My Horror History – attempted reconstruction

So a question that sometimes comes up is “how did you get into horror?” I participate in a number of Facebook groups and people repeatedly compare the earliest horror they saw, often in the context of debating what’s alright to show to their own kids and at what age. I know some saw and loved The Exorcist or listened to their parents watching Nightmare on Elm Street when they were five or six and just immediately fell in love with it and never looked back. That wasn’t me. As I mentioned when I wrote about Nightmare, I remember as a kid just being really wigged out by Freddy’s omnipresence before I was ready for him, but I was always into what might be termed ‘horror-adjacent, kid friendly’ stuff. I didn’t want to be scared but I did like monsters. But I really didn’t want to be scared. I remember I had this collected works of Edgar Allen Poe and I sometimes would turn it backwards on the shelf because old Edgar’s face was just a bit too intense for my young imagination. Or there was one night I remember when I was home alone and I was listening to my record of Thriller (on vinyl, not because I was that hip but because I’m that old) and Vincent Price’s rap just really got to me and I had to turn on all the lights and lock the doors.

But somehow, eventually, I did get into horror, to the point that here I am, trying to stay on top of my weekly publication schedule on this here ‘horror blog.’ So I thought it might be an interesting exercise to try to recreate my journey. How did I get here? What were the touchstones along the way that got me from that kid who had to turn books around to this “adult” who still gets spooked by shadows when going to the bathroom in the middle of the night…but one who also loves horror flicks?

Earliest Memories

Well, I know I always loved Halloween from the very beginning. I loved the spooky but not too scary atmosphere and we always threw a big Halloween party at our house. I loved imagining a costume and dressing up, though sometimes my imagination was stronger than the ability to pull it off – I vaguely remember a Hobgoblin (from Spider-Man) costume one year that was essentially just my snowsuit with a cape. I also remember early work with gore effects when I dressed up as a skateboarder who’d had a terrible accident and was all bandaged and bloody. Also, I know I watched the behind the scenes feature for the Thriller video every time it came on TV – it was surely my introduction to the very idea of special FX makeup – and somehow, maybe at some amazing thrift store, my parents even found me a child sized version of Michael Jackson’s jacket – the red one with all the zippers (technically, it was the costume for the Beat It video, but close enough).

I loved the Halloween specials that would air every year (The Garfield one, where he’s chased by angry pirate ghosts, really creeped me out) – it was a special occasion when they would come on TV.  Certain kids films that had some scary moments really left an impression as well – The Last Unicorn, The Secret of NIMH, or Return to Oz, for example. I also remember some animated piece with a lot of seals and sea lions and a lot of them died brutally, though I don’t remember why – that left some scar on my soul, whatever it was.

Past that, as mentioned above, I liked monsters, but I didn’t need to be scared by them. Whether on The Munsters or The Addams Family re-runs or in a movie like Little Monsters (1989), I could appreciate how they were cast as misunderstood outsiders – monstrous but ultimately sympathetic figures – their weirdness worthy of celebration – because we’re all weird and feel threatened by the so-called ‘normal people.’ I don’t exactly remember watching the old Universal monster movies when I was a kid, but I feel like they could have been on TV some time (I think I must have at least seen Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein – which still holds up as a great horror comedy), but I loved Young Frankenstein, and I feel like I had an impression of the pitiable position of Frankenstein’s Creature, the Wolfman, or the Creature from the Black Lagoon. On the other hand, I do remember being scared by real life anecdotes. At some point in Elementary School, I was into reading about the occult and mysterious things and I remember some book that detailed brutal acts attributed to Vlad Tepes which really shook me. I was not ready for historical descriptions of enemies skewered on pikes or children thrown to pits of hungry dogs. Still, I did enjoy a fun kids vs monsters adventure like Monster Squad.

I also did have an early appreciation of the gothic and enjoyably morbid. As mentioned above, I really clicked with Poe in perhaps 4th grade (and remember memorizing and reciting The Raven for class). I don’t think I fully understood him – some of the poetry especially was a bit beyond my ken, but I really got the mood of it all. Otherwise, I remember that my family had some book of Edward Gorey’s. It may have been The Gashlycrumb Tinies (which I love), or something else – the memory is blurred. I seem to remember the image of a python with the impression of a child inside. Either way, it was not my book. It was my mother’s or it had been a grandparent’s. Maybe especially because it was not really for me, I just loved it – like some kind of treasure. It was funny, and dark, and the art was captivating, and it really had this blackly comic edge which spoke to me, the language suggesting a children’s book, but it was not really a children’s book – at least not like others I’d had.

Gorey also illustrated the covers for some gothic mysteries for kids that I just ate up during late elementary/early middle school (I’m not 100% on the timeline). The works of John Bellairs (The Curse of the Blue Figurine, The Figure in the Shadows, and The Spell of the Sorcerer’s Skull, among many, many others) just captured my attention and I remember reading them outside on hot summer days and having a delicious chill that probably foretold the appreciation I would develop later for horror.

At the same time, horror films were still too much for me. Though I loved movies like Beetlejuice, Teen Wolf, Ghostbusters, or Gremlins (which I went crazy for – you’d think those green, clawed monsters could be a bit much for 5 year old me, but I thought it was just great!), I remember even just the trailers for actual adult horror movies on TV really getting under my skin. I can’t put my finger on which entries in their respective series I saw advertised, but I remember being really disturbed by ads for some Phantasm movie, some Hellraiser flick, Child’s Play, Pet Sematary, and Poltergeist III. It was also probably about this time that my grandparents got cable, including the premium movie channels and I remember stumbling onto moments from some Friday the 13th that freaked me out, as did a zombie film I’ve never been able to identify, but it featured the army and it wasn’t one of the Return of the Living Dead movies. Also, the bit in Poltergeist II when Craig T. Nelson swallows the worm in the tequila bottle, gets possessed by Rev. Kane, tries to rape his wife, and finally vomits out a squirming, disgusting tentacle thing just kept showing up when I would channel surf. I mean, it was like it followed me around. Still not into horror movies, I really did not want to watch it, but it would pop up when I least suspected it somehow.

A Middle Period – Edging Towards Horror

In the Middle School and High School years, I grew to enjoy work that was closer to horror and would periodically watch a horror movie, but still was not a “horror fan.” Some time in Middle School I discovered The Toxic Avenger (probably inappropriate in a wide variety of ways, but custom made for an eleven or twelve year old) and went on a kick of cheapie b-movie, cheesy fare which was generally in poor taste and never actually scary, but which featured tongue-in-cheek and/or “so-bad-it’s-good” campy sex and violence. It was probably around this time that I discovered USA – Up All Night, alternatingly hosted by Rhonda Shear in a ditzy valley girl mode or Gilbert Gottfried in a very Gilbert Gottfried mode, which broadcast salacious, cheap horror movies, but all highly edited for TV (which probably meant that some had been so chopped up as to be nonsensical). I remember summers when I stayed at my grandmother’s place, staying up late watching b-movies with my uncle and just loving them in their ridiculous, low budget, over-the-top glory. Up All Night also featured solid, “real” horror movies, but I would skip those in lieu of fun fare like Student Bodies, Eating Raoul, Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death, Return of the Killer Tomatoes, or Monster High. It’s a long time since I’ve looked back on this, but I expect that was a formative time in developing my love for this stuff.  These days, I still have a sweet place in my heart for this sort of campilly exploitative and yet loveably affordable work.

It was also during these years that I really fell in love with work with dark overtones. I bumped into Nightbreed one night on TV and was so struck by its utterly sympathetic, hunted monsters (who looked just amazing) and its one really scary figure – the totally normal human masked killer. In High School, I just adored The Crow and Bram Stoker’s Dracula, and got really into the “White Wolf – World of Darkness” RPGs (Vampire, Werewolf, Wraith, Changeling, and Mage). They all engaged with horror concepts and characters, and sometimes, especially in Wraith – the Oblivion, a super fun game where you play a tortured soul who’s failed to move on after death and must endlessly wander the Shadowlands, they focused on the exact concept of Horror itself (I remember an Afterword in which one of the main White Wolf designers, Mark Rein-Hagen, included an essay on the difference between ‘terror’ and ‘horror’ – probably the first time I’d ever considered this distinction – it wouldn’t be the last).

Still, when trying out some “serious horror films,” I balked. I remember renting Candyman with a friend and after the moment when Helen wakes up covered in blood, we both checked out and needed a palate cleanser (maybe we ended up watching The Lost Boys that night.)  – I didn’t return to it again until years later, after college, watching it with the same friend, and that time we finished it, and I loved it (but was still unwilling to enter the bathroom for a couple hours – that was…not comfortable).

But no one was more influential in bringing me to the genre during this period than Clive Barker (who had, unbeknownst to me at the time, written and directed Nightbreed and written the story on which Candyman was based). While grocery shopping with my parents, I came across a discounted copy of Imajica (not horror so much as a mythological/modern fantasy), started reading it and was utterly intrigued. I brought it home and was hooked. It was so cinematic in its scope, so weird, idiosyncratic, sexual, mythic, magical, fleshy, and just absolutely epic, how could I not love it? Following that, I worked my way through his other non-horror, but still frequently gory and goopy works of weird fiction, such as The Great and Secret Show and Everville and eventually picked up a used copy of one of the Books of Blood (the collected omnibus of which I’ve been on and off revisiting for the last half year).

I’d read a bit of Stephen King before that, but not really his horror stuff, so this was probably my introduction to true horror fiction. And I loved it. It was captivating, the ideas were provocative, and though I could taste the ‘horror’ of it, it didn’t exactly scare me. I remember at the time thinking about how there was a big difference between reading and watching horror. When reading, I painted the picture myself and I set the mood – my imagination was part of the process and if I wanted to engage with the characters, the ideas, the themes, and the story, but I didn’t want to be scared, then I wouldn’t be (these days, I feel the same about any film – I have to want to and let myself be scared to actually get scared). But when watching something, it was more like a roller coaster and I had less feeling of control – just taken wherever the filmmaker wanted to take me and sometimes, I could be jostled around more than I liked. Eventually, having read The Forbidden (the source material for Candyman), and loving its exploration of the intersection of storytelling and belief, I was finally ready to revisit and embrace the film one day.

Becoming a Fan

During my college years, I saw some movies here and there, but didn’t really move forward much towards fandom, though one film did leave a lasting impression. While I’d enjoyed watching some ‘scary movies’ with friends (and also, on the horror theme, I loved watching friends play Resident Evil a lot, all screaming when zombies attacked, and really enjoyed this VHS board game, Nightmare (or was our version Atmosfear? I’m not sure.)), I still hadn’t been sold on just how good a horror movie could be. It wasn’t until a friend showed me Rosemary’s Baby during my Sophomore year that I finally got it, and came to understand how horror could be enjoyed beyond the level of screaming with friends at jump scares or laughing at b-movie schlock. Polanski’s film (which, it should be said, is very faithful to Levin’s book, such that Levin should really get some credit here) was just a revelation both in terms of the emotional and social impact horror could offer and in the simple, but masterful, film making that could be so effective. By that time, I’d seen plenty of startling moments and blood on film, but I probably hadn’t seen anything scarier than the scene when Rosemary is in a phone booth, desperately trying to make an appointment with her doctor and the camera just keeps moving around her, implying that every person on the street could be part of this mysterious Satanic conspiracy from which she is fleeing, that they could catch her at any moment. It genuinely blew me away and reframed in my mind what Horror could be.

Finally, after College and Grad School (where I did Performance Studies – a kind of theoretical intersection of performance theory and anthropology/sociology/(queer/post-colonial/gender/fill-in-the-blank)-studies, I relocated to Chicago and soon thereafter became a fan. I decided at one point, perhaps in 2002, to create a “midnight horror-show” performance (which as one review fairly pointed out, started at 11 and premiered after Halloween had finished – so it was oddly timed at best).

Sadly, I really do not have good pictures from this show – this may be the least blurry.

In preparation for this, I started doing research, watching horror movies like never before. I spent a lot of money in the video store in those days, just educating myself and working through the horror section as much as possible. I rewatched things I’d seen before and liked. I saw my first Argento films. I subjected myself to unpleasant watches like Last House on the Left, I Spit on Your Grave, and Cannibal Holocaust. I discovered films that I still love today, such as Wes Craven’s New Nightmare. I tried to watch the entirety of the ‘canon’ of horror of the second half of the 20th century. And at the same time, I read voraciously about horror. That included very approachable works like Stephen King’s Danse Macabre, his history of horror literature, but also denser theoretical work such as Carol Clover’s much referenced Men, Women, and Chainsaws.

I have wrestled with this, but I cannot remember exactly what made me want to do the horror show (which had the glorious title, Dreadful Penny’s Midnight Cavalcade of Ghoulish Delights – some things about it worked and some didn’t, and years later we revisited it with different successes and failures – someday I’ll write about those experiences). Had I already become obsessed with the genre (I don’t think so), or was it just a bit of a whim – something I thought could be a rich subject for performance (probably)? I feel like there is a key moment that my memory has just lost. But I think it wasn’t until I started to view the work through various different theoretical lenses that I really became a ‘fan.’ While I had enjoyed a good scary movie now and then and thought it was fascinating that this was actually something to enjoy, and while I had seen some really good films in the genre that were clearly “about” things, it wasn’t until I came to these theoretical writings in this phase of ‘research’ that I really fully embraced it all.

For the second Dreadful Penny, we actually did a photo shoot.

Finally I had a framework through which to enjoy the full range of work on offer. I could appreciate the high artistry of an emotional-psychological piece like Jacob’s Ladder. I could revel in the campy charms of an independently produced, low budget, but so very creative and lovingly produced movie like Phantasm. I could vibe on the blatant social commentary with gore of something like Dawn of the Dead. And while I could also go along for the ride with a simple, bloody slasher in which it didn’t feel like the filmmakers had really intended to make “art” per se, I could also see how it serves as a rich artifact of a time and a place and a psychological-sociological portrait that rewards deep reading.

Over the twenty years since then, I have gone through periods of being more or less of a fan. I’ve had times when I’ve taken a break and come back fresh. I’ve also had periods of greater intensity, such as one which started in about 2016 when I started listening to a variety of regular horror podcasts and which has culminated in this current project of maintaining this blog and really trying to produce some interesting thoughts on the subject each week.  Generally, that means watching movies and writing about them. But occasionally, it is something like this – just attempting a personal reflection about my own relationship to the work. So, thanks for joining me – this was enriching for me at least to take this stroll down memory lane – I hope perhaps it was somehow interesting for anybody else to read.

‘Tis the Season

In discussing a genre such as horror, there are endless discussions of whether or not a given work should be included. Is something a thriller or a horror movie (can it be both)? Can it be horror if it isn’t scary (I’d say yes)? Can it be horror if there’s no element of the supernatural (of course)? These conversations often feel like pointless hairsplitting at best and mean-spirited gatekeeping at worst, but they also feel inevitable (I’ve spent at least one post going down that rabbit hole myself) – how can you really talk about something in any meaningful way if you can’t even agree on what it is?

But sometimes, it’s quite clear: the film was directed by one of horror’s most influential directors; it has both scenes of squirm inducing discomfort and sequences of stalking, home invasion, and assault; and it revolves around one of the all-time most classic “monsters” – witches. Very obviously, the film in question is not a horror film. More of a domestic drama. But one which I think a fan of the genre is well served by considering.

All of this is to say that this week, we’ll be looking at George Romero’s 1973 low-budget, feminist, occult drama, The Season of the Witch. As usual, there will be spoilers, so be forewarned.

The Season of the Witch (1973)

I’ve been trying to put my finger on what it is about this movie that I like so much. As described above, it is a real stretch to consider it horror (more of a drama with intimations of the occult). Furthermore, while I absolutely appreciate the film’s socio-political position, it is more than a little on the nose, with what it lacks in subtlety made up for by being really, really blatant. On top of that, it’s fairly slow and not all that much actually happens, and while some performers stand out, it is clearly peopled by the regional talent that Romero had easy access to in Pittsburgh (nothing against “the city of bridges,” but some of these players would not have gone far in NYC or Hollywood). Finally, it was riddled with production issues, with the producers more than halving the budget and chopping Romero’s original cut down by more than 40 minutes (and tossing the negatives, such that most of that is fully lost). And yet, somehow, the result feels so idiosyncratic, independent, deeply watchable, and rather moving. It is not Romero’s best work, but one can easily see him in it, and I have enjoyed revisiting it from time to time over the years.

Originally titled Jack’s Wife, this is a story of a woman trapped by her role – mother, wife, homemaker. The original title suggested how utterly she is discounted by the world around her – not a person, but a relationship, a possession. The distributer felt that name wasn’t going to sell tickets and retitled it Hungry Wives!, marketing it as a softcore sex film. The fact that there is very little sex shown and none of it is remotely explicit meant that the target audience left cinemas pretty unsatisfied. Eventually, it was re-released as The Season of the Witch (after the Donovan song that plays in a key sequence), meaning that now many horror fans would leave unsatisfied, but some, such as myself, have found it to be a lovely, little gem.

Joan (Jan White) is the stay-at-home mother of an adult daughter. Her husband is out of town on business more than he is home. She has no vocation and no one really needs her to do very much. She spends much of her time idly drinking, gossiping, or playing cards with the other neighborhood wives (who are, to be fair, a real hoot!), but the whole time, however done up her hair is, or how perfectly she keeps her home, she seems distant, clearly unengaged, unfulfilled, with a  gentle smile that never reaches her eyes. I wrote above that the film lacks subtlety, but White deserves credit for bringing genuine nuance to so much of her screen time. She communicates a great deal with very little and it is easy to immediately feel for her.

The film opens with a long dream sequence in which she follows behind her husband in the woods as he reads the paper, drinks tea, and eats breakfast, all the while leaving branches to whip her in the face, before he finally puts a collar around her neck, leashes her, and leads her into a kennel where he gives instruction for her care during the week he’ll be away for work. As I’ve said – not exactly subtle, but it is an effective, odd opening. Throughout the film, we spend a lot of time in her dreams, frequently unsure whether an event is real or imagined. We inhabit the space of her anxieties and dissatisfaction; the things she desires seemingly inexorably tied to those she fears: the violation of her home/cage, a threatening, magnetic male presence, and a dangerous, disruptive wild, dark power.  

Through a friend of a friend, she encounters some materials on witchcraft and, her husband out of town and her daughter having run away from home (more on that later), she begins to explore the dark arts, edging closer and closer to reckoning with and owning her own will, and acting to have it done. Along the way, she has a fling with a younger man (an irritatingly trollish, but charismatic guy who had been intermittently seeing her daughter), burns a lot of incense, summons a devil (or maybe just lets a cat into her basement), and (accidentally?) shoots her husband. In the end, we see Joan again at a neighborhood party, but now her reserve, similar to that shown at the beginning, clearly implies a self-satisfaction that makes her the center of attention (even if she is still labeled in the final line of the movie as “You know, Jack’s wife”).

On the horror movie of it all, as Romero does again in his later film Martin (1978), it is never clear whether anything supernatural has actually happened or not. In Martin that question is central to the story and the horror – either the protagonist is a tragic vampire or he is a dangerous psychopath – the ambiguity is key. In this case, however, the film doesn’t concern itself with even questioning whether or not Joan’s magic has any effect. Perhaps Greg comes to her because she cast a spell under moonlight, or maybe he comes because she called him on the phone – in a way it doesn’t matter as much as simply seeing her ask for his presence (to the spirits or via technological means) – seeing her become a willful agent. But still, that uncertainty does add a taste of mystery to the proceedings that brings it somewhat closer to a horror film.

And of course, Joan’s plight is a horrific one – and all the more so for how unnotable it is. Suffering from what Betty Friedan termed “the problem that has no name” in her 1963 text, The Feminine Mystique, Joan finds herself in an empty existence, fulfilling the roles that had been set out for her (and the rest of her neighborhood housewife coterie), surrounded by the creature comforts promised by 50s era Madison Avenue and women’s magazines that glamorized homemaking and helped lure women back out of the workforce after the war. At one point, she has a dream in which she is being shown the house by some sort of agent, and it feels as if she is both being given a nigh endless list of “nice things” and being bound to a dreary responsibility, tied to this building and these objects; the scene is a bit funny, but also haunting.

There is an interesting contrast to be had with her daughter Nikki (Joedda McClain). As a young woman in the sexual revolution of the early 1970s, she has a totally different relationship to sex, relationships, independence, and willfulness than her mother. It’s not clear exactly how old she is, but it’s implied that she’s in college, such that she is in a casual relationship with Greg, an aggressively superior, yet smarmily charming student-teacher there. Still, for all of her freedom and steady self-confidence, she is treated by both her parents and society as a kind of a child. Following a falling out, she leaves home and is considered a runaway, the police called in to search for her. I can only assume that this wouldn’t have happened had she been a 20 year old boy.

The most striking scene in the film features this mother-daughter relationship. After accompanying her friend, Shirley, to visit a “witch” for a tarot card reading, the two of them end up back at Joan’s where Nikki and Greg are hanging out. In an increasingly uncomfortable episode, the four of them drink together, and Greg needles the older women, especially Shirley, targeting her insecurities of growing old, of being undesirable, attacking the hangups that stop her from doing whatever she wants and suggesting that sad, repressed people like her are ‘what’s wrong with this country.’ Nikki apologetically makes half-hearted attempts to reign him in and Joan makes some effort to cut him down for his cruelty, but at the same time, there seems to be a spark between them – antagonistic, but intriguing. Ultimately, she is complicit in Greg’s tricking Shirley into thinking that she’s just tried pot (it’s just a normal cigarette) as he proves a point about the susceptibility and power of the mind and viciously pushes Shirley to an emotional breaking point to reveal just how unhappy she actually is beneath her veneer of happy, square, middle-class housewifery. I mean, he’s not wrong, but he’s also a mean prick.

After driving Shirley home, Joan returns to find that the young couple is still there, sounds of laughter and sexual pleasure coming from her daughter’s room. Visibly unsure what to do, Joan creeps down the hall to her own room and closes the door, but she can still hear them. She buries her head in the pillows, but can’t block them out and is soon physically turned on herself, and disturbed by that fact. But is she so upset because it feels wrong to be so aroused by hearing her daughter’s moans or because she is jealous of a pleasure and a freedom that feel completely lost to her?  She ends in tears shortly before Nikki bursts in, disgusted to realize that her mother had been listening the whole time. This is what prompts her to “run away.”

In the next scene, her husband is furious with her and even strikes her for doing nothing, for not stopping their daughter from “being balled in the next room,” for somehow failing as a mother in letting this 20-something young woman leave home. Notably, Joan is not worried about Nikki at this point – not really. She doesn’t explicitly say this, but Nikki is a confident and self-sufficient adult who can make her own decisions and deal with her own mistakes (something Joan, in contrast, has trouble doing). Rather, Joan is worried about herself – what she wants, what she no longer has the ability to put up with. Soon after, on a Donovan groove, she heads into the city, buys a chalice, a knife, and some herbs, and starts reciting the Lord’s Prayer backwards before bed.

She also starts dreaming about a masked intruder breaking into her house and attacking her (in sequences that could have found a place in a more traditional horror movie). Does this dream figure represent the threat and attraction she feels from and towards Greg, the danger of her own unchecked desire running wild, the risk of tampering with dark, occult forces, or just a dangerous maleness, as much her husband as patriarchal society writ large? Later, as these dreams blur into reality, all of these possible interpretations will come to a bloody head.

In recent years, I’ve heard many female led horror films described as “good-for-her” films. Whether Thomasin in The VVitch, Dani in Midsommar, or Dawn in Teeth, there is often a specific and characteristic satisfaction to seeing some woman or girl, whom we have seen marginalized by the people in her life, if not society in general, rising up and taking her place of strength, even if that means engaging in bloody acts. Even if they end up complicit in murder, if not murderers themselves, it’s hard not to nod with a kind of bloody minded approval and think, “good for her.” Romero’s Joan is decades ahead of this curve, shooting her husband in the final reel (possibly accidentally, thinking him the dream intruder, possibly not), this act and its immediate aftermath intercut with her initiation into the local coven of witches.

In that ceremony, a rope is looped around her neck and she is led to kneel, echoing her kennel dream at the opening of the film. Does this suggest that she has just traded one cage for another? I’m not sure why, but in choosing this binding for herself, it doesn’t feel that way. As the film ends, she seems so much more alive. In its bundle of will, magic, the power of the mind, desire, and the mysteries of attraction, Romero’s film presents this woman coming into her own, coming to life, and it is an engaging and touching journey.

While only nominally a horror movie and not the strongest piece in his catalogue, this artifact of early Romero (his third film, after Night of the Living Dead and a romantic comedy I haven’t seen called There’s Always Vanilla) pairs interestingly with both The Amusement Park (also 1973), a recently resurfaced public service short he made about the horrific way the elderly are discarded, and the abovementioned, excellent Martin (also, I assume it must be a direct influence on the rather enjoyable Jakob’s Wife (2021), a story of a dissatisfied housewife getting her groove back after being bitten by a vampire – I wrote a short bit about it here). There could be a valid discussion of how much Romero succeeds or not in engaging with difficulties that were clearly not his own lived experience, but he does so with earnestness and real heart, while bringing some cinematic flair to this grainy, bleak setting. People complain sometimes these days about horror “being too political,” about “virtue signaling” trumping storytelling. Those people should avoid this film – they would hate it. But if you can give it the time, if you can make some allowances, you may find The Season of the Witch the small delight that I do.

Polish Horror Series #6 – I Like Bats

Really digging into horror cinema (or any cinema) means engaging with all kinds of work. You’ve got masterpieces that are both entertaining and artistically profound. You’ve got cheap B-movies that aren’t “great works of art” but evince a love of the creative process and feature some worthy ideas. You’ve got utter trash that is all the more lovable for just how trashy it is. The highest highs and the lowest lows both have their pleasures.

But sometimes a work can be hard to classify. There are ideas there. There are moments, elements, a look, a shot, a concept that intrigues, a performance that holds your attention, but it doesn’t exactly come together for you. Sometimes you don’t know if you’re encountering an artistic choice, where filmmakers have really taken a chance on something different (narratively, in how a film is cut, in a non-naturalistic style of performance) or if it is frankly just ineptitude. Are the themes and ideas of a given film complex and nuanced, ironically presented and rich in their ambiguity, their seeming ambivalence in fact the point, or has an intended message just been muddled, having haphazardly thrown together actions, events, character choices, and images, resulting in a film that fails to achieve cohesion?

Continuing my intermittent journey through the relatively limited terrain of Polish Horror (See others here), today’s entry is just such a film. From moment to moment, I found it quite watchable, and there were elements to enjoy, but I’m still not quite sure what to do with it and I suspect some of its more puzzling aspects may simply represent failures of good storytelling. But maybe they are intentional subversions of standard narrative conventions and expectations. Either way, I don’t think my role here is to judge “quality,” but to discuss whatever of interest may be found in a given work. So, without further ado, here we go…

Lubię Nietoperze (1986) (I Like Bats)

Polish film posters from the 70s and 80s are a trip!

The first act of Krystyna Kofta’s and Grzegorz Warchol’s sometimes evocative, sometimes blackly comic, and sometimes narratively obtuse and meandering I Like Bats is quite an enjoyable vampire flick. Izabela, or Iza for short (Katarzyna Walter), is a modern, independent vampire in a small town, who is regularly hounded by her aunt and the ghost of her grandfather (who expresses his wishes by making his absurdly angry looking portrait fall from the wall) to finally settle down, get a man, and stop vamping around.

But Iza doesn’t want to hear about it. She seems happy living her life her way and rolls her eyes at her aunt’s entreaties. She spurns the advances of one pushy, entitled local creep and seems to take pleasure in hanging out with her bats, making pottery for her aunt’s curio shop, and apparently preying solely on unpleasant men, often those who first try to prey on her.

Her un-lifestyle seems quite satisfying and she resists her aunt’s insistence that it’s time to start acting like a ‘real woman.’ I think the film is most gratifying in these early scenes of her presenting herself as vulnerable (sometimes dressed as a prostitute, sometimes simply being a woman walking home alone at night) only to turn the tables on some sleazebag, and sometimes getting to be fully badass, walking away from exploding vans, luxuriating in the rain and the night, and indulging in quality time with her beloved, shrieking, chattering bats.

But then a guy comes to the curio shop, buys a tea set and the main story starts in earnest, as does the narrative and thematic ambivalence. Basically, she falls in love (for some reason) with this psychiatrist and has herself committed to his institution to be cured of her vampirism (does she really want that cure or does she just want him – it’s not clear). He doesn’t believe her and treats her for delusion, but eventually, he comes around, falls in love and, after a bout of artfully filmed sex (her first time), ala Pinocchio, she becomes a ‘real girl,’ seeing her reflection for the first time, and they get married and have kids. But in the final moments, it’s revealed that the vampirism has passed to her young daughter.

But this middle stretch gets difficult because the motivation for so many character choices and the moments when a character actually feels something and changes somehow all felt like they happened off screen. The film maintains a light, ironic tone, often set to the playful score by Zbigniew Preisner (who scored a few Hollywood films but would be best known internationally for his work with Kieślowski, e.g., Red, White, Blue, or The Double Life of Veronique), and there is no real sense of urgency to the proceedings. It’s hard to fathom what she sees in the psychiatrist (named Professor Jung – perhaps there’s something to read into this – maybe we are to take all these figures as archetypes and not characters as such), and his journey from skepticism to passionate love feels unearned. The world of the film is one where nothing has stakes (argh – sorry) or happens for a clear reason. Cars crash and no one notices. Kids break shop windows and come in to retrieve their ball and no one mentions the window. A woman in a bar gets bored, takes off her top and starts dancing and no one bats an eye (again, I can’t help myself). Things just are. And then they are something else.

All the same, it is disappointing when this cool, self-possessed character, who seems to rather enjoy her vampirism, suddenly sees a pretty boring guy, gets immediately love sick and starts pining after him; worse still, in the end, she’s somehow happy to have so dramatically changed. It all feels so disheartening that, given the ironic elements, I wonder if this is intentional. Are we meant to view her change as a fairy tale happy ending (the virginal dead girl gets “kissed” by the prince and “comes to life”) or are we perhaps supposed to see the inherent personality erasing loss of self in this recurring narrative?

Fairy tales often progress in an unquestioning mode. Things simply are the way they are. Whether a fish talks or a bean stalk grows into the clouds, characters accept everything as natural; nothing is ever shocking and I Like Bats does lean on some fairy tale elements. No one really questions the existence of vampires (they only deny that Iza could be one as apparently in this world, all vampires are men – is this some comment on how a certain kind of sexual desire is perceived?). The cinematography (which is really quite attractive) is often dreamy and artful. The location used for the institute is Moszna Castle, a palace with 99 turrets sometimes referred to as “Polish Disneyland” (also – and I wonder if this was meant to function as a kind of visual pun given that the castle is quite well known in Poland, and there is a strong theme of sexual desire running under the vampirism – “moszna” in Polish translates as “scrotum” – so take that as you will).

Furthermore, the film seems to take place in some unspecified time with some modern sensibilities but costuming and cars that seem from a more distant past. Similarly, the setting seems to be deliberately unfixed – signs are in Polish, but in one scene, they visit an institute where vampires are imprisoned in cages on the beach at “the ocean” (while Poland is on the Baltic Sea, it is nowhere near the ocean). There are many advertisements (for cigarettes mostly) in English and Iza’s small town seems surprisingly multi-cultural for my (perhaps incorrect) impression of Poland in the 80s. This all comes together to imply a dreamlike no-place and no-when, peopled by odd characters who sometimes act for no-why.

This had been on my radar for some time just because it is a Polish vampire movie (and there aren’t many if any others exist at all), but I recently got the chance to see it with English subtitles because the Severin Films remaster just came to Shudder (sadly, it’s quite difficult to do screen captures from Shudder – so the pics here are from an inferior print – the newly remastered version really looks so much better) as part of a set of movies accompanying the second edition of Kier-La Janisse’s fascinating House of Psychotic Women (the first edition of which I wrote about here). Her focus is on films that present “female madness” and I’m very curious how she frames this one. Though it is her explicit reason to be in the clinic, Iza’s vampirism does not read as any kind of mental illness. She seems quite happy with it and the way she lives. If anything, her insistence on the attention of this man seems like the unmotivated compulsion. Maybe therein lies the madness?

She seems constantly surrounded by sleazy, irritating, or pathetic men, and she seems to exclusively feed on those who in some way hunt her, who desire her, sometimes acting on that desire violently. Professor Jung doesn’t seem much interested in her at all, either because he doesn’t like women, or he doesn’t want any distractions from his work (two explanations he gives), or he just doesn’t like her. Is his indifference the magic spell that infatuates her so? She is only upset that he doesn’t take more interest. And in the end, when finally he comes around, rescues her from the beach-vampire-cage institute, and takes her off to go skinny dipping/make love to her until she’s human, she seems very happy in her “normal” human family life. If anything, the reveal of her daughter’s fangs (and penchant for killing gardeners) plays as a darkly comic twist – that even though Iza has put her dark past behind her and settled down into civilized life, this unruly female desire resurfaces in her offspring. Does the film want us to be happy for Iza in her newfound “normalcy” and to laugh at how the “problem” persists or does it want us to mourn for Iza’s loss of identity as she disappears into bland conformity and to laugh at how good it is that her lost vivacity continues in her child? Un-life will find a way.

It is a consistently watchable (and again, the look and feel and sound of it all is striking and expressive) and frequently enjoyable film, which still puzzles in its often confounding character beats. Is this an issue of poor editing and half-baked writing, or is it instead successful in ironically telling us a fairy tale that we should view as facile and even harmful, its disjointed, apparently unmotivated qualities supporting that reading? It’s hard to find much analysis on it in either English or Polish (thus, I’m particularly curious to see what Kier-La Janisse has to say). The short English descriptions online present a quirky vampire romance (but I found no real analysis or criticism beyond user reviews saying “weird, great movie” or “weird, boring movie”) and much of what I’ve found in Polish either describes it as a bit of superficial, erotic schlock produced late in the communist regime as a kind of ‘bread and circuses’ to keep the public entertained and thus pacified (attacking it as regrettably ‘low art’) or uses it as an example of how Polish cinema really didn’t respect and therefore didn’t succeed at genre film (attacking Polish film culture for being over-snobbish when it comes to matters of ‘low’ and ‘high’ art). Hey, if any Polish readers know of more insightful readings out there, please let me know – I’m very curious and limited by my embarrassingly weak Polish skills.

For my part, I watched it twice in a couple days and enjoyed watching it both times, but I can’t say if I think it’s good or not. It has been interesting to consider and it’s certainly got moments that shine. It’s fascinating how sometimes watching something from a culture you didn’t grow up in (even if you’ve lived there for a while – I’ve been in Poland for 14 years at this point), you can be more forgiving of faults, more open to reading what seem like very strange choices or even mistakes in a more charitable light. I often feel like maybe there’s something culturally informing all this that doesn’t land for me, that just goes over my head. It makes for a rich and sometimes mysterious viewing experience. If you’re not in a hurry, and you’re in the mood for an odd little piece of off-kilter vampire cinema from a specific time and place (trying to be no time or place), perchance this one is for you.

When Real Life Horrors Intrude

Hello out there, dear readers. I’m sorry to say that this week, I really don’t have much of a post for you. Over the weekend, we discovered that our cat is very, very sick with a really serious heart condition and all I currently have mental capacity for is going back and forth from the emergency clinic and trying not to get in a car accident. I even thought I might try watching and writing about something light and comforting like It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown, but I haven’t even achieved that, and it’s only 25 minutes long.

I sure do love horror films and stories, and I particularly appreciate when they make room for grief, when they feel like they have emotional depth, are about something real – through their fictional lens, we can grapple with some of the most difficult and vital aspects of living. But fiction is key here. When you’re thrust into an encounter (which you knew was bound to happen sooner or later, but you’re never ready for) with the reality of someone you love really suffering, and feeling like there’s so little you can do to help them, feeling like you’re failing them, it just breaks the world. It is a horror – crushing reality impinging, heartlessly on the comforting illusions of safety and security and agency that we need to hold onto to get through our lives without snapping.

Sadly, this week, I don’t have the power to dwell in those fictional horrors I find so rewarding. I don’t even have it in me to hang out in the comforts of a childhood Halloween special. I just have to deal with the reality in front of me and do what little I can for a lovely, loving creature about whom I care so deeply.

Sorry this post is a bummer. If you check in regularly, thank you so much – please keep doing so. Next week, I’ll be back with a movie or a book or something fun and spooky.

See you then,

Glen