The Persistence of Belief: Candyman (1992) and The Wicker Man (1973)

I don’t know about you, but I find nature unsettling.  My wife, who is Polish, theorizes that this is a particularly American quality, grown out of a land of settlers pushing out into a wilderness, surrounded by threat, and haunted by the destruction inherent in that expansion (The whole country has, of course, been built on Native burial grounds).  I don’t feel that nature is my place – that I am welcome in it. Basically I feel it just wants to eat me.  Red in tooth and claw and all that. And yet, it is beautiful, mysterious, powerful, and essentially unknowable.

So, it is no surprise that I find folk horror particularly effective; the mutual draw and fear of the natural world and of people who live more closely to it. There is a seductive and uncanny atmosphere that comes with such work.

With this in mind, I’d like to focus here on a film which I don’t believe is ever really discussed in the canon of Folk Horror, Bernard Rose’s Candyman. I would argue that while it may not make sense to call it precisely a Folk Horror, it is useful to examine it through that lens. So to do so, I’d like to look at it in comparison and contrast with Robin Hardy’s The Wicker Man which is, along with Blood on Satan’s Claw and The Witchfinder General, one of the earliest and most influential progenitors of the sub-genre.

Both will be discussed in detail, so if you haven’t seen them and don’t want them spoiled, I recommend viewing them first.  They are two of my all-time favorites and it is easily worth your time.

How they are the same

On at least a surface narrative level, the two films share many similarities. Both revolve around an outsider who comes from a place of privilege (the law, academia), who enters into an isolated community to conduct an investigation, certain of their superior world view. This outsider clashes with an element of local folk belief (Candyman, the old gods) and, on some level, seeks to disprove it.  There is a missing child who is sought after, but who was ultimately never really in danger and only served as a kind of bait. The locals treat this outsider with justified suspicion. Finally, he or she is burned by the community in a kind of sacrificial bonfire, offering up a feeling of the miraculous. 

Add in the utterly coincidental facts that both films feature performances by tall, seductive actors with silky, deep voices (Christopher Lee and Tony Todd), who get to pontificate poetically over the action, and that they both begin with opening credit sequences of helicopter shots of the given setting accompanied by droning music (the organ or the bagpipes, respectively), and it adds up to a surprising amount of overlap for two otherwise totally dissimilar films.

How they are different

For two films that I want to examine the similarities of, they are as different as night and day.  Whereas The Wicker Man is warm, sunny, rural, and lovely, Candyman is cold, overcast, urban, and bleak.  And in so far as Folk Horror is largely defined by its setting, only one of these films fits the typical pattern. Only one dwells in and celebrates the natural world.

What’s at the core

But, as I remember seeing in a recent David Attenborough documentary, cities are nature as well, with their own ecosystem, their own flora and fauna.  Thus, Candyman is actually no further from nature and the natural world than the other film.

But the most important shared element is their focus on the event of human belief, the need of human beings for a kind of faith, for story, for the continuation of something older and more mysterious than ourselves.  And in both cases, that faith which had been doubted or even mocked by the protagonist (obvious with Sergeant Howie, but even Helen laughs at her subjects as she collects their urban legends), wins out and persists in the end.

In the Wicker Man, Lord Summerisle explains how his grandfather had reinstated the old gods on the island out of not his own belief, but rather, expedience—to give the residents something joyous so that they would work harder in harvesting his produce, but that over time, those old beliefs took root.  In performing the ceremonies, in singing the songs, the beliefs came to life.  One senses that though they had been imposed from the outside only two generations ago, the current people of Summerisle, including the lord himself, are true believers.  Lord Summerisle is not deterred from this religiosity, even knowing explicitly of the initial artifice.

In Candyman, so much has been imposed from without on the community, the residents of Chicago’s Cabrini-Green, a low income, public housing project.  They have been essentially trapped and abandoned in this neighborhood by economics, by banking policies, and by the imagination of the city at large.  The fact that this nightmare folk legend has grown up in this space is fitting.  In a way, Cabrini-Green is two things, one real and one a myth.  It is a real low income community with real problems when it comes to public services, poverty, crime, and policing. It is also a myth—the ur-ghetto nightmare of urban America. At the time of filming, it was considered one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in America and the people living there had to carry the weight of not only real, material problems, but also that of this monstrous image.

Thus, this repository of the city’s fear (and from the beginning of Chicago’s time as a city, that area had been a slum, though it was originally Italian—only recently has it been gentrified out of existence) grows a literal monster, a monster of belief, of story, of racial violence, of terror of isolation, and of invasion.

On the inconsistencies of the Candyman story

I have heard multiple times that while the film works on many levels, the central story doesn’t make sense.  What does Candyman want?  Why does he terrorize ‘his own people’ rather than exacting some kind of vengeance? Is he just a boogeyman, standing behind you in the mirror, or is he a symbol of racial injustice, or is he a figure of lost love that continues beyond death? 

My answer is that all of these are true and that any inconsistency is, in a way, the point.  First of all, I don’t think he is a ghost. When the pompous Purcell tells Helen the story of Candyman, he states that the “legend first appeared in 1860.” He then goes on to tell a story that is about “Candyman,” not a real person.  There may have been a real artist, the son of a slave, who was murdered in Chicago for loving a white woman, but I don’t think Candyman is his ghost.  I think Candyman is the story itself.

When Helen is attacked by and subsequently identifies to the police the gangster calling himself “Candyman,” who, in killing and terrorizing the denizens of Cabrini-Green, is keeping the fearful story alive, she disrupts the belief of the community and hence, the story must make itself flesh and reassert its power, must offer a new ‘miracle.’  He says as much to her in a monologue taken directly from the source material, Clive Barker’s short story, “The Forbidden”:

“Your disbelief destroyed the faith of my congregation. Without them, I am nothing. So I was obliged to come and now I must kill you. Your death will be a tale to frighten children. To make lovers cling closer together in their rapture. Come with me and be immortal.”

Later, he expounds on his state:

“I am rumor. It is a blessed condition. Believe me – to be whispered about on street corners, to live in other people’s dreams, but not to have to be.”

Honestly, it’s beautiful.

Beauty

And here we have another meeting place of the two films.  Beauty. Generally, Candyman is ugly—grey, cold, sad, and heavy. But this element, this concept of immortality, is simply sublime.  And it is real.  Story does transcend base reality, the life of meat (and the film features plenty of very corporeal, bloody, dead flesh), “the heartache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to.” As long as the story is being told, remembered, felt, feared, it lives on. Thus, even a fearful, cruel story, of horrors untold, can, even if just for a moment, offer succor, can raise one up, regardless of life circumstances and make life more than-other than, can “procure for these shadows of imagination that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith.” 

Oh that all horror content aspired to such heights, or perhaps depths.

On the other hand, the initial beauty of The Wicker Man is obvious.  Summerisle, as long as the crops don’t fail and you aren’t sacrificed to appease a hungry agricultural goddess, is truly idyllic. Earthy, sexual, boisterous, its citizens seem so well served by their local mythology.  Regardless of the veracity of its claims, they are happy people, living good lives.  And in the end, Sergeant Howie’s sacrifice (at least for the moment) is one of hope and celebration.  It is a chilling and gorgeous moment when he, burning, calling out to his god, in whose faith he has never wavered, sees through the wicker frame all of the citizens of the island swaying and dancing and singing with a very real joy in their own faith, nurtured and enlivened by his torturous end.

And how beautiful this internal tension between two fervent beliefs, at odds, neither with any concrete evidence to support their continuance? And such joy at a moment of such terror and pain.  Again, we approach the sublime.

In both cases, the story persists. The faith continues. The community comes together in ceremony and while in Candyman, there is an actual miracle as, head ensconced in a halo of flames, Helen manages to save baby Anthony from the bonfire, delivering an act of rebirth and becoming herself, a new story, for the people of Summerisle, the final moments of the film feel no less miraculous—life is borne again here as well. (at least for now—who knows what will happen next year, if the apples will return)

And so, in the end, given these elements of community experience, of communion and ceremony, given its being situated so precisely in its environment, a kind of nature, and most significantly, its focus on questions of faith and belief and story, I think it is fair and useful to look at Candyman in terms of the ideas of Folk Horror.  It may not exactly be a parallel to a film like The Wicker Man, but it is, perhaps, the other side of the same coin.

Blurbin’ 3 – in 3D

Children Shouldn’t Play with Dead Things (1972)

A decade before rising to fame as the director of A Christmas Story and two years before making the superior, seminal proto-slasher Black Christmas, Bob Clark delivered this weird, flawed, occasionally creepy, often funny, and consistently delightful cheapie zombie romp.  A troupe of actors follow their awful director/even worse human, Alan, to an island where dead criminals are unceremoniously buried.  Is this an ensemble building exercise? Is it some sort of devised performance creation process? Is Alan just a jerk who wants to freak out the people working for him? Door number three is looking good.

Alan makes them dig up a corpse to play games with and after forcing the actors, under threat of being fired (seriously, he’s paying them anything at all?—it’s hard to believe), to do humiliating things with said cadaver, he takes out a grimoire and casts a spell to raise the dead.  That happens and everyone on the island is basically doomed.

The film swings between wildly different tones.  Often, it is going for pretty silly high camp comedy, but it veers towards a real home run of a downer ending as everyone is killed and the corpses set off for the mainland to find more live flesh to consume.  The cast is uneven in acting chops, but there are some standout performances, such as Valerie Mamches as Val, a spacey new agey type who really snaps under the weight of the evening’s horrors.

The film was made in 2 weeks for a budget of $50,000 and it shows.  But while the cheapness of some of the settings is evident, as is the fact that some people were probably not actors per se (it’s rarely a good sign when everyone is playing a character with their own first name, as if they wouldn’t know who to answer to if you changed it), you can see the early potential of the film making and there really is pleasure in the surprisingly strong DIY “Let’s make a movie, guys” ethos.  There’s some atmosphere, the gore effects aren’t bad, some of the comedy lands, and the film knows when to occasionally take itself more seriously, and when it does, it generally earns it.  It’s not a classic of horror cinema, but it is worth checking out an earlier film of a director who just two years later, made just that.

Still Blurbin’

Stagefright (1987)

Michele Soavi’s late 80’s Italian slasher has got to be one of the most fun entries in the subgenre.  A killer wearing a giant owl mask stalks the theatre where a troupe is rehearsing a weird, terrible, doomed musical, ostensibly based on his life and crimes. As their compatriots are slaughtered one by one, the actors really should leave, but between the fact that none of them can afford to lose this job and that the director has locked them all in so they’ll have to keep rehearsing through the night, the only egress is death—by power drill, by chainsaw, by axe, by golly (with apologies to The Mutilator).

This is a film of pure excess—a delightful juxtaposition of 80s slasher exploitation sleaze and classic Italian artistry growing out of a Bava/Argento-influenced giallo style. Cats jump out of places they have absolutely no reason to be, the lighting is more colorful than could ever be realistic, and the actors are all poorly dubbed.  Really, I’m having trouble selling just how much fun it all is. Plus, it does actually succeed in the suspense and startle department, all while looking and sounding fantastic.

And I think one of the things I most appreciate about it, coming from the theatre, myself, is its presentation of a theatre group making something bad.  Deep down, they must all know how bad, how unsalvageable it is.  The director can see it—it’s clear in the disdain with which he watches every absurdity play out on stage, and yet, he keeps trying to make the small adjustments to make it just a bit less awful.  The obvious failure that looms is more horrifying in its familiarity than any feathered madman haunting the catwalks could hope to be.

A perennial favorite that never grows old. I’m sure one day, I’ll return to it at greater length – but for now this blurb will have to suffice.

MOVIE BLURB – the beginning

Sometimes, maybe you’re not up to writing a whole long text on something, but you want to populate the movie review archive of your blog.  In times like those, you need a blurb. On your blog. Blargh.

The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

Lon Chaney stars, co-directs, and of course, does all his own makeup work in this classic of the silent era which manages to still deliver some solid thrills almost a century later. And it is a big piece of work.  Huge crowd scenes, a striking setting, endless underground catacombs and waterways, two scenes of painted color that really pop (first, the masked ball, and then a really gorgeous scene on top of the opera house where Christine and Raul plot their escape as the phantom watches from beneath a giant gargoyle, his cape billowing crimson in this otherwise monochromatic film). Some set pieces are enjoyably creepy and/or funny, notably as ballerinas run around terrified of shadows, and the phantom takes Christine on like 5 forms of transport (an exaggeration, but a slight one) to get from the opera house to his underground apartment in the catacombs.

There’s even some good action and derring-do as Raul and his friend venture underground to rescue the damsel in distress and get caught in the phantom’s various traps which seem like they could exist in an Indiana Jones movie.  Though there is some oddness to their approach as they are convinced that he could at any time drop a noose round their necks and walk around constantly with their hands in the air to prevent this.  That doesn’t happen, but everything else does.  Perhaps, they could have just…been careful and paid attention to their surroundings.

From a modern perspective, the pacing can sometimes drag and I think the screenplay really depends on this being a well-known story in the public consciousness and, therefore, skips over some important details here and there, but on the whole, the film stands up and makes for very pleasant Sunday morning viewing.