Month: February 2022

An Exorcism Exception

Posted on by — 1 Comment ↓

So, while I love a wide variety of horror content across all sub-genres and media, one kind of story tends to rub me the wrong way: the possession-exorcism (though just last week, I did write about an interesting take on the subject). Sure – they can be really creepy, there are a couple of classic examples that are really great, well made movies, and it is a very, very popular theme, but it almost always turns me off. They often leave an aftertaste of proselytization, seemingly advertisements for the Church, Catholic or otherwise (in recent years, the Warrens led Conjuring films have been notably unpleasant examples, though they primarily present as hauntings).

Now, there are other kinds of films dealing with demonic or diabolical elements or religious imagery that don’t do this. I think it is because, while they may contain religious elements, they are not about (or even particularly in support of) religion the way an exorcism film can be. Van Helsing holding up a cross to ward off a bride of Dracula I can accept as a simple trope of Vampire fiction without feeling like it’s supposed to teach me to let Christ into my heart. Films can directly feature the Devil as an antagonist, but somehow Pacino in The Devil’s Advocate, reveling in his bombast, or Black Philip in The VVitch asking if Tomasin wouldst like to live deliciously, don’t make me feel uncomfortable, as if I’d made the mistake of inviting in two polite, well-dressed chaps who want to give me the good news. I mean, sure, I generally want horror to make me uncomfortable – but not that way.

So what is it about this story? Why does it have this particular effect on me? On one level, a possession film is so often about someone in denial about the “truth” – that radical evil is real and that we are helpless against it without faith, specifically faith in “the Lord.” The story is all about this horrific realization on the part of a protagonist, whether the mother of the demoniac in question or a priest who has lost his faith and must regain it to prevail (both from the Exorcist), who only after accepting this knowledge has a chance of casting out the evil presence.  Scientific methods may be used to try to diagnose the problem, but they will all fail until the only remaining solution is that of the holy man with a cross. And oddly enough, I feel the filmmakers often may not even intend such a message or experience – they are just trying to tell a scary story and are thus leaning on certain generic conventions, but in so doing, the resultant film can have the vibe of a church basement Halloween Hell House – where they are having great fun creating horrible things (because that is, of course, fun), but it is all in service of scaring the visiting kids away from sin.

Maybe I’m overstating it, but it’s the feeling I get personally.

So if I’m so put off by possession narratives, why am I even writing about them? Well, because I have an exception here – a book that takes the story in a really different direction and delivers a totally distinctive tone. And sometimes, when you find a really good book, you just want to go door to door and tell people about it.

My Best Friend’s Exorcism (2016) by Grady Hendrix

First, I have to say – it is very hard to impossible to really get into what I think is so great about this novel without explicitly discussing the ending, and I feel it features a turn that really can be spoiled. I’ll give a fresh warning before I get to that part and if you think you might like to read the book, do yourself a favor and go pick it up before finishing this text. It’s a really quick read – the first time I did so, I tore through it in one sitting on a flight from Warsaw to NYC, only pausing for meal and bathroom breaks.  

Ok, so this is the story of Abby, whose best friend, Gretchen, gets possessed by a demon, which in turn, must be exorcised. By the end it is. Hooray. Simple, right? But where it is special is in the relationships between the girls.

We start when they first become friends on Abby’s tenth birthday party: an E.T. themed event at the local roller rink (spanning the years 1982-1988, 80s pop culture looms large in this story, very much the air that these friends breath, the idiom they speak – sometimes in shouting misheard Phil Collins lyrics, sometimes in playing Madonna dress up and getting in trouble with one religious mother who does not approve of the material girl, or in this case, just needing E.T. everything). Gretchen, the new girl in class, is the only one to show up, rather than going to a much fancier party being thrown by another kid she doesn’t know; somehow kismet strikes and they really click, thus starting a lifelong friendship. The book takes its time with this utterly non-scary but equally foundational episode, and then carries on taking its time with the next 5 years of the girls’ lives and friendship. I was surprised on re-reading it to find that this only makes up about 50 pages of the book – it had felt like so much more; really getting the connection between them, from running jokes to secrets shared, to embarrassing details of parents’ lives uncovered.

Then, when they’re 16, Gretchen gets possessed and everything goes wrong. The horror elements come quick and hard in this middle stretch: ominous, shadowy figures in the woods, owls bloodily slamming into windows, the feeling of a hand on the neck when no one’s there, creepy voices on the phone at night, beloved pets murdered, white fleshy worm things vomited out. Hendrix pulls no punches in delivering revulsion and shock. But he manages this while at the same time maintaining a somewhat blackly comic tone (I’ve read comparisons to Heathers). But the worst thing is in no way supernatural, but rather just the simple horror of your closest friend changing, betraying your secrets, becoming cruel, becoming someone you can’t trust, someone who hurts people, who is downright evil, and whom you somehow still love. Friendship and love necessarily entail vulnerability, and Abby has no walls to guard her from Gretchen’s malice. She doesn’t need much convincing to believe her friend is possessed by a demon.

So she finds herself an exorcist and now’s a good time to go pick up the book if you think you might like to read it. I’ll wait.

…

Ok, so here is where Hendrix’s book really distinguishes itself from the exorcism pack (and I’ll describe it even though you hopefully just finished reading it). Abby finds an exorcist, Brother Lemon – an earnestly absurd Christian weightlifter with whom she kidnaps, in order to save, her friend. In the process of the exorcism, the demonic presence reveals itself and we get all the typical supernatural spookiness and fluids. Now, Lemon knows all the steps but has never done this before and comes close to killing Gretchen before Abby stops him. He leaves in disgrace and Abby, alone with her friend and something else, has to finish the job.

She starts by following his playbook, reciting prayers and such. It’s kind of working, but she doesn’t believe these words. They are empty symbols for her, and finally, unable to abandon her friend, determined to go down with her if she has to, she finds the words that are true: the misremembered lyrics of a Go-Gos song that played at her 10th birthday party, a litany of singers or actors or shows or jokes or games they have watched or told or played together. The power of Christ might not compel this demon to leave, but maybe the power of Phil Collins can. The power of all the little references and memories, things they have loved and laughed over, secrets they have entrusted one another with. These are authentic things. Absurd and silly and seemingly inconsequential, and real. It is an amazing, exciting, moving sequence.

And it manages to make this the rare exorcism that works for me by basing it on something I can actually believe in. Faith may be necessary for the procedure, but faith need not be religious. Abby acts out of faith, not only in her friend, but in the very concept of Friendship, actualizing not only the love between them, but Love, itself: making out of the frivolous detritus of childhood, icons of power. This was the second time I read it and while the middle section of horrible events lost some effect without the element of surprise, the climax landed just as hard as it had the first time, on a plane, trying to both stifle guffaws and ugly crying – cause that’s kind of embarrassing sitting next to a stranger.

Grady Hendrix has been a really enjoyable discovery for me in the last few years. This was the first book of his that I’d read, but since then I’ve worked through the rest of his available output (some are sadly out of print) – covering a range of horror topics, but all with a kind of light touch – not necessarily comedy, but something humanistic and, for lack of a better word, fun. Whether exploring a haunted Ikea in Horrorstör, a Faustian heavy metal parable in We Sold Our Souls, following middle aged housewives hunting the undead in The Southern Book Club’s Guide to Slaying Vampires, or most recently, delving into the life changing trauma of being a survivor in The Final Girl Support Group, he offers interesting and entertaining spins on well-worn ideas, that come alive in character without sacrificing the horror. My Best Friend’s Exorcism is no exception.

Polish Horror Series # 3 – Mother Joan of the Angels

Posted on by — 1 Comment ↓

So I am continuing my journey through the horror output (or more frequently, as is the case today, horror adjacent output) of this country in which I’ve made my home (you can check out the first two films here and here). It’s an interesting process, bringing a number of films to my attention I might never have otherwise encountered, and today’s entry really justifies doing a project like this. I’m sure some English speaking cinephiles will know this one (I read that Scorcese is a fan), but I had never heard of it until I started this series and asked some Polish friends for recommendations. The world is so wide and there is so much to discover when you start digging in any one place. As a caveat, this can only barely be considered a “horror movie” but it is pretty amazing. If you want some gore, check out last week’s entry on Zombie. So, without further adieu,…

Matka Joanna od Aniołów (1961)

While Jerzy Kawalerowicz’s film may not exactly be horror, it does include enough elements to justify consideration here: mass demonic possession, a double axe murder, a surreal, uncanny setting that feels out of place and time, the lingering horror of witch burnings, and an intense struggle with the demons within – with the dark drives that one may be drawn to, defined by, and drowned in, losing all sense of self.  Also, it dovetails so perfectly with another not-quite-horror-but-still-dealing-with-witch-trials-and-mass-possession classic, Ken Russell’s 1971 The Devils. They are both based on the same historical event, the witch trials of Loudun, France in 1634, with The Devils culminating in the burning at the stake of Father Grandier and Mother Joan being directly preceded by this event. Only in this case, following the novel by Jarosław Iwaszkiewicz, the action has been moved to Poland, removing the political issues inherent to France at that time (Richelieu and such), and thus shifting the theme to something both more personal and spiritually allegorical.

And what a visually striking piece. The cinematography is so stark, so spare; the blacks are deep and inky and the whites almost hurt the eyes. The landscape surrounding the convent where all the action takes place seems somehow lunar – rocky and sandy, devoid of life, pitted with craters. It feels like we are out of the world – in an other space where these questions of self and desire and good and evil and love and life can play out, free from the minutiae of living. References are made to a forest, but it is never seen, never felt – and it seems almost impossible to imagine someplace green and dark and wet from the vantage point of this barren space. I suppose that is fitting for the convent – a place that is meant to be a retreat from the world.

The story centers on a priest, Father Suryn, who has come to help with the exorcism of the Mother Superior of the convent, Mother Joanna (the same part played by Vanessa Redgrave in Russell’s film). The impression is that as leader of the convent, the other nuns follow her lead and are only as possessed as she shows herself to be. Interestingly, I feel that the film never declared with certainty whether anything supernatural is actually happening here. Is Joanna, as she declares, possessed by eight powerful demons, and by extension, are the other nuns possessed as well? Is this a kind of mass hysteria? Is this a kind of liberatory performance, allowing these cloistered, repressed women the freedom to act out – to be wild, to be angry, to be silly? The film even seems disinterested in tackling these questions – I don’t think it’s really the point.

It doesn’t matter what is true – it only matters what people do in their present situations. Perhaps there really are “demons” but they are merely the oft-denied aspects of human nature which, under sufficient repression, must finally explode and reassert themselves. What the characters do with these impulses and how they interact with each other – torment each other – seduce each other – love each other – or rob each other along the way is really at the heart of the piece.

And there is real contrast between the main players here. When we first meet Father Suryn, as played by Mieczysław Voit, in a local inn across from the convent, he is shown against the backdrop of a collection of villagers and others who have travelled from afar to see the spectacle of the possessed nuns (though one bemoans the fact that they never take off their clothes and complains that they should have gone to see a tightrope walker instead).  All of them are so folksy, earthy, grotesque and funny – everything that he is not.  He slices his bread as thin as paper so as not to partake in gluttony and he seems to own only one possession, his cat o’ nine tails, with which he self-flagellates.  On his way to the convent the first time, he talks with the local priest who now cares for the illegitimate children of Father Grandier, a priest who really lived in the world. Near the ashen stake on which Grandier had been burned, a striking black structure standing out in this white expanse, Suryn asks the priest to pray for him before he must do battle with the “evil one.” Shrugging, the father makes a half-hearted sign of the cross and calls the kids to go home, leaving Suryn kneeling alone. His world is not one of dark spirits and grand meaning – there are children to feed and care for, and beer to drink.

Suryn continues to the convent and in this moment, we have a touch of horror. The place is ominous. He is clearly frightened. And the mood of the whole piece is tense and overpowering. And then he meets Joanna and there is a kind of spark. Intelligence flashes in her eyes – whether that of a good soul beset upon by evil forces, or an alien awareness housed behind her own, or the light of independence and defiance; she captivates him. Lucyna Winnicka is quite magnetic here in the title role, lightly dancing between a sweet young girl in need of help, a demonic, sweaty, rough talking visage of evil, and a powerful woman, certain in her powers, satisfied with her choices, defying the world, and proud of her apparent “sin.”

We then see her in relation to the other nuns who seem to model their on plight on hers. A key scene takes place about halfway through the film when some visiting churchmen (whose presence has preceded Suryn) lead an exorcism mass in the church. First we see in close up, one by one, the line of nuns making their way to the service – on each face, we can read different emotions – anger, sadness, fear, confusion, and one of them just keeps spinning in circles. They enter the church and spread out in a kind of phalanx behind Joanna, and it is an intimidating image.  The priests chase them around with holy water and they shriek and hide, all but Mother Joanna standing rebelliously before the altar, and one nun who has been unaffected by the possessions – Sister Małgorzata, to whom I shall return in a bit. The focus then shifts to Joanna. They pray at her; they tie her down and shove crosses in her face, commanding her various demons to vacate the premises. In turn, she gives no ground.

She occasionally plays along, at one point, leading the rest of the sisters in an odd dance of hysteria, in which you can so clearly see how they are watching her and trying to copy, however imprecisely, her movements. At one moment, she reaches her arms up as if in prayer, only to bend over backwards into a bridge, and a horror fan has to wonder if this moment was directly stolen by Friedkin for the Exorcist “spider-walk” twelve years later. At the end, a temporary peace is achieved as Joanna leads the others in prostrating themselves on the ground, lying face down, arms out in prayer. It’s an evocative image, but what has happened? Is this an act of submission or subversion – even in apparent defeat, exerting her influence over the other women of the convent?

Following this outburst, Joanna is separated from the other sisters and their condition seems to immediately improve. Much of the rest of the film consists in private scenes between Joanna and Suryn as he determinedly seeks her “salvation” whether this is something that interests her or not. It’s noteworthy to me that for a film this visual, I felt compelled to transcribe a lot of the dialogue as, even in translation, it is thought provoking and stirring. We get a sense of how this possession frees her, gives her life, makes her special:

“Who am I? A poor servant of the lord – who worships him in a remote convent? I am just a nun. Even though my father is a duke, our family is impoverished. He stays in the Smolensk marshes and nobody knows him. Who am I? A poor nun. And yet eight powerful demons possessed me.”

As a nun, she is already outside of the world, and possessed, she is free from any expectations or restrictions that would remain to her. She loves her devils, her freedom. She takes pride in them, in it. In this sense of liberation, I had another modern resonance, namely of Eggers’s The VVitch. I think Joanna perhaps “wouldst like the taste of butter.” In a later scene, she declares how “this possession gives [her] joy” and lashes out at Suryn who would seek to steal it away from her:

“You only want me to calm down, to become grayer, smaller, to be exactly like all the other nuns.”

Her plight is somewhat reflected in the story of Sister Małgorzata, the one nun unaffected by all of the apparently spiritual activity. We first meet her as she’s slipped out of the convent to visit the inn and gossip with her friend. She is joyful, in the world, and full of life, and she doesn’t need demons to be self-possessed. In the inn, she drinks some vodka with the villagers and meets a handsome visiting noble, here to view the local sensation. Coquettishly, she sings a sweet song about how ‘she would rather be a nun than to have a brute for a husband who would beat her black and blue with his stick because he thinks she needs a beating, no, she’d rather be a nun.’ But obviously, she wouldn’t. She is stuck here at the end of the world and craves love and life, and she feels she has found her way out in sweet flirtation with the nobleman. Sadly, by the end of the film he has had his way with her and escaped before dawn, leaving her “ruined.” Even still, she declares that she will not return to the convent. She does not want that, even after her recent love lost.

Love, or something like it, is also in the air for Joanna and Father Suryn. There is a clear attraction, a chemistry, between them. In one scene, having relocated their private exorcisms to an attic space, divided by white habits hanging to dry, they both whip themselves, scouring the flesh to purify the spirit, or possibly just finding physical and emotional release together in the only acceptable fashion available to them. Afterwards, they dress and exit the attic together shyly and sweetly, like first time lovers. Then Joanne takes it a step too far by trying to kiss the priest’s hand and he flees (his own desires as much as hers).

And there is much talk of love as we reach the climax of both the possession story and their emotional journey. (A warning – while this film is not primarily a vehicle for plot, this next part is certainly a spoiler) Claiming to be motivated by love (for her, for God, for “the good”), the priest takes her demons into himself (again, presaging the end of The Exorcist) and falls down the stairs. Everyone now knows that she has been freed of her affliction and that the demons now reside in a new host. To be sure that his new infernal residents will never leave him, Suryn goes on to brutally murder two servants with an axe while they sleep among the hay in the barn. The film doesn’t show us the actual violence, but rather the reactions of two horses who watch in terror. It’s an effective choice.

But what was this love? Did he really feel for her (maybe he did) or, for all that he had berated her for the sin of pride in loving the attention that she received thanks to her possessed state, has he demonstrated himself to be even more proud, claiming for himself the ultimate mantle of both suffering and heroism, and in the process, stealing from her that which she cherished most? There had been a real impression of connection between them, and in this act, he has robbed her of his intimacy and affections, as well as her freedom. Perhaps that was his intention – if he has the demons within (either spiritual or metaphorical), she cannot; she must be saved, whether she wants it or not.

Either way, we do return to some solid moments of horror in the killing, in Małgorzata discovering him holding the axe, and in a final moment of the Sister and the Mother weeping together as the churchbell (meant to call to lost travelers, wandering in the forest) rings, but while we may see the bell, the soundtrack is only their cries; no traveler is saved – all must wander still.

It is quite a piece, and one which lends itself to multiple readings. I feel I come to this from a modern perspective and in it see a story of frustrated liberation, of joy in defiance, of a claim of love which is actually greed. But I have read an interview with the director in which he indicated primarily a love story. How would this have been received in 1961 in Catholic Poland? (Apparently, the Communist authorities were fine with it, but the church decried it as ‘anti-clerical.’) Is it more of a horror story (or more of a love story, for that matter) if you actually believe in demons? In any case, the style feels so symbolic, so poetic, that it feels truly open for interpretation. We are free even if poor Joanna, ultimately, is not – free to find what meaning we will, or lack of meaning, as the case may be.

A Tropical Feast

Posted on by — 1 Comment ↓

So lately, I’ve covered some pretty classy fare: 19th century historical dramas that are somewhat horror adjacent, works of personal depth and serious scholarship, mildly theoretical discussions of films that seek to challenge the audience’s complacency in viewing horror content. But it’s been a while since I really just dug into a work that is clearly and unabashedly Horror with a capital H.  Something that makes up for what it lacks in class with eyeball trauma and shark fights. It’s not so plot heavy (I mean, technically, there is one), but there will be spoilers if you want to avoid that sort of thing.  Also, it may get a bit gooey.  We’re heading into zombie country.

Zombi 2 (1979)

Lucio Fulci’s Zombie, aka Zombi 2 (the original Italian title, where it was marketed as a sequel to Dawn of the Dead, which in turn had been released as Zombi ), aka Zombie Flesh Eaters, aka Nightmare Island, and many more, is really an exceptional, gory exploitation flick with no pretensions of artistry or polemic, but truly delivering everything it sets out to. It is a simple, plot-light B-movie that is scary when it should be and filled with a great sense of mounting dread, while pulling out all the stops when it comes to some absolutely cringe inducing gore set pieces. It features a couple of really impressive how-did-they-film-that moments; its score, from frequent Fulci collaborator, Fabio Frizzi strikes the balance of creepy and groovy that you want from a late 70s Italian horror movie; and even the camera’s leering gaze when it comes to some particularly gratuitous nudity (do women really go scuba diving in nothing but a string thong – don’t the tank straps chafe?) is somehow charming (if no less exploitative). This movie has no illusions of being high art – it knows exactly what it wants to be, and it achieves it spectacularly.

As I said, the plot is bare bones: a boat drifts into New York Harbor with no visible crew. Some police investigate, meet a large, moldering, peckish fellow who bites one of them before being shot into the water, and bring the boat in to dock. Peter, a newspaper reporter, and Anne, the daughter of the boat’s owner (who had mysteriously disappeared months earlier), begin an investigation that brings them to the Caribbean where they enlist a young couple on vacation to take them to Matul island where doctor Menard has been studying an illness that seems to be reanimating the dead. Zombies attack. The cast is picked off one by one, until all are dead but Peter and Anne, who escape on a boat and plan to return to New York with a bitten friend for the good of science. However, they soon turn on the radio and discover that New York is already overrun with zombies (presumably originating with the bitten police officer). Their friend growls below deck, now a zombie. All is doomed.  The final shot is of the Brooklyn bridge overrun with the undead (I said there’d be spoilers).

Like I said, not much plot, but it gets the job done.

I was sure I’d seen this before, but I think that may just be due to a number of iconic images and scenes, much reproduced across horror journalism and fandom. Happily though, when I finally sat down to watch it, I was met with something fresh and suspenseful, totally new to me, delightfully awful, and giddyingly bleak.

Any viewer more familiar with Romero’s ouvre may expect some degree of social commentary from a zombie narrative and I feel that is all but lacking here. I mean, being set on a Caribbean island, there are inescapable elements of race and colonialism, but while the film has some awareness of the obvious social and power dynamics, it isn’t particularly interested in exploring them, other than to suggest a kind of smug arrogance on the part of Doctor Menard. And even there, he isn’t made out to be some kind of monster, the true villain of the film, but rather just a stubborn figure of “western education” unwilling to accept that the locals, with their folk beliefs, might understand what he does not.  There is a fun interchange between him and his local assistant, Lucas, who describes how the locals believe that voodoo is somehow involved – either in bringing the dead back to life or in trying to forestall this plague. After Dr. Menard calls these beliefs “nonsense” and “a stupid superstition” (though by this point, he has seen his share of the dead rise), Lucas responds with withering irony, “Yes, you are right doctor. You know many more things than Lucas.”

But really, this is not the point of this film. This film cares only about effect. It wants to make you cringe. It wants to titillate. It wants to get under your skin and make it crawl. And it frequently does all of these in the space of one short sequence. One stand out scene features Dr. Menard’s wife, Paola, left alone after an argument in which she had begged to leave the island. First she has a shower, standing in front of a three sided mirror (because that’s a thing people sometimes do) before she gets the sense that someone is watching her (the shower is also right in front of a large window because that’s how buildings are usually designed). The audience sees a decomposing hand fall on the window but she is unaware. Shortly thereafter, she is screaming and running into another room where, after having difficulty closing the door, largely due to the rotting zombie fingers that she eventually manages to sever, she is grabbed by the hair and pulled forward such that her eyeball is slowly and graphically pierced by a large shard of the now splintered door. The whole scene is lecherous and tense, agonizing and really, really gross. As it should be. And while it is obvious when the film cuts to an artificial face and eye, it is no less effective in making even a seasoned horror fan flinch at its intensity – at least I did.

The most famous scene in the film apparently wasn’t even intended by Fulci but was added by a producer and filmed by a second unit director, and it’s so good that they did. I speak of course of the seminal Zombie vs Shark showdown. On the way to the island, Susan (of the vacationing couple) goes scuba diving.  She sees a pretty big tiger shark and hides among some sea flora. Suddenly an arm bursts out of the shadows and grabs her. There is a zombie down here (for some reason), and it is, as one might expect, hungry. After shoving some seaweed in its face (which is surprisingly effective), she escapes. The zombie tries to pursue but then the shark returns. Thus begins an epic struggle between the two creatures, each trying to devour the other. The zombie takes a bite out of the shark, but the shark bites off the zombie’s arm and swims off (and hey, since it was bitten, I guess it should become a zombie too?). In an era well before digital effects, this is an amazing feat of filmmaking. Apparently, the zombie was the shark’s trainer who had given it a big meal and a sedative before filming. He had to swim down (without a tank) so that they could film for 30 seconds or so at a time before ascending again for air. Thus, the whole sequence was shot. It’s amazing no one died.

And these are just a couple of exemplary samples. The whole film really works just as well. Beyond the great scoring, the sound design is so potent, often disquietingly ominous when it isn’t revoltingly squelchy with intermittent fly buzz. Also, the film, taking advantage of its tropical location, tends to be pretty gorgeous to look at. The azure waves, the palms blowing in a summer gale, mounds of earth being displaced by bodies as they surface – there is a real sense of location, and a hot, humid, breezy stickiness which helps maintain the putrescent atmosphere. Finally, the approach to the zombies themselves is striking and unique. Staci Ponder, co-host of the Gaylords of Darkness podcast, I think really put her finger on why – they are simply dead. Frequently, their eyes are closed – they don’t track their prey, but move almost without purpose until they have a chance to consume. They don’t even seem to relish in their feasting, but just chew mechanically – not ferociously. And there is something so unsettling and uncomfortable about this view of shuffling, mindless death. The less intentional it is, the more unstoppable it somehow feels – like real death – just an unthinking force of nature.

And what a tremendous ending! I know that it’s supposed to be a bleak sucker punch, but as they heard the news of what had happened to New York, I just wanted to stand up and cheer, and not because I have anything against the Big Apple (I rather love NYC). It was just such a great shock.  The groundwork had been laid.  We had seen the bite and we even saw a twitch of movement under a coroner’s sheet, but that had been more than an hour earlier; in the meantime, the story had moved on, and I at least had completely forgotten. It was just so much fun to actually get surprised. As the undead shambled across the Brooklyn bridge, I was just elated with the grand scope of the twist. The film had been so contained, but in the end, it was positively apocalyptic.

Past that, in its low budget glory, the film has endless B-movie charm. Being an Italian genre film, it has terrible dubbing, the dialogue is sometimes endearingly on the nose (e.g. “What is all this about the dead coming back to life and having to be killed a second time? I mean, what the hell is going on here?”), and there are some editing snafus that it’s hard not to love – there is a late sequence when zombies are attacking the missionary hospital. The living have prepared Molotov cocktails in defense and bottle after bottle is thrown at the advancing horde, exploding on impact. The only thing is that each time a new bottle is thrown, I’m pretty sure we see the same, repeated shot of it landing and bursting into flame. It’s as if right after each explosion, all of the fire goes out, the zombies all take two steps back and we go again. This happens perhaps five times. It’s an economic choice that may not quite work for the action sequence, but pays dividends in comic value.

Sometimes you don’t really feel like thinking so much. Sometimes, you just want a horror film that, you know, horrifies, and in which you have fun getting horrified – and this is such a film. It’s not one for the weak stomached or those who can’t put up with bad dubbing, but if you enjoy being made to squirm in your seat, if you appreciate the obvious joy that goes into really pulling off some disgusting effect, if you can vicariously get a kick out of a director doing everything in his power to get a rise out of you, this just might be a film for you.

Delightfully Flinching in the New Header

Posted on by — 1 Comment ↓

So, this has been in the works for quite some time, and now I’m happy to finally announce a brand-spanking new header for the site.  If you’re on a mobile device, you may not see it, so here it is (with apologies to desktop users for the duplication):

Particular gratitude is due to the photographer, Klaudia Bałazy, and the models, Gabriela, Julia, Ola, Kasia (who also had the idea for the image), and Magda, all of whom I’m happy to collaborate with in La Folie – Retro Cabaret Show. Thanks all – I think it’s pretty groovy!

Photo: Tomasz Wynalazek

The image (at the top of the page – or if you are an e-mail subscriber – click through to check it out) grows out of a cabaret sketch we did for a Halloween performance. The idea of the sketch was to recreate the style of a silent horror film – all women in incongruously elegant gowns (ala The Old Dark House), exploring a creepy old manor by candle light, discovering a shrouded figure, and, fingers trembling, reaching out to reveal his monstrosity (ala Phantom of the Opera), before screaming in a building terror that edges on madness (ala Metropolis) – but funny.

It was a comedy bit after all, and the idea was to both pay homage to the visual sumptuousness of the silent era and to have some fun with the over-the-top-ness of the premise.  One woman shrieking in fear might be scary. Four women, one seemingly straight laced husband, and the hideously deformed creature chasing them all sequentially startling each other like classic Scooby Do shtick and then silently shrieking in alarm was hopefully pretty funny.  

Photo: Tomasz Wynalazek

It was a treat to work on and I think the effect achieved with relatively simple means (LED candles and one technician with a close handheld light source) was stylish, atmospheric, and playful. It is a real pleasure – a delight, you might say – to bring to life even a small idea that really tickles your fancy. And out of it was born a visual concept for this blog that took a few months to finally execute, but with which I’m really happy: five women, in chic dresses, screaming like something out of a classic film.

So, let’s talk about that. Once I finally finished assembling the image, I couldn’t help but notice that gender had been (perhaps inadvertently, but nonetheless, prominently) foregrounded. I mean, it is such a long standing criticism of the genre that it focuses on and fetishizes images of female suffering. Whether or not that critique is totally accurate has been fairly challenged, but perhaps the very fact that I didn’t include any guys – it just wouldn’t have been the iconic look I was after – does imply the persistence of a trend and suggest that it should be discussed.

On one level, this is evident throughout the history of the genre – looking at classic horror cinema from the silent era, the 30s Universal horrors, Val Lewton in the 40s, monster movies of the 50s, up to the slasher boom of the late 70s-80s, and beyond, a woman screaming is just such a central image. For some critics, this is a sign of an inherent misogyny – the viewer is invited to sadistically and vicariously get off on looking from the POV of the masculine threat at his prey. Others perceive a different, but not necessarily less misogynistic, approach – the woman is the endangered protagonist because her gender implies a vulnerability which makes the threat that much scarier – now, vicariously identifying with the female body situates us, the viewers, more as “victims.” Still others defend the trend as pure style or aesthetics (thus opening themselves up to new criticisms of objectification) – Dario Argento once famously said, “I like women, especially beautiful ones…I would much rather watch them being murdered than an ugly girl or man.”

And others have read this totally differently. You could certainly take the degree to which the woman is in the middle of the horror narrative as positive; regardless of the reasons for it, compared to the majority of other genres, horror’s number of female protagonists (final girls, scream queens, imperiled ingénues, or what have you) is effectively quite progressive. Sure – women might be centered so that the protagonist can display “weak” traits that are unfairly coded as feminine (fear, hysteria, physical weakness). I’m pretty sure I remember Carol Clover describing how, in the figure of the “final girl,” the audience can have its cake and eat it too, identifying both with her feminized fear and with the moment when she stands up and fights back, taking on what are read as masculinized characteristics (and, of course, striking out with some penetrative sharp phallic object – Freud is all over this stuff).

But I think what this all really speaks to is how unrealistic the “strong” traits coded as masculine are.  In a moment of real crisis, I expect most of us are more likely to freeze up, be incapable of acting, and hide in a corner weeping until ugly death comes for us.  Exceptionally few would have the chutzpa to really rise as some hyper-masculine action star and lay waste to the threat, whatever it might be. I think these maligned traits, supposedly feminine, may actually be just the most realistic traits for any character to have. Facing true horror, honestly, who wouldn’t scream?

A striking example here is Barbara from Night of the Living Dead. The presentation of her character has oft been denounced as unfair to women. Of all of the figures in the seminal zombie classic, she is particularly useless, spending much of the film either hysterically freaking out or in a state of near catatonia. George Romero even took the criticism to heart and in the 1990 remake, which he wrote but didn’t direct, she was a total badass to make up for it. That’s fine – it’s actually a kind of good movie in its own right – but I think Barbara from the original rings so true. Here’s this young woman who sees her brother killed in front of her, gets chased by some weird madman to a house in the middle of nowhere, and comes to realize that the dead are rising and eating the flesh of the living! If there’s a more appropriate time to snap under the pressure, I can’t think of one and I think that put in her position, more people (men and women) would behave exactly as she does.

So, at the end of the day, sure – it’s impossible to deny that there are social inequities associated with the classic image of the screaming woman, but I think sometimes they are more linked with expectations that unjustly persist in society than with what the picture itself necessarily communicates. For my part, I really love the new image we’ve created here. I think it strikes a balance of terror and playfulness, with a classic cool vibe (and the gender focus is a part of that), celebrating the films themselves and reveling in the horror, while calling for some degree of reflexivity – some work of interpretation. Life is endlessly complicated and we are all probably ultimately unknowable to ourselves, so anything that suggests we take a moment for consideration is worthwhile.

Photo: Tomasz Wynalazek

In our sketch, it was finally one of the girls who enters into the house, finds the square jawed, masculine, husband type tied up in the basement, screaming for his life and saves him, before revealing that she’s actually a vampire and biting his throat. The point is that sometimes, you can be all things, having and eating your cake, enjoying the repeating image of the screaming woman and inverting that image to have one save the day, and inverting it once again to make her the monster.  All of the aforementioned perspectives can be simultaneously correct – even when they contradict each other. Maybe especially when they do.