Tuesday, August 23, 2016

She wakes...

It’s that time of year again. The leaves rustle a little too crisply in the breeze, the spiders have begun spinning their talismans across the city, and every motherfucker on your feed is starting their countdown to a latte they could literally choose to have at any time of the year. It’s pre-fall. And election season. So, if you’re anything like me, you’re seeking that inconsequential murderous outlet that only horror films can provide. In my effort to refresh my acquaintance with the genre’s development in recent years, I dove into the shiny and Google Chrome pit and have returned with a personal catch-up list of sorts to refer to over the coming months. But what’s more, I present my most humble offering of:

The Reservoir of Female Horror Directors  

The next post will act as a database of titles and directors. Over the coming months, I will continue to add to this list as I discover more fierce visionaries. Along the way, you can look forward to some short reviews and ratings as I gorge myself on their offerings. Join me. Leave a comment with your favorites and suggestions and let us drink deep.


Cuts and stitches,
AP

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Taking a Stab at Feminism: Why Horror is Empowering


This article was originally posted on In Our Words

** WARNING: This article contains spoilers for various movies including Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream and various other classics that you should have seen by now.**


“Look out! He's behind you!”

She'd could go out the front door but she goes upstairs instead. She clobbers the murderer over the head once and leaves the weapon behind. He's been chasing her for over an hour and she hasn't even taken her shirt off!

I'm sorry, did that sound sexist?

Horror doesn't get a lot of credit. And trust me, trying to make a critical argument that horror is a relevant art form over a cup of coffee doesn't earn you much either, but the topic that always gets the blood boiling is how degrading the genre is toward women. When someone poses that viewpoint, I feel more slighted as a woman than when I'm actually watching a slasher. I would kill (or be killed) to be a Scream Queen. To follow in the bloody but unbowed footsteps of Laurie Strode, Nancy Thompson, Sidney Prescott and countless others would be the triumph of a lifetime. Literally. In third grade, my best friend and I made a sleepover tradition of renting through the shlock and shock of the local video store's horror section. The first time I saw the iconic closet scene in Halloween I knew I was done for. The fact that someone could be backed into a corner and terrorized yet keep her wits and get out alive was baffling. A girl no less! I'm one of those! I fell in love with horror. Of course, to be fair, it came on to me first. And it was empowering.

Now, while I don't think that all horror films are rife with girl power, I think there's a solid case that the female archetypes found throughout the genre (and especially the subgenre of the slasher) are actually positive feminist fodder. On top of the inherent male gaze of Hollywood cinema, the fear factory tends to bleed out a stream of conventions that demean women and glorify violence against them. However, no other genre of film has evolved so intimately with the times; reacting and responding to real politics and humanity itself. From creature feature to torture porn, horror has remained a highly stylized caricature of human nature, and, more importantly, the dynamic between men and women. To see why these chillers remain one of the few consistent pro-women vehicles in the media, you have to break down the very conventions that make the genre what it is.

It really comes down to the characters. You know them. The Debbie Downer, the Blonde Bimbo, the Mannish Muscle, the Woebegone Witch, and of course the Scream Queen/Final Girl. Debbie doesn't even want to be alive, Blondie is hypersexual, Manny is an “other”, and Sabrina is either too smart or too superstitious to remain until the end. Instead, it will all boil down to a showdown between a psychopath wielding a phallic weapon and the one girl who remained pure and virginal throughout the whole ordeal. These roles are so reductive it hurts. But take a look at the cast list reflecting horror's primary audience: The Stoned Shaggy, the Sweet Geek, the Horny Half-wit, the Brave Boyfriend, and The Killer himself. Shags is too hazy, Bill Nye is only helpful for so long, the Horndog more than likely provoked an attack at one point or another, and trying to be the hero most assuredly leaves you to die second to last. All that remains is a contorted shell of madness. Scooby Doo makes a lot more sense now, doesn't it? Of course they didn't deal with real monsters or ghosts! There isn't an archetype in the Mystery Machine that could possibly survive an actual murderous rampage!

Although I would've put my money on Don Knotts.
Many would argue that horror films are often morality tales. The Final Girl is a prudish virgin and therefore is allowed to live. I think it's important to point out that Laurie had a crush on a boy, of course Nancy was doing it with Johnny Depp, and Sidney broke the rule. These iconic women didn't lack sexuality or desire, it simply was not essential to their survival. Recent additions to the genre such as Cabin in the Woods and The Descent have shown an acquired self awareness within the confines of horror preconceptions that allows characters to show their clean character without relying on the merits of their chastity. In fact, a lot of Final Girls exude commonly male anti-hero flaws.

There is always an exception to the rule but I guarantee that if one expectation is removed, another will be reinforced. Even if these character patterns are not adhered to, another custom will still exist. Look at the final throwdown between Good and Evil that is usually personified in the two main characters of the film. The Final Girl epitomizes women's struggle against a patriarchal society which is often embodied by a faceless, lumbering, all too powerful source (i.e. Michael Myers, Jason Vorhees, Leatherface) Have you ever rolled your eyes when the Scream Queen trips over nothing? She just hit the glass ceiling. By the end she'll have a limp and no way to actually outrun her foe, forcing her to confront The Killer head on. During her attempted escape, she will more than likely find a phallic object to use against her opposition. Some might say that this further proves the chauvinistic idea that a woman must arm herself with male aspects in order to overcome an innate vulnerability. I would argue that it is a bite back at the gender binary enforced upon our culture.

Being a typically adolescent focused type of cinema, horror is loaded with sexual symbolism and imagery. It is usually very apparent within the first ten minutes of a horror movie who our heroine will be. From that point on, we watch her have her personal space or home invaded, her friends stripped away, be possessed in some cases, and endure countless stabbings and other rape imagery via an intrusive voyeuristic viewpoint. Again, this seems very sexist, but I can't stress enough how important this oppression is in presenting viewers with a survivor instead of a victim.

Let's be honest, the horror genre isn't the most critically acclaimed film form, nor is it the most cerebral cinematic experience one could hope to have. However, millions flock to gorge themselves on popcorn and milk duds while they watch numerous people (usually women) be gored, gutted, and gouged in the most unique way possible. Despite the frail attempts at being creative or reinventing horror, the genre's greatest strengths tend to lie in it's accepted truths and archetypes.

Yes, some scenes can be excessive and meant to shock and stun audiences but in the hands of a good director and an informed audience, they can be inspiration to action. Laurie used every weapon available (Hello. Knitting needle to the neck.), Nancy set traps, and Sidney grew the fuck up. They are hardcore. Think of a horror film as though it's “The Best of the 11 o'clock News” If you're not disgusted or upset by the actual content and the fact that far worse trespasses are actually being made against your fellow people, that women and their rights being threatened has become an everyday occurrence, doesn't that make you the monster?

All true Queens know that the point is to scream, not remain silent.

-AP

Monday, April 8, 2013

1000 Stabs!

Darlings, I am simply gushing with gratitude!  Thank you so much for each breath you share with me.  I can't wait to spend more midnights with you.

Sunday, April 7, 2013

Review 4: Dead to Rights


This revival will be more exciting than the Julianne Moore kind.

Good evening gremlins,

Like a star-crossed lover, I was fated to return to you.  My head is bloody but not unbowed in my resolution to remain true to horror despite the despairing drought of mainstream macabre.  It has been nearly a year since I last reared my skull to the dusky twilight of the genre.  Oh, let’s face it.  The Cabin in the Woods depressed me.  As I mentioned in my review, it left me with an uneasy, unsatisfied feeling as well as a nihilistic hole where my hope for horror once was.  Since then, I’ve come to terms with the film and can appreciate it as a scathing critique and intelligent (though snarky) deconstruction of how the things that make horror fun are, in all actuality, marvelously absurd.  I find it only fitting that I should return to you with a review of a remake of the blueprint for the satirical razorblade that was Cabin:
We don't need no stinkin' "The"

When Sam Raimi directed The Evil Dead in 1981, it became an instant camp staple. This resulted in the demon spawn of The Evil Dead 2 and the Mel Brooks-ian Army of Darkness.  Made with a strung together budget of $350,000, Raimi intended for the original flick to be a pure horror film born out of pure terror.  Instead, it was seen as schlock and began an assembly line of iterations that nod to the intrinsic horror formula Teen + Derp = BLOODY MESS.  
MATH!
Taking this response, Raimi essentially remade his own film and released it as The Evil Dead 2, employing more comedy for an effective, balanced film that many consider much more satisfying than the original.  From my initial peek at the trailer for Evil Dead, my impression was that Producers Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell intended to follow through with their original intent to horrify.  And horrify it does.
The directorial debut of Fede Alvarez begins with the cookie cutter frame of sending 5 young friends off into a remote cabin in the middle of the woods together.  A smart writing choice (No doubt the influence of wildcard, Diablo Cody) gives impetus to the gathering.  Estranged Daniel (an uninspired but capable Shiloh Fernandez) is reunited with his friends to help his little sister Mia (Jane Levy) kick a nasty drug habit.  Along for the ride are old friends Olivia (Jessica Lucas) and Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci), as well as David’s current squeeze, Natalie (Elizabeth Blackmore), who is apparently there to lend a hand. Beyond that, the exposition offers nothing more than shoddy attempts at deepening already shallow relationships with even thinner dialogue.  Lucky for us, unlucky for them, things get bad pretty fast.  

In true ignorant teen fashion, they discover a demonic book (made from human flesh, no less. Yum!) which simply MUST be read aloud.  Thanks to that small amount of justification given by Mia’s drug abuse, it isn’t that farfetched than no one thinks twice when she begins to act peculiar.  If only D.A.R.E. had equated withdrawal to demonic possession, drugs would be much less prevalent in schools.
Crack will SWALLOW YOUR SOUL!

Buckets of blood turn into silos full as the gang works to wrangle the possessed Mia.  Jane Levy deserves a special nod here for her acting gymnastics as she stretches from pure wide-eyed terror to taking up the torch as pure badass.  The plot advances at an unflinching tromp, taking enough pause to give easter eggs of reference to the original flicks.  Even the music and sound design gives you trills of a chainsaw during moments of pulse grinding threat before any motor is actually revved.  The movie seems as though it’s squeaking toward a neat finish before turning up the excitement for a jaw dropping ten minutes that just. doesn’t. quit.
While fans of the original might not be as deterred by the bloodbath and gore as some tree-hugging virgins, the make-up effects are arguably the star of this film.  Some may call it excessive torture porn, I call it a showcase to a forgotten craft.  As for the oral fixation stuff?  



That’s just Raimi.  Evil Dead might not be the scariest film, but it is certainly the most unnerving and squirm inducing in years.  The violence is wildly eclectic, ranging from the banal (watch those papercuts) to the “I don’t know how you’re still alive but I’m glad you are so we can see what else you can take” variety.  Some may complain of a lacking storyline or meaning, but I would argue that the story is told through the violence, which, for the modern horror genre, is a strangely novel idea.
After viewing, I couldn’t help but think, ‘They make it look so easy!’  Most modern (American) horror, both original and rebooted, suffers from a hyper-polished look, as though each director uses the same desaturated filter.  Evil Dead falls prey to this in its initial setup until settling into sparsely used techniques that pull directly from Raimi’s playbook.  If there is anything to be taken away from this particular revival, it’s this:  If it works, work it.  Why use CGI when there are perfectly capable make-up artists?  Why settle for standard horror triggers and pratfalls in filming when you can do an intense zoom in on a delicate wrist pinned under a car?  If you want to pull a page out of a well worn book, you can look to The Evil Dead and its incarnates.

4 out of 5 Bloody Pearls

It is good to be back.  While my reviewing may not be consistent, I will be sprinkling the blog with previews for upcoming films, and any tender meaty treats I can find to share with you.  Take care lovies.  After seeing Evil Dead and with spring rains approaching, you may want to carry a poncho.

Ciao,
AP

Monday, April 16, 2012

Review 3: Into the Woods

My sweet sweet horror hounds,

I am risen from the sands of this horrid horror drought a parched zombie but I may have just enough life in me yet to deliver a review for your pleasure. My relationship with the genre has been weakening over time and I've been longing for something to revive the flame, whether in wisps of smoke or brilliant blue. In trying to relate the validity of the horror film in pop culture, I'm often faced with pejorative smirks, groans, or passive nods. In the past few weeks, the buzz surrounding Joss Whedon's Cabin in the Woods caught me off guard. The general public seemed genuinely interested in an original upcoming horror release. I wasn't alone! So of course I was immediately suspicious. After a viewing on the second Friday the 13th of 2012, I want to let you know why you should be too.

WARNING: This Review contains Spoilers... Mainly because the movie is being promoted as one giant spoiler alert.

We have a film directed by Drew Goddard (writer of Cloverfield), co written by Goddard and Joss whedon (who did some TV shows you've probably never heard of or stumbled across in your life), inspired by Evil Dead, soundtrack courtesy of The Descent, cinematography snagged from- wait I'm getting ahead of myself.

If you haven't already, I suggest you watch the trailer here.  Aha! So things will not be as they seem! Wait a minute Joss, you're just going to softball it in like that?

The facts: Five kids are going to a cabin in the woods. People in a laboratory are watching and calling the shots. From the first ten minutes of Cabin in the Woods we're spoon fed what we can only assume from the trailer is the whole twist. For anyone with an IQ above shag carpet, it's obvious we've been duped. The archetypes of our vacationing college co-eds are as such: the blonde Jules (Anna Hutchison), the jock Curt (Chris Hemsworth AKA Thor), the brainy yet handsome guy Holden (Jesse Williams), the sweet virgin/final girl Dana (Kristen Connolly, and the stoner Marty (Fran Kranz). Except the Jules is only a recent box blonde, Curt is genuinely sweet on his girl, Holden is a little TOO smart, Dana isn't really a virgin, and Marty is the only one with a grip on reality. Breaking conventions becomes a plot point too early on for it to simply be a satisfying derailing from the genre's stereotypes. Back at the lab, we have Hadley (Bradley Whitford), and Sitterson (Oscar nominee Richard Jenkins) who take treat their job of mass murder like any other 9 to 5 cubicle grind. It's almost like they're playing with the audience as well! 

That's so meta.
The stakes never seem that high to either party, even when we discover the purpose of the lab. Oh who am I kidding, they're trying to resurrect some “Ancient One” with the blood of archetypes. And even that plot device is spread so thinly you could get a paper cut from it. The loose ends pile on from there.

Ex. Why isn't he more into her?
According to one of the latest posters, Cabin in the Woods has been reviewed as “Witty, scary and incredibly inventive.”, “The smartest, funniest horror since Scream.”, “Totally original.”, and “A truly hilarious take on a well known genre.” I would agree if the movie didn't feel so heavy handed. And if Joss Whedon hadn't been quoted describing the film as “basically a very loving hate letter [to horror].” In my book, that turns Whedon from a man with a well deserved fanboy base, into the most powerful film troll alive. Suddenly, my lukewarm feelings toward Cabin make sense!

While an entirely engrossing film, I couldn't help but leave feeling like I was the butt of a joke that I just spent nearly two hours laughing along with. After some deliberating, I don't think that Cabin in the Woods should be considered a horror film so much as a “Dummies Guide”.

I am, however, terrified of dummies.
The first notable film reference I caught was in the title shot. As Sitterson and Hadley ride away guffawing in a golf cart, the title blares itself across the entire screen and freezes the unnatural joy. Name that movie! I can only imagine that those who have never seen Michael Haneke's shaming of voyeurism, Funny Games, experienced a laugh instead of the fear of being victimized from outside in. To make matters worse, Cabin in the Woods fed this fear by delivering scares when I expected them, laughs when I expected padding, and ridiculousness when I wasn't prepared. While we're talking references, let's also agree to slash the Scream comparisons out of the picture because while in a similar vein, Scream played by the rules and was still an effective self-realized scary movie. Cabin in the Woods is a show pony.

3 and 1/2 out of 5 Bloody Pearls

Final Cut:
As the story progressed, I found myself hoping that the jokes and masturbatory self awareness would subside into storytelling. I wanted the movie to grow up. I want the genre to grow up. Maybe that's what Whedon's punchline is intended to be. Even while there are diehard fans of substantial horror content, the genre will always fail because of conventions, because of the teenage mindset, because of the futile expectation that something so engrained will change.

Some things are perfect the way they are.
Challenge accepted.

My pets, however tempting it may be to remain a fanboy, fangirl, stoner, semi-virgin, jock, brain, whatever: You can call the shots, stabs, and severings if you try hard enough. Cabin in the Woods isn't so much a breath of fresh air as it is a glove tauntingly slapping against the face of horror warriors. Let us grab up our rusty shovels, chainsaws, butcher knives and bludgeoning bongs!

Horror isn't going anywhere.

Hope to shear you soon,
AP

Sunday, February 5, 2012

Review 2: Women. Can't Live With 'Em. The End.

To my chewy gumdrops,

February is a strange month, no?  It has the fewest days, temperamental weather, and a globby awful holiday cleaved into the middle of it.  Fortunately for us lonely horror fans, the month kicked off hauntingly with the much anticipated:
"Harry Potter and the HOLY SHIT BEHIND YOU!"
Let me start off by saying that I'm going to leave a lot of plot points out of this review because a huge part of the enjoyment of this film involves the immersion into the ghost story as it progresses.  If you hate that part of the fun, go read a spoiler filled review.

Daniel Radcliffe takes on the role of Arthur Kipps, a young lawyer who is sent on an ominous job to clear a house of its paperwork.  I'm already trembling with excitement.  A widower, and single father, he feels no choice but to take the job to secure his position at the firm.  Upon reaching the remote village near his ultimate destination, everyone seems highly suspicious of his presence and tries to dissuade him from staying.  Since that would make a short movie, he travels through the marsh to Eel Marsh House to complete the task at hand.  He is immediately subjected to creaks, crows, and visions of children as well as the titular Woman in Black.  The story then turns a bit from haunted house/ghost story into a mystery as Arthur tries to unravel who she is, what she wants, and how to fix it.  Soon the villagers begin suffering from the side effects of Kipps' encounters with the Woman when their children begin dying one by one.  When they explain that this has been a problem in the past, it begs the question: Why didn't they try harder to get him out?  Luckily, Arthur makes friends early on with Sam Daily (CiarĂ¡n Hinds) who is the richest bloke in the village and owns a motor car!  Daily and his wife (the underused yet haunting, Janet McTeer) are separated from the village and live a more lush life yet had a son who was once the victim of the Woman.  After an exhausting investigation, Gumshoe Kipps decides to end the murders and keep his son from becoming a victim as well, all before the weekend.

 
Sequel: Black Friday
Right off the bat, the movie simply seemed too clean for the era which jarred my eye and made it hard for me to settle into the world.  Much of the film is set in a monochromatic grey scale with dreary blues in the village, but then assaults us with rich (though shadowed) colors inside Eel Marsh.  The movie sets off with a very Poe-esque vision and hero which immediately brought to mind the Vincent Price characters of old and I wondered if The Woman in Black would have benefited from being filmed in black and white.  When the movie embraces its old fashioned haunted house/ghost story roots, it thrives.  The use of depth in hallways and light mirror play brings out classic chills.  Arthur's first exploration of the house is very chilling and eerily calm, until director James Watkins lets the cheap jump thrills get in the way.  And uses them over and over again.  The following excursions of Kipps' scavenging through the house use repetition of the exact same shots without any over arching change in the house or Arthur himself.  There were many moments where I felt continuity was broken, the tiresome weight of the house could have pushed more on the protagonist, and organic scares would have worked more than shock.

75% of the movie.  The remaining 25%, he doesn't have lockjaw.
Don't get me wrong, the movie has some fine moments of thrilling spooks and well shot sequences.  The letters from Jennet to her sister are especially effective, and don't even get me started on that rocking chair.  Unfortunately, I spent much of the movie justifying the actions of characters, set decisions, and overall style.  That, to me, speaks a bit to the effectiveness of the overall storytelling.  Overall, it was exciting to see the return of the classical ghost story, but The Woman in Black tries a little too hard to please the target audience. Which, more disappointingly than anything, included the teenagers who laughed during every heartfelt moment at the movie theatre.  If only she'd gotten to them when they were younger.
Go with her, honey.  She has Werther's Originals.


2.5 out of 5 Bloody Pearls

Alright flesh petals, I will speak with you again as soon as I can. 
Love and curses,
AP

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Manhunt (Oscar Season)

My darlings,


I'm so very sorry to have left you postless for so long.  I've been rather busy with that pesky thing we call "real life" and have had to deal with the harsh realities of winter.  You'll be pleased to know that I've oft thought of you in my absence.  In fact, I'm working on an article that should scratch at some murderous itches.  I know it's been aiding in mine.  Until then, I've a morsel for you to chew on.

Yesterday, Oscar nominations for the year were announced, and yet again, anyone who knows anything about film was left depressed, unsatisfied.  Perhaps they will soon be as numbed as I.  Let's face it, horror hasn't held any Oscar hopes in years.  Hitchcock, a cinematic legend of the century, never won a single Oscar.  He was nominated for Best Director five times (Rebecca, Lifeboat, Spellbound, Rear Window, and Psycho) but never earned a statue for his meticulous work.  When the Academy eventually gave him an award, all he had to say to them was "thank you." (Directors who've never won an Oscar)

In 1973, The Exorcist happened.  Yes, it happened.  People were throwing up and leaving, lines were out of control, and everyone wanted to see it. So many in fact, that it remains the 9th highest grossing film in history, AND the Number One grossing R-Rated film. Ever.  (Screw you SOPA) In 1974 the Golden Globes gave it 7 nominations and it took 4 awards, including Best Picture - Drama.  (Ellen Burstyn was nominated but snubbed) For horror, this was as good as it got.  Then it pressed on to garner 10 Oscar nods but only two glances of recognition which came in Sound Editing (woohoo..) and Best Adapted Screenplay.  (Ellen Burstyn was nominated but snubbed. Again.)  Horror never had it so good!  Unfortunately, it lost Best Picture in the supposed "Big Leagues" to The Sting.

Which also won Norman Rockwell his first Oscar for "Most upbeat mobster movie poster ever"

I want you to ask the next ten people you see if they've seen The Exorcist.  Then ask them if they've seen The Sting.  No, I'll wait.  Ten to roughly nothing?  Under 40? Interesting.  The Academy is supposed to catalog the advances in film, the cream of the crop, a time capsule collection of films that would show our progress as a race through the art of cinema.  According to the early 70s, America had a huge thing for mobsters and violence.  I guess Vietnam didn't get it all out of our system.

Jaws got 4 nods in '75 and won 3 (More than The Exorcist really?), including Best Sound.  Horror's good with that.  If you haven't seen it, watch The Strangers for some more recent excellent sound design.  Then the next baby of the genre boomed: The Silence of the Lambs.  The golden child of horror, it was the third film ever to win the Oscars in the top five categories: Picture, Actor, Actress, Director, Adapted Screenplay.  Anthony Hopkins is in the movie for a little over 16 minutes.  Some would say this is a testament to his power in that role.  I'm going to stay quiet on this one. 

Mum's the word, right Hanny?
Wait.  I hate to interject but, isn't golden child of horror accolades, The Silence of the Lambs more of a Thriller/Cop Drama?  Can we still count it as ours? No? My mistake.

Yes dears I know there are more classic nods like Whatever Happened to Baby Jane, Rosemary's Baby, and a few others even after Lambs but the point is that it does not happen every year.  However, every year we have a biopic, an indie upriser, and something generally patriotic up for the Best Pic grabs while horror sits, gaining cobwebs.  The most influential (whether it was high quality or not) horror in the past ten years has gone unnoticed.  Maybe if we make a movie about a gay mentally handicapped real person who was horribly disfigured and murdered in a scandal involving the White House who's a ghost that overcomes the overwhelming odds against him, we can spin it somehow.

Either way...
 I'm still on the lookout for the next great American horror.

Yours truly,
AP