Happy Santa Claus Day, Killer Santa Claus Day

So, Poland, where I live, is a pretty Catholic country and here Old Saint Nick (or Mikołaj as he’s locally known) doesn’t come on Christmas Eve, so much as on St. Nicholas Day (December 6th), often referred to in English as Santa Claus Day.  With that in mind, I can think of no better day to kick off the Holiday season with a short, blurby look at two of the best Killer-Santa movies that don’t involve Linnea Quigley being impaled topless on antlers or “Garbage Day!” I got to check out both of these last year on Shudder’s “Joe Bob Saves Christmas” special and I think they’re still there if you want to check them out.

Deadly Games –  AKA – Dial Code: Santa Claus (1989)

Chris Columbus swore that he hadn’t seen this fun French thriller before making Home Alone one year later and while anything’s possible, one could certainly be excused for having doubts.  Here is the story of a young boy left alone on Christmas Eve, who has to fight off a deranged killer dressed as Santa Claus through the use of his inventive traps and tricks seemingly inspired by Bugs Bunny cartoons.  The tone is darker, and sure, Macaulay Culkin was never attacked by a killer Santa, but much of the rest of the spirit seems so similar that it seems a big coincidence if that was somehow just the Zeitgeist that year.

Anyway, it’s weird. It’s fun. The killer is sufficiently creepy and the kid is sufficiently precocious. This boy is immensely rich and lives in a giant mansion filled with secret, toy filled passages and has access to all kinds of surprising automation, surveillance equipment, and early internet connectivity, but at the end of the day, he’s a little kid, scared and alone, who has to get really creative and be really brave to defend himself against a very real threat. It’s a really good time.

It seems in the beginning that things will be a bit on the lighter side, a whimsical romp.  But the killer Santa is really off in an interesting, unpredictable way.  He is deadly, but he is also so obviously broken and it means that you just can’t get a read on what he will or won’t do at any given moment.  It adds an edge.  The boy, Thomas, starts the film as a kid with more money and toys than he knows what to do with, obsessed with action stars ala Stallone. But by the end, he really has to stand up and become the fighter himself, and it’s duly exciting as he does.  And it really works because we never lose sight of his genuine vulnerability, isolation, and fear.

Christmas Evil (1980)

This is a special, if flawed seasonal slasher.  There have been more than a few killer-Santa movies, but this is undoubtedly the most heartfelt, touching, and grounded.  The set-up is boilerplate nonsense—a young boy sees Santa making out with his mother and is somehow scarred for life.  He grows up to be a kinda sweet shlub working at a toy factory, still utterly obsessed with Christmas.

He tracks the comings and goings of the neighborhood children, listing them in either his naughty or his nice book. He makes himself a really beautiful Santa Costume and paints his van to look like a reindeer pulled sleigh. Then he steals a bunch of toys from work and sets out to reward the deserving and punish the wicked.  Orphans get gifts and co-workers who have belittled him get murdered.

But all along the way, there is such sweetness as he tries so hard to spread the holiday spirit in a broken world where everyone’s just looking out for number one.  He gets pulled into a random work Christmas party and lights up the place with joy (before he threatens all of the children with bringing them something ‘truly horrible’ if they’re bad.) He brings a surprise shipment of toys to a sad orphanage, delighting the staff and kids alike. He hilariously and pathetically gets stuck in a chimney on the way to kill his boss.  And at the end, he drives his van off into the sky to carry on his magic ways, or he drives into a river and drowns, depending on how you read the moment.

And the violence is brutal and difficult and sloppy, bringing to mind George Romero’s Martin. Ultimately, you never feel Harry is a bad guy, but he is crazy, and he is not coming back, making the whole thing much sadder than scary, but sometimes horror should be sad.  This sweet putz, so obsessed with the idea of the holiday, becoming a killer is a wholly horrific turn, but there is so much warmth throughout the whole endeavor as well. Truly a holiday classic!

So, why so many Killer-Santa movies?

Really, it’s interesting that this is its own little subgenre. Other than the above referenced Silent Night, Deadly Night and its direct sequel (referred to in the intro above), a quick internet search finds results for at least 20 other films of this type.  Why is this such a thing? 

On one level, it just seems obvious. We have a beloved holiday character who is always watching you and judging you and who then comes into your home under dark of night to leave you something and maybe take something away. It’s all a bit creepy. Also, I think that we all invest a lot of trust in the idea of Santa, and the actual human actors portraying Santa, with our kids. Go to the mall and put your infant on a stranger’s lap. While you put your trust in him, I think there could be some trace concern, fear, apprehension, just waiting to be filmically expressed.

Past that, I think it’s just that Christmas looms so large on the cultural landscape. In western culture, even among the non-religious, or people of other faiths, Christmas is the biggest holiday of the year. It lasts for at least a month and is just omnipresent.  It is natural that successful horror can be made from inverting this warm, family holiday which has such cultural saturation. It’s no surprise that there are far fewer (though certainly a non-zero quantity of) killer Easter Bunny or Thanksgiving Turkey movies.

Finally, it’s just really good press when the PTA tries to have your movie yanked from cinemas, which is just another reminder for those complaining about “Cancel Culture” that a) in the past it was far more common for things to get literally cancelled and b) it was often (though not always) kinda good for building cult-status-notoriety. Just sayin’.

Drinking Life to the Dregs

It’s a big world of horror cinema out there and I think it’s always interesting to explore work from different regions.  Not only can you find a variety of new stories or folkloric sources, but you can often find new approaches to tone, to styles of acting.  Having seen at least a few examples of his work, I find Park Chan-Wook’s handling of tone quite fascinating.  Comedy, brutality, sentiment, and naturalism co-inhabit his films in a way that, were they from Hollywood, I would criticize, but in his hands, they seem to heighten each other and really serve the work.  This is just such a film.

Thirst (2009)

This South Korean vampire feature from Park Chan-Wook (director of Oldboy, Stoker, and The Handmaiden, among many others) feels surprisingly fresh.  It hits many common tropes of the vampire tale, but consistently strikes a unique inflection—at once, teeming with life, often hilarious, and also quite grounded and corporeal.  While being stylish and nice to look at, it is not particularly stylistic or atmospheric. However, the film comes to life in its scene work—in character interactions and the genuine relish with which the characters and the film experience each moment.

Based on Émile Zola’s 1868 naturalist novel, Thérèse Raquin, the story follows a priest, Sang-hyun (Kang-ho Song, recently of Parasite) who feels dissatisfied with the degree to which he is actually anyone helping through his work.  He chooses to take part in a vaccine trial for the deadly leprosy-eque Emmanuel Virus, which he is not expected to survive. And he doesn’t. But, perhaps thanks to a blood transfusion from an unknown and never disclosed source, he happens to become a vampire and comes back to life, though still with the virus, the symptoms of which only ease up when he feeds. (None of this, surprisingly, was in the Zola text)

Sang-hyun’s resurrection is heralded as miraculous and the terminally ill flock to him, seeking his blessing.  One such supplicant is Lady Ra (Kim Hae-sook), the mother of Sang-hyun’s permanently sickly childhood friend, Kang-woo (Shin Ha-kyun). Having prayed for him, Kang-woo’s cancer apparently disappears and Sang-hyun is invited round for dinner where he meets another childhood friend, all grown up, Tae-ju (Kim Ok-bin), Kang-woo’s miserable wife. 


Tae-ju had been taken in by Lady Ra as a child and brought up as her daughter/servant, before coming of age and being married to the endlessly sniffling, shivering, dripping, and infuriatingly, if moderately goofily endearingly, dependent Kang-woo, thus shifting from daughter/servant to daughter-in-law/caretaker. There is an immediate attraction between Sang-hyun and Tae-ju and it isn’t long before, Sang-hyun feeling a bit freed from his priestly vows by the whole vampirism thing,  they begin a passionate affair, eventually murdering Kang-woo (as Tae-ju gives Sang-hyun the false impression that Kang-woo beats her), and eventually turning Tae-ju into a vampire.

As is often the case, as our original vampire protagonist is quite careful and conservative in how he feeds, never having killed anyone who was unwilling before Kang-woo, his progeny is wild and kills with abandon. Having lived so long under the thumb of another, Tae-ju embraces her newfound power and makes a bit of a mess (you just know when someone paints every surface in their home white that sooner-or-later, there will be blood).

This leads to inevitable conflict between them, culminating in Sang-hyun driving the two of them to fields atop a barren cliff where there is nowhere to hide from the coming sunrise. Tae-ju initially fights to live, but in the end, acquiesces and they sit on the hood of the car to watch the sun come up before turning to ash.

But again, the plot, while there are some nice turns along the way, is largely what one expects from a vampire story. But that really doesn’t detract (much) from the joys of the movie. The first thing that sets it apart is its aforementioned tone.  I suppose it might not be classified as a comedy, but it is persistently very funny. Much of that exists in small moments, a reaction shot here, a snide comment there, but it can also fill larger set pieces.  After Kang-woo’s murder, both Sang-hyun and Tae-ju are initially haunted by what they’ve done and for a time, they lose the vigor in their relationship.  This is largely down to the fact that both keep hallucinating the drowned Kang-woo (in all his drippy, snotty, idiot grin glory), especially whenever they try to have sex and he lies, clammy and dribbling between them.   This kills the mood, somewhat.

Another tonal element centers on the pure joy of new power.  There is a stretch that could have come from any super-hero film when Tae-ju first learns what Sang-hyun has become and gets him to show off for her (in a sequence that suggests the first time Superman takes Lois for a flight in the 1978 film).  It’s telling that she is the one who is excited by it.  He hadn’t really thought to explore the extent of his new abilities, but she is thrilled to have him leap from tall buildings or bend coins to demonstrate his strength.  Of course, when she has turned, this excitement continues.

And then there is the Zola based kitchen sink melodrama of it all: two people succumbing to desire, their thirst if you will, going down a rabbit hole of murder, co-dependence, recrimination, and depravity, ending in somewhat mutual suicide.  The oddest juxtaposition in the film is really not between this mid-19th century narrative and the tale of a vampire priest in South Korea.  Rather, it is between the weight of the original subject matter, the crushing downfall of two broken degenerates, and the light touch of the filmmaker as we follow two characters who are both very likable in their ways: our melancholic protagonist who is genuinely trying to do good in his (un)life, or at least to minimize harm, and his more sanguine paramour whose greedy lapping up of every pleasure is quite infectious.

In his preface to Thérèse Raquin, Zola wrote that his intention was “to study temperaments and not characters” and apparently (I’m going from Wikipedia here—I haven’t read it) this resulted in a cold, clinical presentation of the story which influenced the early naturalist literary movement.  Here, those temperaments survive, but Park Chan-Wook really gives us characters to accompany them: sometimes ridiculous, sometimes tender and shy, sometimes thoughtful, and sometimes unable to control themselves, though they sometimes want to.   It is anything but cold.

Sang-hyun goes on a significant journey over the course of the film.  At the beginning, he is lost.  Unfulfilled in his role as a priest, he takes his life in his hands, volunteering for the trial vaccine.  He in unable to, in any way, live for himself.  By the end of the movie, he becomes a kind of leper, a monster, an adulterer, a murderer, an abuser, by all counts, a sinner, but he also becomes someone who can genuinely smile. 

Right before driving to the cliffs at the end, he stops the car by the camp of people outside his monastery who now worship him as a miracle worker.  There, he gets intentionally caught with his pants down, looking like he was attempting to rape one of his faithful.  They turn against him, throwing rocks, chasing him away. As he flees, his elation is clear. He is free from their love and expectations. And they are free of their devotion.  He can live his own life and choose his own death. 

For a movie that features a nice old blind priest being stabbed in the heart, blood being vomited through the holes of a recorder, leprous boils and pustules, self-flagellation, liters of mucous, and a prodigious quantity of peeled off fingernails, the total effect is honestly surprisingly light and uplifting without being at all glib or parodic.  It’s quite a piece of work.

The Day of the Blurb

Whistle and I’ll Come to You (1968)

A BBC Christmas ghost story, based on a short story by M.R. James, this kicked off a tradition of Christmas James BBC adaptations which would happen annually for years to come.  It is a mind-blowingly good piece of work.  Spooky, odd, and weirdly grounded, while also being utterly unmoored, this 45 minute vignette holds up as one of the best ghost films I’ve seen. And it is fully a film.  Made on a very modest budget for TV, nothing feels televisual about this.  Artfully shot, eerily scored, and rooted around a rivetingly unique central performance, I have trouble expressing just how impressed I was by it all.

It is striking that a film in which so little actually happens can be both so engrossing and so unsettling.  We follow an elderly Professor Perkins, as embodied so fully by Hordern, a bundle of muttering, inarticulate arrogance, to his holiday at a seaside house where the workers and other guests have to put up with his pontificating and fussiness.  Just trying to make polite conversation, another guest over breakfast asks if he believes in ghosts and his rambling answer is so belittling and tangential that the attempt surely will not be repeated. One day, whilst walking along the beach, he finds an old bone whistle with a Latin engraving on the side, “Quis est iste qui venit” (“Who is this who is coming?”).  He sees shadowy figures on the beach behind him.

Later, in his room, he blows the whistle and a wind storm begins outside.  That night, he has terrible dreams and wakes to find that the other bed in his room has also been slept in.  The next night, an apparition seems to reveal itself, leaving the professor a broken, blubbering mess.  That’s the whole story. Almost nothing happens.

But it is all so haunting. So unnerving. Beautiful to look at and quietly chilling to inhabit, the film even has its moments of small humor in watching this odd character have his smug certitude shaken, and in the process, his ego shattered, by this encounter with the unknown. And the unknown remains unknown to the last.  As viewers, we never really know what has happened or why, but we see the extremity of its effect. We can dwell in its ominous threat and follow the professor’s rapid descent into madness. 

The Dawn of the Blurb

His House (2020)

Released on Netflix last fall with little fanfare, this was one of the best releases of 2020 and a really impressive first feature from writer-director, Remi Weekes (officially one to watch). The initial premise is an emotionally fraught spin on a haunted house story: a Sudanese couple manage to escape civil war and make it to the UK as asylum seekers, losing their daughter to the Mediterranean.  They are sent to a bleak town somewhere in England and set up in a run-down house. As refugees, they are instructed to fit in, to not ‘be a problem,’ to assimilate.  They are also told that they cannot leave this house and if they do, it could be grounds for denying their asylum. Of course, the house is haunted.   

We see the husband try hard to acclimate and adopt local custom and dress while the wife tries to hold on to her culture, her past, herself.  The haunting serves to exacerbate the conflicts between them.  And their refugee status serves to answer the question of ‘why don’t they just leave?’  All of the horror, and there is solid, grisly, gooey, unsettling horror, feels like a metaphor for the experience of being an asylum seeker, needing to do everything you can to stay in a place that does not want you there, that tries to intimidate you out, or at least, make your life hell, constantly underlining how much you don’t belong. Often stories of hauntings turn on economic stress – there is a reason this family needs this home and is unwilling to leave, however bad things get.  This iteration raises the stakes to the Nth degree in a mutually beneficial fashion – the haunting increases the drama of their emotional situation and that emotion in turn feeds the haunting.

And it all builds to a hell of a third act twist as we come to understand what is really haunting them, how personal it is, and how inescapable.  This is not a randomly haunted house, but they are followed by their own ghosts, by the guilt of the horrible choices they have had to make to survive, and there is a real question as to whether it is possible to move forward, to live with those ghosts, to carry the weight of their own decisions and the memories of those left behind.  It is really a great, interesting, scary, and meaningful flick.