’t know, to me it just seemed like a cheap scare.  The way the tentacles and the spider-things were described in the book, I was scared for days afterwards.  Seriously, books never scare me, but this one did, I had all these plans for where I would go in case a mist covered my town.  I know that’s a little crazy, but I am not taking any chances.  I also have Zombie Evacuation Plans, but that’s for another post.  I think the reason books are often scarier than movies is that it’s all in your head.  You can use your imagination to make it as scary as you want.  But when you see it on a screen, it’s just there, and that’s it.  And when it’s over, it’s over.  With a book, it ruminates in your mind for days or weeks or years, but a movie ends and it’s gone.  Maybe it’s not the same for everyone, but that’s how I feel about it.

Not that the movie was bad.  It had some great moments, and I actually didn't hate the actress who played Mrs. Carmody, Marcia Gay Harden, who I always hate on film.  Her haircut bothers me.  Is that a legitimate reason to hate an actress?  I like to think so.  The other actors I didn't care about, except that badass old lady, she was a feisty little thing and I loved her for it.  The kid who got eaten by the tentacles was pretty good too, but everyone else was kind of throwaway.

SPOILER ALERT

Now to the ending:  In the book, the fact that there was no real ending was what made it so scary.  The uncertainty and the whole atmosphere, the huge mammoth beast freaked me out.  They included it in the movie, but I don't really know how to feel about it.  It was weird and scary, but not for the same reasons.  Humans have this weird fear about things we don't understand, which works well in this book, but I don't think it really translated well to the screen.  That's just me though.

Now the thing that pissed me off and ruined the whole movie for me.  The ending in the movie was ridiculous.  Yes, there was closure, but is that really the kind of closure people want?  The main character shoots all the other characters in order to "save them" from a horrible death (including his son, since it's a family movie), which in itself, sure, is a brave thing to do, but what a loss of hope for the audience.  And seconds later the military rolls in with tanks and planes?  I'm sorry, but they would have heard them much earlier and they could have easily been saved.  I felt drained after that, unhappy and disappointed.  That's not how I like to feel during horror movies.  I think what they were going for was a Night of the Living Dead ending (which pissed me off to no end, but in kind of a good way) because being trapped in the grocery store is pretty similar to being trapped in a house, with the power plays and roles and whatnot.  A lofty goal, and not quite met.  That's the real problem with this movie, it aims high and doesn't quite make it.  Stephen King isn't high literature, have fun with it.  Be like Kathy Bates in Misery.  But don't be a dirty-birdie, because that bitch will kill you.

END OF SPOILERS

 

Stephenie Meyer Update: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20217628,00.html

Thank you, EW and Jennifer Reese, for understanding.

August 12, 2008

The Silence of the Lambs

Hannibal Lector.  Whether you like it or not, he's one of the iconic characters in cinema, everyone knows who he is, everyone has said or at least heard at one time, "Hello, Clarice."  Everyone knows how he likes to prepare his liver.  One of the best things about this movie, besides Sir Anthony Hopkins, is how closely it follows the book.  The book was wonderful, but it doesn't really come alive until Hopkins dons the face mask, solidifying Lector as one of the scariest characters in movie history.  By just speaking, he is able to convey this weird sense of madness and cool interest in Jodie Foster, who does a wonderful job as well.  You get the sense that they know these characters and they are really bringing them to life.  It makes me question Anthony Hopkins’ personal life, but I guess that’s just none of my business.

The reason this was such a great movie while Hannibal was a piece of forgettable garbage was because it focused more on the small intimate moments between Hannibal and Clarice.  I get chills every time his finger caresses her hand as he gives her the documents.  Sure, this isn’t your regular let’s-kill-all-the-actors kind of horror movie, but that doesn’t mean a thriller like this can’t be scary.  The angles they use on Hopkins’ face are beautiful (not attractive, just wonderful), and the portrayal of Buffalo Bill and his dungeon are insane.  Insane as in crazy but also in some other sense that I’m not sure about right now.  I’ll edit this later to explain.

Buffalo Bill’s voice is the scariest for me, even when he says such hilarious lines as, “Wait, was she a great big fat person?"  Funny but scary when coming from a murderer who skins his victims to make a woman suit, which is all kinds of disgusting.  Every sense of the word.  My mom warned me for years after this came out to never help a man with a cast load furniture into a van.  That’s probably the only real effect this film/book has had on my life, but I still watch it every time it’s on TV.  I mean every time.

I really recommend this for people who like thrillers but not so much blood and guts or straight up horror.  The thing that gets most people with this film is the psychology involved.  What are Hannibal’s motives?  I know I’ve said in previous posts that I hate when a killer doesn’t have a motive, but I feel like Hannibal did all along (and he did, although I hated Hannibal Rising and never even tried to read the book.)  So I make an exception for this one, and some others, for the sheer weight of good film-making.  Watch this movie, you won’t be sorry.  Now fly little Starling, fly fly fly.

Sorry I haven’t written in awhile, I just got through the process of moving again, so I’m all set up now and ready to write some good ol’ fashioned blogs.

P.S. Thanks for the comment and linking to me, lis, I appreciate having a fan.  Unfortunately, I’m not quite ready for marriage, but I’ll definitely send you a message when I am.

August 6, 2008

Masters of Horror: Dario Argento's Jenifer

I don’t know anyone else who actually watches this show, but basically the concept is to get together a bunch of great horror directors and also some bad ones and some unknowns and give them a terrible budget and tell them to make a good horror short.  Sounds like a great way to produce a film, if you ask me, and the results are never scary and are most often hilarious.  Plus it’s on Showtime so it borders on soft-core porn.  Hats off to you, Showtime.  My sister and I only discovered Masters of Horror when we found we could stream it off of Netflix.  I couldn’t believe there was something horror-related that I had not yet heard of.  And our favorite episode happens to be from the great Italian horror director Dario Argento.  It’s called Jenifer, and oh boy is it swell.

Overall, I think the appeal of a movie like Jenifer is not the fear (because there is none) or the impressive cast (that guy from Wings!), or the sex scenes, although those happen to be some of the funniest parts of the whole show.  I think the real appeal here is expecting fear and getting something completely different.  You almost feel sorry for the director, because he’s being advertised as a “Master of Horror,�? and yet he only has the resources to produce a Tales-from-the-Crypt-style creepshow.  Or maybe even worse than that.  It’s like expecting Michelangelo to make David and only giving him Play Dough to work with.

The story, in and of itself, is actually not bad.  A disappointing and predictable ending, but what can you do?  Man saves girl, girl has hideous, deformed face but sexy body, man leaves wife for ugly/hot girl and they do it several times in his car.  That old fairytale, we’ve all heard it.  But Jenifer’s make-up is so over-the-top ridiculous that you just have to laugh every time you see her.  Especially when she’s clapping, crying, having sex, or eating people’s intestines straight out of their stomachs.  Yes, as you may have guessed, Jenifer is a cannibal and feasts upon the flesh of: a cat, the neighbor girl, a circus ringmaster, and a grocery boy.  It’s hard to say which one was best, but it was a little unnerving to see that the grocery boy was still alive when she started eating him.  The guy from Wings, who inexplicably falls in love with Jenifer, moves away after she eats through the neighborhood and lives in a cabin in the woods with her, presumably brown-bagging her face every night and hoping she doesn’t eat the woodland creatures.  Wings Guy seems mostly bewildered throughout the movie, perhaps just happy he’s getting a paycheck.  And the girl who plays Jenifer, with her fake ugly face and real hot body, isn’t even really that pretty in real life.  Wings Guy has a dream sequence about her with her normal face, and let me tell you, I almost prefer the big horse eyes and gaping mouth.  But maybe I’m just mean.

Basically, this movie could have been decent.  Argento has proven himself to be a talented director, but in this medium, who can blame him for making this terrible tragedy of a film?  I’m sure the budget was awful, and the acting wasn’t any better.  You can’t go by name alone, you have to have a talented writer, good idea, good cast, good budget, etc. in order to make a good horror film, or any film for that matter.  But I suppose if you can't have good horror, you might as well watch the bad horror and make fun of it.

P.S. It’s been pointed out to me that I made a small spelling error, which I have now corrected.  My sincerest apologies, but I never proofread.  I’m too good for it.

August 2, 2008

M. Night Shyamalan

This summer, I decided I would give M. Night Shyamalan yet another chance, so I went to The Happening.  I really, really wanted to like this movie.  I wanted him to prove everyone wrong, that he wasn’t just a one-trick pony, that he could make another good horror/thriller after The Sixth Sense.

Let me just say, The Sixth Sense was a wonderful little gem of a movie, and even though the whole “I see dead peopleâ€? thing is so played-out it’s annoying, if you go back and watch the movie, it really is great.  Plus Haley Joel Osment is so cute and such a great actor.  Just like Haley Joel’s career, Shyamalan’s talent has gone downhill since then.  After the Sixth Sense, everyone was talking about M. Night, wondering what he was going to do next, he was the great discovery of that year, the next Hitchcock some said.

Then he made Unbreakable.  Now, I know some die-hard Unbreakable fans, and I know I’ve seen this film before, but I honestly could not tell you anything about it.  It was so forgettable that all I remember is Samuel L. Jackson not swearing.  And Bruce Willis is so bland that I don’t even remember what his purpose in the movie was.

That was just a minor hitch though, in the eyes of the public, because I don’t even remember that one having a wide release or anything like that.  I forgave him because I knew from his first endeavor that he could do better.  When I heard about Signs, I was excited beyond excited.  Aliens? Good. M. Night? Good.  Joaquin Phoenix? Hot.  It all came together and sounded like a great movie.  And, say what you will, the first three-fourths was excellent.  He built up a great tension and suspense that really scared me at least.  And then he had to ruin everything by showing that stupid alien full-on and having everything tie together somehow in an implausible twist-ending that left a bad taste in the audience’s mouths.  The whole reason the first part of the movie worked was because everything was unseen, the aliens could be whatever you wanted them to be.  There could be a threat or no threat at all.  And then the fool had to upset the delicate balance of fear and humanity by showing the stupidest-looking alien since E.T.  (Don’t get me wrong, I love E.T. but damn that thing is hideous.)  I still maintain that if he had left the aliens out or maybe put them into the shadows instead of full sunlight, it would have been a much better movie.  However, that being said, I still can’t account for the whole “the aliens can’t stand water!â€? thing.  I’m sure we’ve all heard the arguments before, so I’ll just briefly list them here: every living being is made up of water, there’s water in the atmosphere, if they’ve been sending scouts for days or weeks or months, you’d think they’d know that the whole damn planet is covered in water. 

And the wife dying in the car accident was stupid too.

I still bought Signs on DVD, I admit it, and I was still excited for The Village.  Until I saw it.  The atmosphere was good, colors, costumes, etc.  The story was ridiculous and the monsters were not real which made me angry, and the ending was an abomination of unholy forces.  I feel very strongly about this, because this movie could have been great.  That’s the thing about M. Night Shyamalan.  He has so much potential that he never lives up to.  Maybe I just expect more of him, but he always seems to prove me wrong with his increasingly terrible films.  He seems to be stuck in this feeling that all we want from him is thrillers with insane twists at the end.  Yeah, that’s what we wanted in the Sixth Sense, but dear God, man, think of something else now.  Well, he kind of did, but…

I refuse to write anything about Lady in the Water because it was such a turd that I can’t even pain myself to remember anything about it.  Worst movie I ever saw for free.  Terrible beyond belief would accurately describe it, I think.

So now I finally come to the Happening.  First impressions:  terrible title, but we’re treading on familiar ground, family traveling cross-country to escape some weird suicide-causing airborne plant disease or something like that.  It’s been done.  The only really inspired scenes were the two bookends, the first scene with everyone in Central Park walking backwards and killing themselves and then the end scene in Paris with “mon véloâ€? and those crazy Parisians killing themselves.  But then I stop to think and I realize, what ridiculous ways these crazies think of to kill themselves.  Hair-chopstick-thing to the throat?  Lawnmower over the head?  The only credit I give the director is that every time a horrible suicide was about to happen, I would think they won’t show it, it’s too gross, it’s disgusting, oh don’t show that, he won’t do it he won’t he won’t oh God he did it that’s nasty!  So the R rating really helped, although most of the deaths were predictable yet still over-the-top.  I’ll only point out a few more criticisms because this post has gone on far too long and these things have been said before.  But come on, the enemy is air?  How do you outrun the wind?  How do the main characters figure out the cause and no one else does?  A small whole in a jeep lets the virus/whatever in?  Why is Mark Wahlberg so terrible in this movie?  He was great in The Departed.  And why does that wide-eyed zombie of a main actress piss me off so much?  I think the only blessing with this movie is that M. Night only had a voice cameo.  Thank God, because that guy can’t act.

Although I’ve just criticized the man’s life work, I know I’ll be in line for his next thriller too, just to see if he might prove me wrong this time.  And I hope he does.