Here we are in October. “Spooky season.” Pumpkin spice, if that’s a thing where you live. (I don’t think it’s quite so ubiquitous in Poland.) Let’s kick things off with a short look at one of the most iconic of the seasonal offerings:
Halloween (1978)
This is going to be pretty short—more of a blurb than anything else as I assume that everything that needs to be written about this one has already made it to print. It may no longer have the power to scare me as I’ve seen it plenty of times, but it is surely a kind of comfort food, satisfying in so many different ways.
I like the characters. I’m not rooting for them to bite it, as might occasionally be the case with the nameless casts of the many later imitators which would follow in Halloween’s footsteps. I mean, they’re not exactly exercises in depth, but I buy them as people, as friends. There are laughs to be had and their relationships are believable. And at the same time, they are drawn with broad enough strokes that the dominant feeling when they die is the jolt of terror rather than the weight of mourning.
The film making is confident and precise, while still operating on a tight budget, and makes economical choices that pay off in atmosphere and artistry. It’s really something how this movie, filmed in May in California, really evokes a midwestern fall. Apparently it was too warm for real fallen leaves, so they scattered paper leaves around, which they had to collect after each shot so they could be reused. The score, while repetitive, is also relentless and so simple. Both the film and its killer are playful with their scares, making it such a fun popcorn scary movie.
And, at the same time, it really contributed to placing horror in, and showing the lie of, a new setting—cozy, suburban, small town America, a place where your kids can feel safe walking to school and you don’t have to lock your doors, but when a teenage girl is screaming for help in the middle of the night, people will turn off their porchlights and pretend not to be home, rather than stick their neck out for someone else in need.
Many things can be scary, but in this moment of seeing just how little these comfortable suburbanites are willing to go out of their way to help a terrified kid, it is really chilling, and it offers a moment of horror: the chilling comprehension that “this is probably true—this is how people would behave—I may greet my neighbors with a smile and a nod, but if I really needed help, there’s every chance that they’d close their doors, and if one is to be totally honest, if the situation were reversed, I may very well close mine.” That realization—that confrontation with a terrible truth—is really the essence, I think, of horror as a concept and this is a good, simple, very effective example.
While this was certainly not the first slasher, it surely fixed the formulas, even when it did so inadvertently. Laurie is the platonic ideal of the final girl archetype, down to and including the nigh Freudian way that she adopts a series of different sharp, long, pointy, penetrative objects to fight back with, but that all of them imply some kind of traditionally coded feminine element—the coat hanger, the knitting needle, even the kitchen knife—all of which can be read as markers of ‘women’s work’ and the domesticity that is being invaded by this very masculine-coded killer.
And still, I take Carpenter at his word that he was not thinking about these things. They just came out of the setting—out of the situation. These are the available weapons in a home that doesn’t have guns. Laurie doesn’t end up being the final girl because her friends are punished for being sexual. Rather, she is alone, lonely, and paying attention. They are distracted, having fun, fooling around and, therefore, easier targets.
And there are just so many standout moments: the opening tracking shot, featuring presumably the fastest off screen sex scene ever (the young couple leaves the living room to go upstairs and 85 seconds later, we see the boy coming out of the bedroom, putting his shirt back on—it’s fast!), so effective and chilling and clever; Dr. Loomis going on about “the blackest eyes, the devil’s eyes”; the growing irritation/comedy of Linda “totally” only seeming to know one word; the moment when the shape appears out of the shadows that Laurie had been backing into; Michael tilting his head to examine his handiwork after stabbing Bob to the wall; and of course, the final moments after the killer has disappeared and the camera shows us the empty hallway, the empty stairwell, the empty street—there are shadows everywhere and anything could be waiting in them—nothing will ever feel safe again.
For all these reasons and so many more, this one is a classic which can really help set the tone any October.
Sometimes there are those films that you really know you should have seen by now, but it’s somehow hard to finally pull the trigger on. This was one of those for me for the longest time and I’m so glad that a few months ago, I finally remedied the situation:
Black Sunday AKA the Mask of the Devil (1960)
Mario Bava’s first directorial credit really stands the test of time as an (occasionally flawed) masterpiece of gothic horror. It exists in an interesting space between the old Universal classics of the 30s that preceded it and the rougher terrain the genre would come to tread over the course of the next couple decades. If you’re looking for spooky old castles filled with cobwebs and riddled with secret passages, it’s got you covered. If you want to see a hot brand burning flesh, it’s got that too. How about a carriage eerily racing through moonlit fog in slow motion? A giant bat attack in a ruined crypt? A young girl fearfully running through a dark forest, the spindly branches of trees seeming to reach out as if to grab her? This is your movie. But what if you want needles being driven through eye sockets? The face of a loving father melting in a fire? A shambling corpse bursting out of wet earth? A spike filled metal mask being sledgehammered onto a witch’s face? But of course, Black Sunday, all things to all people, is there for you as well.
The story begins with a prelude set in Moldavia in the 17th century, two hundred years before the main action of the film. Princess Asa Vajda (Barbara Steele) is a witch (or possibly a vampire—the film plays fast and loose with its supernatural terminology) being ceremonially put to death by a robed and hooded inquisitorial mob for her wicked deeds, along with her brother and consort, Javuto (Arturo Dominici). She is branded as a witch and a “Devil’s Mask” is hammered onto her face before she is set on a pyre to burn. A storm prevents the job from being completed, but she is entombed in a coffin with a glass lid so that she can always see the cross above, which should theoretically keep her evil contained.
And so it does until a couple hundred years later when two doctors on their way to a conference happen upon her tomb, accidentally shatter the cross, break the glass atop her coffin (leading to a scratch on the hand that gives her a resuscitating drop of blood), steal a religious artifact that had been placed on her (it may have been helping to hold her down, but will also provide a useful user manual to defeat her later), and remove her Devil’s Mask (with some effort—it had been nailed on quite forcefully). Then, having done everything wrong they possibly could, they have a chance meeting with the local princess (bearing a striking resemblance to the witch) whose family crypt they’ve been defiling and make their way to an inn for the night.
Said princess is Katja Vajda (also Barbara Steele), Asa the witch’s descendent, who has just turned 21 and is feeling some unnamable dread whose source she cannot identify. Long story short: Asa raises Javuto, has him kill and basically make vampires of one of the doctors, Katja’s father, and a few household servants, all so that Asa can steal Katja’s youth, beauty, and ultimately her life.
Fortunately (I suppose), the younger of the two doctors and the inevitable romantic lead, Dr. Andrej Gorobec (John Richardson), teams up with a local priest to fight the vampires (dispatched by driving a spike through the left eye rather than a stake through the heart), defeat the witch, and save the girl (who has a real fainting problem—it’s a good thing she ends up with a doctor).
Bava based the story on a Nikolaj Gogol story, “Vij,” which I understand was far more faithfully adapted in the Russian film, Vij (another great movie). Here, the main points of connection seem to be the dark spookiness and folkloric quality of Eastern Europe, a witch, and, based on my viewing of the Russian film (not having read the Gogol), some kind of supposedly learned men who are actually quite useless. But the distance between source text and film is inconsequential. This is Bava’s film, not Gogol’s, and as a piece of visual storytelling, it is significant.
On a compositional level, Black Sunday is decidedly effectual. The lighting here is key—stark, casting heavy shadows in all directions, and creating striking looks throughout. In an early scene, the innkeeper’s daughter is sent against her wishes through the woods at night to milk the cow (who, for some reason is kept far from home, in a barn directly next to the cemetery where Javuto was interred beneath unholy ground and is now due to rise).
As she makes her way, terror-stricken to this ill-placed shed, she appears somehow lit from below, such that her face seems to be this one point of light and the darkness seems to close in on all sides. It isn’t realistic if you stop to consider it, but it succeeds in evoking a very active darkness and her fear is contagious. The camera frames spaces claustrophobically; the elegant clutter of a palatial manor or the shattered remains of coffins in an abandoned crypt are both used to create a sense of an invasive space. Elements that surround figures seem to move in on them, as with the darkness and creeping branches hunting the dairy seeking adolescent.
In addition to being Mario’s progenitor, Eugenio Bava was also known as the father of special effects photography in Italian cinema, and his son carries on the family business admirably here. By today’s standards, some of these effects might look a bit obvious, but in 1960 they were apparently truly shocking (the film was heavily edited when released in the States and was banned for years in the UK before the edited American version was allowed to be released) and some of them still offer a visceral kick in the 21st century. When the Devil’s mask is hammered onto Asa’s face and blood spurts out, or when a spike is driven through the ocular socket of a sleeping vampire with a sickening squelch (followed by the priest delicately wiping his hand with a handkerchief) , even a modern horror viewer, well inured to viscera, might still find themselves cringing a bit with appreciative disgust.
And there are some truly arresting sequences, such as a frightening scene in which Katja is hounded by some unseen menace that appears to chase her through the castle, upturning everything in its path as she shouts for help. Finally, she comes to her father’s room, where he still lies, recently dead, awaiting funereal rites. We know that he has been turned and that the sun is about to set, but she has no inkling of what’s about to happen. She falls on his berth, calling out for his support in the face of the horrors that beset her and as she lowers her head, the light can be seen disappearing from the sky. It’s a delicious moment. If only it didn’t result in her fainting again, but you can’t have anything.
The only thing that really stands out as unsuccessful is a romantic subplot between Katja and Gorobec. They’ve known each other for perhaps 36 hours by the end of the movie and it’s a big leap of faith to go along with their relationship. It doesn’t help that the dialogue is so very over the top. A certain degree of verbal extravagance is welcome in such a film when it pertains to vengeance and undying evil, but an otherwise milquetoast love scene featuring such florid text as, “Even if all Mankind abandons this castle, or even deserts these grounds, there is no reason why you should do likewise with your life and your youth” is just a little hard to buy.
Though, honestly, the language of the film plays better when watching it dubbed in Italian with English subtitles, rather than having to hear these clunky lines spoken in English (as with all Italian horror of this time, it was filmed without sound and all voices were dubbed later for different markets, often utilizing multi-national casts with each actor speaking their own native tongue). But these are small gripes in the face of the total effect of the film.
I don’t know that there is much to read into the story of the film itself. The witch is bad. Her victims are good. In the end, love triumphs and the dead die once again. The sun will shine. But in its simplicity, it well houses an effective and historic horror piece that honors what came before it and prefigures what was soon to come.
Lest it seem that I’m only writing about great, older, classy movies, here’s a discussion of a great, older, trashy movie.
Friday the 13th, part 2 (1981)
A cheap cash grab. A totally uninspired, throwaway slasher flick. A body count film. A dead teenagers movie. All of these could be ascribed to Steve Miner’s film, and I expect they have. They would even be accurate. Doesn’t matter. This is simply a terrifically entertaining movie that knows exactly what it is, and has great fun doing it. It delivers solid suspense, scares both cheap and earned, a generally likeable group of young people that you mostly don’t want to see eviscerated, teasing play with audience expectations, and one of the all-time great final girls, who you really want to root for. And on top of all that, in spite of the fact that it seems to so knowingly draw on slasher conventions that it almost seems to be sending them up (coming out at the height of the post Halloween slasher boom—there were at least 30 released in 1981 alone), it also actually takes its antagonist seriously—probably the only Friday the 13th film in which there is any real psychological underpinning to the character of Jason.
The story is as simple as can be. After a cold open wherein Alice (Adrienne King), the lone survivor of the first film, replays nightmare memories in her head, recapping the key points of the first outing of the series (a lot of camp counselors getting killed, the revelation that the killer was Mrs. Voorhees, the mother of a developmentally disabled boy, Jason, who drowned while some counselors were having sex, Alice decapitating Mrs. Voorhees, Jason rising out of the water of the lake, apparently less dead than had been thought), she wakes up and, in a genuinely suspenseful sequence, gets creeped out exploring her apartment. Oh, it’s just the cat being thrown through the window. Whew—nothing to worry about…Nope, actually she finds a head in her refrigerator and then gets an ice pick to the noggin. The opening titles literally explode and we’re off to the races.
This time we find ourselves across the lake from Camp Crystal Lake at the Packanack Lodge Camp Counselor Training Center where a nice bunch of youngsters have come to learn to be better camp counselors, and generally drink and screw around in the woods. With one exception in the form of a sleazy, sexually aggressive dude who eventually gets his comeuppance for consistently harassing one of the girls by being hung upside down and having his throat slit, the rest of the trainees are nice kids that are easy to spend time with. It’s a shame that they find themselves in this movie, but oh well.
The last to arrive is Ginny (Amy Steel) who rolls in late and gives Paul (John Fury), the owner of the Center, a good natured hard time. It’s clear that they’re an item and in this, we immediately get something a bit refreshing for the genre. For all that the tropes have been pretty well established by this point and that this series never shied away from the regrettable Reagan era Sex = Death slasher formula, Ginny does not quite fit the mold of the ‘final girl’. I mean, sure, it is technically possible that she is a virgin—it’s never explicitly stated, but the sense is that she is a self-possessed young woman, in a relationship and free to express her own sexual desire, who has a life and interests beyond mere survival (she’s studying childhood psychology—which becomes relevant by the end of the film); and she does survive in the end by trading on her wits, education, and empathy and not only running and taking up a penetrative phallic object to use against her assailant (though of course, there’s plenty of running and stabbing). In a crowded field, she stands out by really feeling like a person.
Anyway, most of the rest of the plot requires little description. One by one, the kids start getting picked off until only Ginny remains. She stumbles upon the shack in the woods where Jason has been holed up, building a candle lit shrine to his dead mother’s head and nice, chunky knit sweater, surrounded by the corpses of recently murdered teenagers.
In a bit of quick thinking, she uses her child psychology super powers to get inside his head and, donning said sweater, speaks to him as his mother, gaining an advantage. At the end of the day, everyone else is dead, Jason gets away (there are still 9 more films to come, after all), and Ginny seems pretty traumatized, but she makes it through.
Most of the plot itself simply ticks boxes and fulfils viewer expectations. But moment by moment, the movie takes real pleasure in subverting some of those expectations. Time and time again, the audience is teased with the suggestion of prurient subject matter which then doesn’t pay off (in the sense of shower scenes and kills, this one is much less explicit than you might expect), and then there are solid jumps when suddenly the knife flashes into view or the wire wraps around the throat, or the spear…, well, you get the idea. It really feels like the film makers are playing with the form. And it is fun and funny when the movie successfully pulls one over on you.
And there is plenty of comedy throughout, particularly in the editing. Visual gags abound, such as when a cute little dog comes across Jason in the woods. We don’t really know his policy on canines as opposed to humans, but we assume it will end badly for the pup.
Quick cut to hot dogs roasting on a grill. Later, at the end of the movie, just when it seems that everything is finally over and Jason has been killed, Ginny hears a sound outside. Oh no—what will she do? Wait. It’s just the dog. Oh, good—it was ok all along. CRASH! Jason jumps through the window behind Ginny, grabbing her as we cut to black. These little tricks seem so obvious, but when obvious works, it can’t be faulted.
Beyond this sense of play, and well executed cattle prod cinema, eliciting jumps and laughs at appropriate (and inappropriate) moments, a real strength of the film is that Jason gets to be an actual person, and for my money, that makes him scarier here than in any of the later installments. In the first film, he basically doesn’t exist. He’s a sad story—an impetus for revenge on all the naughty teenagers of the world who dare visit this lake. In later films, he is an evil tank. Wearing his characteristic hokey mask and mostly standing menacingly when he isn’t skewering somebody, he is the beefed up uber-version of the silent masked killer archetype.
In this film, wearing a sack over his head and seen running, scrambling, desperate, angry, wild, he is a broken, dangerous human being—nothing supernatural. Just a person who has had a terrible life and grown into a vicious killer, filled with rage over the death of his mother, the only one who cared about him. The film sees him, and Ginny can empathize. To be fair, this is repeated with Tommy Jarvis (Corey Feldmen) in the fourth part, but it really lands here.
No one could make the claim that the sequel to Friday the 13th, itself, a cheap American retooling of Bava’s Bay of Blood, is some kind of classic of world cinema, but it does what it does excellently and in my opinion, is the scariest, most fun flick this series has to offer. Miner went on to direct the next sequel one year later (in 3D: Dangling yo-yos! Eye balls jumping out of sockets! Popcorn kernels popping!) and managed to produce another fun movie, but for me, failed to quite catch lightning in a bottle the second time around.
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.
