"A REALLY INTELLIGENT INTERVIEWER." -- Lance Henriksen
"QUITE SIMPLY, THE BEST HORROR-THEMED BLOG ON THE NET." -- Joe Maddrey, Nightmares in Red White & Blue

**Find The Vault of Horror on Facebook and Twitter, or download the new mobile app!**

**Check out my other blogs, Standard of the Day, Proof of a Benevolent God and Lots of Pulp!**


Showing posts with label Satanism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Satanism. Show all posts

Thursday, February 25, 2016

The Witch: Mining the Roots of American Horror for a Deliciously Disturbing Modern Masterpiece

Bless me Father, for I have sinned.

It has been 27 months since my last blog post. Life has gotten quite busy for ol' B-Sol, including writing gigs that pay actual money, and so the Vault has been collecting dust for quite some time. And yet, I am compelled to blow off that dust (for now, at least) and lift the lid on the Vault, thanks to a film which I can honestly say is the finest horror movie I have seen this decade thus far. Not only that, but one of the finest films of any kind that I have seen in some time. It is rare that a film like Robert Eggers' The Witch comes along, and I feel I must discuss it, in the most effective forum I have at my disposal.

As you may know, I enjoy horror movies. However, I'd be lying if I didn't admit that most horror movies are the cinematic equivalent of junk food (and I love junk food!). I love them all, but I especially cherish those that go beyond being fun horror experiences and enter the realm of being not just great horror cinema, but great cinema, period. Films like Let the Right One In, The Silence of the Lambs, The Shining, The Exorcist, Psycho, Frankenstein, etc. do more than make us jump out of our seat, and give us more than gross-outs and one-liners. They stand the test of time as pieces of art, put together by masters of the form. I believe that The Witch is one of these films, and will take its place among them. In fact, I haven't been this impressed with a horror film since Tomas Alfredson's aforementioned 2008 vampire coming-of-age fable.

I should mention that this is a review/discussion intended really for those who have already seen the film, so you spoilerphobic types should skidaddle at this point. There is much to talk about in this rich, marvelously constructed and directed motion picture, and some of it has to do with some important plot and character moments.

All the credit in the world goes to Eggers, a production and costume designer astonishingly making his feature film writing and directing debut with what feels like the work of a seasoned, insightful craftsman. He has thoroughly researched the life and beliefs of 17th century Puritan settlers not in a useless or masturbatory way, but all in the service of building a story that is like an Elizabethan-era folktale come to life. Having been fascinated with the topic myself in the past, I adored the way in which he captured that Puritan paranoia, as well as the fervent, fundamentalist Christianity that helped perpetuate a great deal of lunacy in early American times. It's like Cotton Mather's worst nightmare come to life.

One of the more fascinating things about the film is that it presents these terrible fears of witchcraft and Satanism not just as metaphors, but also as concrete realities. Yes, the film has a symbolic message about the dangers of unchecked patriarchy and religious hysteria, but make no mistake--in Eggers' world, the Devil and his magically powered minions are very much real. This is period drama, but it is also very much supernatural horror as well, and not ashamed of it.

Virtual unknown (not for long) Anya Taylor-Joy stars as Thomasin, the repressed teenage daughter of renegade fundamentalist preacher William, played by gravel-voiced veteran British actor Ralph Ineson. Thomasin longs deep down to be free of her drab and spartan life, especially after her father's extremist ways force even the Puritans to say, "Hey, this guy is kind of a looney tune," and banish the whole family from the community and into the terrifying, untamed New England wilderness. She longs for sweeter times at home in England, and seeks emotional escape through playfulness and imaginative flights of fancy.

And yet, she is rejected by her family. She is seen as a threat and burden by her mother Katherine, played with stern desperation by Kate Dickie, perhaps best known for her performance as the batty, breastfeeding Lysa Arryn on Game of Thrones. Her younger brother Caleb (breathtaking child actor Harvey Scrimshaw), at the very beginning of his sexual awakening in such a repressive environment, can't help but begin to view her in an erotic fashion. And her fiendishly precocious youngest siblings, the twins Mercy and Jonas, are terrified and outraged at the willfulness they see burgeoning inside her, labeling her a witch with the same childish zeal that undoubtedly led many innocent women to their deaths in Salem.

Thomasin is both tempted and horrified by the potential presence of Satanic forces in the woods near their homestead. Gradually but confidently, Eggers paints a picture of encroaching doom, as the family is preyed upon by this force and picked off, one by one. As with many horror films of the Satanic subgenre, there seems to be an implicit message that the Devil exists, but God does not--or at least if He does, He is far less directly manifest than His dark counterpart, preferring to have His followers stick it out for themselves rather than intervene directly. In typical Puritan distrust of the natural world, here the Lord of Darkness takes animal form, as a rabbit, a crow, and most memorably of all, in the form of the family's prize goat, Black Phillip, a creature who has enthusiasts of the film (including this one) singing his praises like so many black sabbath revelers.

There is moral ambiguity at play here which only adds to the richness of the experience. William's religious fervor and pride, coupled with his practical ineptness, has recklessly condemned his family to poverty and near-starvation. It is painful to watch these folks praying desperately to a God who simply does not seem to be listening, or to care, all while a cruel intelligence tears them apart. Clearly, part of Eggers' message is the futility of blind faith, and in fact the harmfulness of it. The family members turn against each other, and the Devil and his minions use each of their weaknesses against them: William's pride and stubbornness, Katherine's attachment to her children, Caleb's sexual curiosity, and even Thomasin's desire for freedom.

Chafing at the bonds of her father's faith, her future seemingly dictated by his choices, she embraces the darkness in the end, giving in to the frightening voice inside her that was pushing her toward it all along. And yet, in Eggers' world, this is not the black-and-white issue the Puritans themselves may have viewed it as. Forced to accept the inherent sinfulness of her nature as preached endlessly by her father, she could not even enjoy the acceptance and affection of family, but was constantly pushed away by parents and siblings she loved. Instead, she finds unconditional acceptance, and yes, freedom at last, in the silken, soothing tones of Black Phillip and the release and power offered to his followers. Moments after being compelled to murder her own mother in self-defense, she seems to heave a figurative sigh of relief, and her first instinctive actions are to literally let her hair down and remove the attire that had kept her physically and emotionally bound up. In the final moments of the film, she rises above everything, once again quite literally, and exults in complete and total joy. It is thrilling, cathartic, and terrifying, all at once.

This is a film without easy answers, that challenges our beliefs as great art should. Is Thomasin's character arc the ultimate expression of feminist independence, or a reinforcement of the very anti-feminist stereotypes promulgated by Puritans both then and now? From where I sit, Eggers seems to be using the reported accounts of witchcraft from those olden days to weave a very modern story that delivers a moral that probably would've been abhorrent to the religious thinkers of that time. It is about the rejection of a constrictive society for the liberty of hedonistic indulgence, and not necessarily as a bad thing. And it generates fear on a deep, primal level.

Cinematographer Jarin Blaschke and composer Mark Korven both contribute greatly to achieving Eggers' vision of inevitable gloom and despair. Blaschke's work is bleak and understated, recalling some of the best work of Kubrick lensman John Alcott. And Korven, best known for his work in documentaries, delivers a chilling, relentless aural onslaught that is part Philip Glass, part Gyorgy Ligeti.

Such work enhances some of the most disturbing imagery I've encountered in horror in a long time. Caleb's death scene, played with shocking maturity by young Scrimshaw, is something from which I fear the hairs on the back of my neck may never fully recover. Caleb's encounter with the witch in the woods, a moment that would make the Brothers Grimm proud. Katherine's breast-feeding scene (a Game of Thrones inside joke, perhaps?) makes the last scene of Paul Solet's Grace seem like Elmo's World. And the unexpected moment (for me, at least) when Black Phillip does indeed speak and the Devil reveals himself made me gasp in enthralled shock.

Horror often gets a bad rap for being a genre that seeks primarily to make us feel a basic human emotion, as if that were a negative in and of itself, something cheap or undesirable. It's very encouraging to find one that makes us feel in such an emotionally complex way, and also makes us think. The Witch is a powerful piece of film that represents the best that horror can be--less Eli Roth, and more Nathaniel Hawthorne. It's one that I'll certainly be revisiting many times in the years to come, and was more than worth the effort of delving back into The Vault of Horror one more time. If you haven't seen it, do so. If you have, see it again.

Oh yeah, and Hail Black Phillip.



Thursday, October 28, 2010

The Shadow of Samhain: Halloween Isn't Devil Worship; or, Where the Hell's My Halloween Carnival Gone?

Just a couple more days until Halloween is upon us. I've had so many worthy posts submitted for this series that it will be definitely continuing into next month. For now, as we lead into Halloween itself, I give you this intriguing piece from Erin Lashley of In It for the Kills, in which she deplores the gross misunderstanding of the holiday's Samhain roots amidst present-day bible-thumping America...

In many communities in the United States, Halloween has been banned from the schools amid accusations that the holiday originated in and celebrates devil worshiping. Kids in such places are no longer allowed to dress up in costumes for school, and the Halloween carnival has been replaced with a namby pamby "fall festival." This is more than just the usual reactionary tactic of calling whatever you don't like "Satanic." It is a complete misunderstanding of the history and heritage of the many Americans who are descended from Celts.

Samhain, the holiday festival we now call Halloween, was celebrated first by ancient people centuries before the birth of Christ. Not only is it not anti-Christ (or pro-devil), but it has nothing to do with Christ. To suggest otherwise is like comparing pumpkins to palm fronds. You can't worship someone who doesn't yet exist. No Christian God, no devil.

The Celts believed that the line between the spirit world and the physical world blurred during the festival of Samhain and that spirits could come over to visit our world. The good spirits, their family members who had passed, were welcomed home for a visit with good food and a warm fire. The bad spirits, what we might now refer to as demons, were wisely feared and therefore discouraged from dropping by for a snack. That is where we get the tradition of scary costumes, from the people dressing up as evil spirits in an attempt to keep the bad chaps away. Costumes did not seek to glorify demons, but to deter them.

In light of the confusion it's ironic that what we now know as Christianity actually adapted to suit the already existing holiday of Samhain. The Feast of All Saints or Hallowmas, now celebrated on November 1, was moved from February to November around the 9th century in order to tie in with Samhain.

The false connection with Satanism seems to have begun in the 18th century when a myth began that Samhain was a god of the dead and not a holiday. This misinformation came first from a series of books written by Col. Charles Vallency, who was trying to prove that the Irish came from Armenia. It was furthered by Godfrey Higgins, who apparently confused the name of the festival Samhain with the name of a Hindu deity named Samana; Higgins was trying to prove that the Celtic Druids came from India.

If there was a character in Celtic history whose name was similar to Samhain, it would have been a folk hero named Saman. However, some religious folks have taken the idea of a lord of the dead who likely didn't exist, equated his imaginary with that of their Satan, and then dropkicked this falsehood through the goalposts of everyone else's good time.

Samhain was the most important holiday of the year to the Celts. They only thought of the year as being divided into two seasons: summer and winter. Samhain was the end of summer, when they thanked their gods for the harvest so that the gods would provide another one next year. The people also settled their financial debts with one another at Samhain.

The holiday was symbolic of the cycle of life in general: one year dies so another can live. The Celts acknowledged the power of death as being the only part of life they could not control, but it was not something to be feared. They honored their dead at this time, but did not fear them either. They reserved their fear for living people, who could do far more damage.

Saturday, June 5, 2010

The Lucky 13: Week Three: Demons, Witches & The Devil


The Lucky 13 is back at you for week number three--an unflinching journey into the occult! That's right, we're turning our attention to horror's satanic manifestations this time around, and choosing our favorite flicks pertaining to all things demonic. As always, this little undertaking is happening in conjunction with Brutal as Hell, and what's interesting this week is that all three selections here mirror selections made by members of the BAH crew--apparently there's a bit more agreement around here than usual, perish the thought!

Anyway, deviltry comprises horror's most tried and true sub-genre, going all the way back to the very first horror movie, Georges Melies' 1896 short film Le Manoir du Diable. Lots of hellish nightmares to choose from, so let's jump right in! (And P.S. how did no one on either site choose The Exorcist...???)

B-Sol on Suspiria

Suspiria is Argento at the very height of his powers. It's definitely the closest he comes to being the Italian Alfred Hitchcock, which I've always felt was his goal. The levels of genuine suspense, the ebb and flow of tension that he is able to create here is truly staggering. It really is all about the sensory feast Argento and his crew have cooked up for us. Luciano Tovoli offers up some truly sumptuous cinematography that epitomizes Argento's philosophy that horror can actually be beautiful. The lighting is intriguing throughout, with some truly breathtaking use of color--red being the theme, of course.

This is a rich, textured film, and I find I take away something new from it every time I watch it. I enjoyed it from the very first time I saw it, about 12 years ago, but I don't think I fully appreciated it until I started re-watching it. There's just so much being thrown at you, that I think first-time viewers can be a bit overwhelmed by it all. But this film is like a fine wine that ages wonderfully, and provides greater and greater pleasure over time.

It's also a perfect example of technique over content. It's a true filmmaker's film. While the script and acting are all adequate, that's not what keeps me coming back to this film over and over. Rather, it's Argento's enthralling style, the deft manner in which he crafted this gorgeous, gorgeous film. In addition to being a filmmaker's film, Suspiria is also a horror fanatic's horror film. It might not be the best to show someone who's only a casual fright flick fan, but for those more discriminating lovers of the cinematic macabre, Suspiria remains a titan of the genre. As a horror film, it is all but perfect.



From Beyond Depraved's Joe Monster on The Ninth Gate

The Ninth Gate is a film, in my opinion, that seemed to have gone under the horror radar back in 1999. I hardly ever bump into any genre fan who admits that they like it or have even seen it. This upsets me a bit. In a way I can understand; it is helmed by the same director who gave us Rosemary’s Baby, another more popular take on Satan’s rising. The Ninth Gate is a really fantastic film in its own right, though. It is cloaked in a palpable sense of mystery and foreboding that effects me every time I watch it. Roman Polanski’s mastery behind the camera creates one of the most engaging and disorienting pieces of cinema dealing with Evil incarnate.

Book detective Dean Corso (Johnny Depp) has been hired by the brooding Boris Balkan (Frank Langella) to authenticate his copy of The Nine Gates of the Kingdom of Shadows, a forbidden tome that is reputed to conjure up Lucifer himself. Corso must travel across the globe to compare Balkan’s volume with the only other two in existence. But as he investigates further into the cryptic engravings that adorn the book, Corso finds himself being followed not only by a mysterious Girl (Emmanuelle Seigner) but also a cult of devil worshipers and a killer who is intent on claiming the engravings to bring about the Dark Lord’s arrival.

Although erroneously marketed as an action-packed film in the vein of End of Days, The Ninth Gate very well could have been made in the '40s as one of Val Lewton’s psychological shockers. The film exposes the monsters present in the human soul while taking place in a world populated by looming shadows and the glowing eyes of watchers unseen. There are little visual nuances and clues that adorn the proceedings, much like the pictures of the diabolical book’s pages.

One of the enjoyable aspects of this movie is noticing things that have gone unseen in previous viewings. People are seen out of the corner of the eye, occult images are hidden in the background, and the overwhelming sense of ominous events to come never leaves. It’s a film that gets under your skin and makes you feel uneasy in the best possible way. We can’t help but feel that the Devil is center stage the entire time, slinking in the shadows of a hallway or heard between the whispers of a book’s turning pages.

The performances only enhance the atmosphere of the film. Corso is reminiscent of the antiquarian heroes of Lovecraft’s stories, albeit a more cynical, greedy and self-absorbed variant of H. P.’s protagonists. Langella simply oozes presence as the film’s main villain, and his deep voice is enough to make you realize that this guy is serious when he’s speaking. Rounding out the leading players, Seigner is both mysterious and infuriating as the girl Corso calls Green Eyes. The writing and Seigner’s elusive performance combine to confuse the viewer, constantly making you unsure of her motives and perplexed as to her unexplained protection of Corso.

The Ninth Gate is a fascinating puzzle, one that may leave the viewer with more questions than answers. Figuring everything out is half the fun. The question is, though: are you brave enough? Dare you seek the Devil out? The film is a descent into darkness, an exhilarating journey where your very soul may be on the line. I think it’s worth the trip.



Cinema Suicide's Bryan White on Prince of Darkness

Before I'm through, I'll probably have cited several John Carpenter flicks as my favorites. He is head and shoulders above the rest as my favorite director, and Escape From New York tops the list of my favorite movies. Carpenter started to slip after Big Trouble In Little China, but before the decade was up, he would kick out a couple more sweet flicks before everything went black: They Live and Prince of freakin' Darkness.

A scientific research team is summoned by the clergy of a burned-out old Los Angeles church to investigate the church's dark secret, a vat containing a constantly swirling liquid which is said to be the physical manifestation of Satan. The team finds out the hard way that it is, indeed the devil, but rather than being a malevolent personality in the form of beast or man, Satan is a primal force whose energy and matter has a corrupting influence over everyone around it. Its ultimate goal, however, is to bring an even bigger, more powerful and evil force trapped in another dimension into ours.

I'll be straight with you. Prince of Darkness doesn't make a lot of sense, but it has a lot of great ideas that play nicely together. It stars a couple of Carpenter favorites, Victor Wong and Donald Pleasance, and graces us with a cameo from horror rocker supreme, Alice Cooper. The movie is also creepy as all get-out. It marked a strange period for Carpenter when he was given especially small budgets to make movies, but with those budgets came complete creative control.

What you got was hare-brained goodness, and a love letter from Carpenter to another demonic favorite of mine, Quatermass and the Pit (aka 5 Million Years To Earth). The plots, though taking place in different settings and under different circumstances have a lot in common, namely the wicked discovery of an ancient, lost artifact that exhibits a corrupting influence upon everyone who comes into contact with it and the only thing capable of stopping it is SCIENCE! The script, by Carpenter, is actually credited to one of his many name-dropping pen names, in this case, Martin Quatermass. The researchers also hail from Kneale University, so-named for the writer of the Quatermass series, Nigel Kneale, who also wrote Halloween III.



* * * * * * * * * *

Head over to Brutal as Hell to see what Marc Patterson and his crew have come up with. And if you're interested in taking part in the future, just give Marc or myself a holler.

Week 1: Grindhouse & Exploitation
Week 2: Creature Features & Monster Movies

Join us next week, when it'll be all about the red stuff. That's right, time for gore movies!

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

The Tuesday Top 10: Faith-Based Horror Movies

I was recently asked to put together a list of the top faith-based horror films for Bloody-Disgusting... However, because Brad "Don't call me Mr. Disgusting" Miska is a busy dude, the list was accidentally assigned to two different writers--and damn it, I wasn't fast enough! Not one to let good copy go to waste, I've decided to "repurpose" the list--as we say in the marketing business--which means that now all you loyal Vault Dwellers get to enjoy it exclusively!

BJ-C had been helping me put this one together, but she's off the hook now--saved by baton nationals! However, keep your greasy eyeballs peeled for the newest VoH/DotW collabo in the days/weeks to come... For now, enjoy this breakdown of the most memorable horror flicks with religious themes:

10. Angel Heart (1987)
Robert DeNiro plays the Devil (oh excuse me, Louis Cypher) in this horror noir which was unfairly maligned upon release, but has since aged like a fine wine. Plus it has that infamous sex scene between Mickey Rourke and Lisa Bonet. What would the Cos say? Oh wait, he was too busy asking interns to tug on his Jell-O pudding pop...

9. Stigmata (1999)
I didn't expect much from this one when I first saw it, but it surprised me--both in its effectiveness, and its knowledgeable use of Christian folklore. Patricia Arquette is freaky in the title role of Frankie Paige, a girl afflicted with the wounds of Christ. And of course, Gabriel Byrne is Gabriel Byrne. As a recovering Catholic, this one was much appreciated.

8. Signs (2002)
I might catch heat for this one, but Signs deals very pointedly and frankly with the common problem of crisis of faith. If that doesn't make it "faith-based", I don't know what would. Mel Gibson plays a fallen priest whose brush with invading aliens causes him to reassess his relationship with the magic dude in the sky.

7. Seven (1995)
Yes, I refuse to spell it in that goofy way with the number 7 in the title. I'm cranky that way. Anyway, thanks to BJ-C for suggesting this one. For the handful of you that might not know the plot, Seven features the serial killer John Doe, whose murders are each based around one of the seven deadly sins. Think of him as Jigsaw, if Jigsaw had gone to Sunday school.

6. Hellraiser (1987)
While not so much tied into any recognizable organized religion, Clive Barker's masterwork is highly spiritual in nature. And of course, there's the whole "Hell" thing, which is kind of hard to get around. The Cenobites are clearly New Age demons, and there is much made of the universal balance of good and evil, which is all very Zoroastrian. Thank you, liberal arts education!

5. Faust (1926)
Four years after Nosferatu, F.W. Murnau delivered his other amazing epic, the screen's finest adaptations of one of Christianity's most famous legends. God and Satan do battle over the soul of Faust in Goethe's literary masterwork, brought to life in boldly visual fashion by the master of German Expressionism.

4. Rosemary's Baby (1968)
Yes, we're getting into the "predictable zone" here, so sue me. This is the film that ushered in the era of "Satanism chic" in horror, and spawned more copycats than you can shake a pitchfork at. Mia Farrow is impregnated by Beelzebub, and delivers her impish progeny to an apartment building filled with eager Devil worshippers. Shocking stuff for its day, and still packs a punch now.

3. The Omen (1976)
Gregory Peck delivers one of horror's all-time classiest performances in this wicked tale of Satan's attempt to reincarnate himself on Earth in the cute little form of Damien Thorn. Another great example of a film that makes the most of Christian folklore, crafting a story that draws us in, whether we buy into the faith-based stuff or not.

2. The Wicker Man (1973)
Ask any horror fan who's seen it, and they'll tell you that The Wicker Man is one of the genre's truly great discoveries. A much bigger deal in the UK than in the States, this twisted morality tale pits devout Christian police officer Edward Woodward against a cryptic Pagan cut led by the sublime Christopher Lee. Avoid the remake at all costs, in large part because it ejects much of the religious subtext.

1. The Exorcist (1973)
What would be the point of even trying to be cute and picking anything but this? William Friedkin's enthralling piece of filmmaking so impacted the culture into which it was released that it actually raised the ire of the Catholic church, and polarized audiences with its intense, and gripping take on the struggle between Satan and the soldiers of Christ in a world in which good and evil are very real forces. Based on William Peter Blatty's best-seller, it's the perfect example of a faith-based horror film directed at an often faithless modern world.

* HONORABLE MENTION*

Constantine
End of Days (direct hate mail to BJ-C :-))
The Exorcism of Emily Rose
Prince of Darkness
The Prophechy
The Seventh Sign

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

IFC Picks Up Distribution Rights to Year's Most Controversial Flick

The net has been awash with buzz regarding the Lars Von Trier shocker Antichrist ever since it resulted in a major blowup on Monday at the Cannes Film Festival. But now, it looks like all that controversy did was land the movie a distribution deal. Which anyone with any media savvy could've predicted anyway.

The blowup revolved around what has been described as "explicit sexual gore" in the picture, referring presumably to scenes depicting such things as bloody masturbation (that should rack me up some Google search hits...) Apparently, some members of the press took serious offense, and a shouting match actually ensued between journalists and the rather eccentric Von Trier, who laughed off their outrage dismissively.

"Since it premiered at Cannes on Monday, we haven't been able to stop 
talking or thinking about Antichrist," IFC Entertainment president Jonathan Sehring said in a story reported today on Horror-Movies.ca.

The film stars Willem Defoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg, who play a couple recovering from the death of their child who retreat to a lonely cabin in the woods (and if horror movies have taught us anything, it's that nothing good could ever happen in such a place). The movie apparently also hinges on the conceit that the world was in fact created not by God, but by Satan.

IFC will be handling the American release of the film, although it is not yet announced whether that will be theatrical or direct-to-DVD. The German production will be making the rounds in theaters across Europe throughout the summer and fall.



P.S. If you've read and watched all this and don't immediately want to board a plane to Europe to see this thing, then you're reading the wrong blog.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

What Goes Bump In the Night…….? Chapter II

(We join our regularly scheduled blog post, already in progress.)

While still young, I did succumb to more than one “devil movie.” The two most famous were of course The Exorcist and The Omen. While The Exorcist was one thing all to itself, The Omen was rather the flagship to a genre of ‘70s devil movies. While The Omen was creepy, mostly because of that chubby little kid, there was one titled Devil Dog, Hound of Hell. Now this sounds stupid, like a Drake’s cake gone wrong. But to the ten year old me who decided to watch it on either the “Five Star Movie” or “Drive in Movie” on channel 5 one Saturday afternoon, it was a little more than that.

Now that lousy movie “Devil Dog…” was one of those poorly shot, poorly produced, poorly scripted ‘70s horror endeavors where the film is so bad that it is dark during the day time. And I think it was this poor film quality coupled with a fairly decent devil story. Now, why were devil stories so effective? I think it can be summed up in that a) the devil (or Devil), is all consuming evil, way more evil than just a zombie or slasher, and b) the devil always came in the package you were least expecting: a little girl, a little boy, or, in this case, a little puppy. It is the destruction and the perversion of the innocent into something diabolical that really makes devil movies, and their related genre scary. The same effect can be applied to other stories of a similar vein, like Children of the Corn, and for its part, Pet Semetary’s Gage.

I won’t say much about The Exorcist, as it is like a 5 tool player in baseball (it scares for average, scares for power, etc…), except that a) some of the really scary parts are when you just see the shadows of the demons, and b) when Regan bends over backwards to scuttle down the stairs – whoa, that’s a bad 3 seconds of film. Why? Because it is friggin’ weird, and weird is scary.


A few weeks back B-Sol was good enough to do a post on Hieronymous Bosch’s Garden of Earthly Delights, and in particular, the Hell portion of the triptych. The thing is, while the Hell portion is obviously terrifying, the other two panels, one of Eden, and the other of Earth, are both so weird (and ahead of their time, for purposes of fantasy and science fiction), that they border on the scary. Scary in the sense of making no sense, the horror of a topsy-turvey world. In the Eden Panel, there are the naked Adam and Eve with a clothed Jesus (ok, nothing weird yet), but the surroundings are filled with never-before-seen animals, and a really strange castle in the center. The middle portion of Earth is even worse, with a multitude of nude figures with an enormous amount of oversized birds, fruit, strange vehicles, and in the far background, even stranger creatures and weirder architecture. And the Hell portion is, well, Hell. What is all the fuss? Well, what I am saying is that the weird can be scary, and this triptych is friggin’ weird.

A recent example as to the frightening nature of the weird is the video from The Ring. There really isn’t anything scary about it. But it is shot in that off-color, with strange set pieces (ladder against a wall, centipede running through a living room, the silhouette of the tree), weird sounds, and doesn’t make much sense. But there is a malevolence running through it that is expressed via its strangeness, which fills one with unease. Unease is the first level of fear.

Mr. Hungus cited David Lynch’s Lost Highway as an example of unnerving cinema. I agree, and put forth that another Lynch classic, Blue Velvet, while also not a horror movie by any stretch, is also disturbing as the characters are nearly alien in their various versions of madness. It has always turned my insides how the characters seem to choose to follow the wrong path at every turn, how it almost doesn’t make sense.

Weird first scared me when I saw the Beatle’s Yellow Submarine. While the Beatles are about the least scary rock band in history, Yellow Submarine, with the Blue Meanies, can scare any little kid. Why? In part because the story is really weird, with really strange creatures, and makes little sense, and also because the Blue Meanies are really weird as well, and in addition, they are cruel for cruelty’s sake. Now, I don’t think Yellow Submarine is scary as an adult, it does bring me to my next observation – cruelty is scary.

Cruelty has a tremendous effect on me. That otherwise normal human beings are capable of the most inhuman acts is the terrifying part of being human. Not to wax political, but we in America are often given to the illusion that all we have wrought is good because we are good, and only the bad people have done awful things. Things that the Communists did in Russia, China, or Cambodia. Things that the Nazis did in Germany, Austria, or Poland. Or the Japanese did in the Pacific.

What is lost in this worldview is that the awful occurrences did not happen outside the purview of good people, but rather despite them, or with their assistance. Horrible human acts by otherwise normal people are not impossible. Cruelty has, more often than not, been the norm. And it percolates just below the surface of all of us. All it might take is one act, or one person, one event to bring it all up, and terrible deeds will come to pass.

Torture porn, a genre of which I am not a great fan, attempts to use cruelty for this sake, to get at us under our skins. Like in Hostel, where there is systematic kidnapping/torture/murder, the scary thing isn’t the torture itself, but that people want to torture, to maim, to kill, and even videotape it, like in Vacancy. It is scary because we are all, in the right time and place, capable of some very awful things.

For instance, the most horrible scene of cruelty in the classic Texas Chainsaw Massacre comes not when Leatherface is chasing anyone with his saw, but when he suddenly appears from a corridor, smashes a fellow human on the head with a mallet, and then, while the body is violently twitching, drags it inside, and then slams the door closed. It is the casual nature of the act which reinforces the cruelty. On the other hand, over time, other slashers, like Jason Voorhees or Michael Myers, are rendered less scary in that they only do what they do but for no other reason than that’s what they do. They do not do it out of any cruelty – they are essentially knife/axe/machete wielding zombie automatons.

Sometimes annihilation comes from large groups. Being faced with the overwhelming force of a community bent on my own destruction, like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, is a form of group cruelty, in that it seeks the end of my person, if not my torture. The scary aspect isn’t that they are alien plants, but that it is everyone but me. Body Snatchers is about being the last free thinking man amongst the Nazis, the Bolsheviks, or the Khmer Rouge.

The Shining is a similar dynamic, but instead of human cruelty, or reeducation via seedpod, the overwhelming forces arrayed against the Torrance family is that of ghosts through the transmitter of a sentient building, the Overlook Hotel. But that malevolence is something more seething than apparent, and only is truly manifested in the third act of the film. But it is its cruel nature, wanting sacrifices of blood, that makes the Overlook such a scary hotel.

In that vein, I think we begin to return to the unseen. I wrote my first post about The Thing by John Carpenter, and state unequivocally that it was the scariest horror movie of all time. I think that the horror from this movie is that, like Body Snatchers, the monster lurks within, with other factors elevating the terror. This is no longer an anti Communist, anti-intellectual screed (as was its titular predecessor, as well as Body Snatchers). Rather, the fright is of the psychological nature, when the civilization of the men involved breaks down (fear of madness), when they realize they no longer know each other, or truly know themselves. What could be more frightening than not knowing if you continued to be you? Couple this with the thought that if in fact you are you, at best one of your colleagues is harboring a very slimy and malevolent monster under his skin. The isolation of each character, from himself, from his friends, and from the rest of the world, is total. Personally, I think I would have flipped my lid like the character Windows, and beat a hasty trail right to the arsenal (I often think how the shotgun would vitiate most horror movies plots, but probably not The Thing).

Well, that’s about it for now, gentle reader. As Mr. Hungus asked: What scares you?
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...