A Tropical Feast

Posted on by — 1 Comment ↓

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

Zombi 2 (1979)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delightfully Flinching in the New Header

Posted on by — 1 Comment ↓

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

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

Photo: Tomasz Wynalazek

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

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

Photo: Tomasz Wynalazek

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo: Tomasz Wynalazek

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

Polish Horror Series #2 – Lokis

Posted on by — 3 Comments ↓

OK, so since starting this series two weeks ago, I’ve had little time to take in more films on my list. Finally this weekend, trapped by howling winds without and ill health within (yup – it’s our turn to stay home with Covid – but so far, we’re more or less ok), I had the chance to sit down and have a viewing of another new-to-me Polish horror film. Ok, it might not exactly be horror, but it is Polish, it is a film, and it certainly exists in a degree of dialogue with other examples of Folk Horror. It is also quite a fascinating little flick, and possibly includes a touch of arctothropy (which I may have just made up – it’s my best guess for the bear based counterpart of lycanthropy). For the time being, it’s streaming on Shudder. Before I get to writing about it, I do want to say that the film looks fantastic but that the stills I’ve found online don’t do it justice and getting screenshots from Shudder doesn’t work well.  Imagine a far more visually striking film, won’t you…

Lokis – Rękopis profesora Wittembacha (1970)

Another piece set in the 19th century, this time in what is present day Lithuania, Lokis – the Manuscript of Professor Wittembach is an interesting, little, mildly-horror-adjacent piece, written and directed by Janusz Majewski, adapted from the novel by Prosper Mérimée, the French author upon whose novel the opera Carmen is based. While it is not strictly (or, really, at all, a horror film) it does follow so many of the patterns of one model of folk horror (which is why it is included in the boxed set, All the Haunts be Ours), namely, the “civilized” protagonist venturing into a more rural – wild region and taking in its folksy charm, peculiar superstitions, comical local characters, and the foreboding sense that there is something to the old stories and that the world is a more unknowable, threatening, and simply odd place than previously imagined.

We start the journey with Professor Wittembach, a German pastor and ethnographic scholar who is journeying to the wilds of Lithuania to study local languages and customs.  He begins this sojourn on a train and, set to some really striking and ominous orchestration from Wojciech Kilar (who genre fans will be most familiar with for his score to Francis Ford Coppola’s Dracula), the opening credits roll to an evocatively symbolic image. The professor has taken off his glasses and left them next to the window of the train. As the vehicle moves east, all is obscured, except that which is viewed through the lenses of modernity, of reason (either that, or perhaps it refers to the limits of his perception-it could go either way, but it does look meaningful and it does look cool).

He reaches his destination, the palace of Count Szemiot, a mysterious, mercurial, and sometimes quite inscrutable figure who is first glimpsed spying on the professor from a tree. In a tower of the castle, the Count’s mother is locked up, shrieking, calling for her son to be killed for the monster he is. The Count’s doctor (when he isn’t treating the mother for madness by dunking her in water between bouts of folk songs) eventually recounts to Wittembach the local tale of how the Count’s mother was abducted and raped by a bear, and that the Count was the result of this assault. Whether or not this implausible story should be given credence, the film suggests its possibility, without ever explicitly establishing the truth.

While I don’t think it could be argued that this is really a horror film, there is an interesting balance struck between the comic specificity of the many odd characters the professor comes across (drunk, superstitious, crazy, or just plain weird), and a real sense that he has come to a dangerous place and is among unstable people (who are drunk, superstitious, crazy, and just plain weird).  Additionally, there is a feeling of the uncanny, a kind of unreality, in the proceedings– at least for the professor, and, through him, the viewer; for most of the locals, the folk beliefs are taken more on face value and are generally unquestioned.

For the Count, around whom the action turns, objective truth seems beside the point as he is focused on more philosophical-poetic issues of “man’s dual nature,” of the line (if it exists at all) between civilization and animal barbarity, between the human and the bestial. In a telling moment, he explains to the professor, “I have no love for animals. They’re no better than people.” The film, I think, shares his focus, and his dim view of humanity, juxtaposing the laughable though often lovely beliefs, dances, and reactions of the common people with the cruelty of the lord of the manor and the cold detachment of the educated interlopers (the doctor and the professor).

All in all, the film features many captivating elements. The cinematography is adroit – full of gorgeously filmed landscapes, cleverly framed shots (lots of reflective surfaces here), and seventies-tastic snap zooms. Again, please take my word for it, or watch it for yourself.  The pictures I’m attaching unfortunately ill serve the filmmaking. The score is rich, driving, and enigmatic and the production design feels lived in and complete – though I really can’t speak to its historical accuracy.

Most importantly, the nuance and charm of its characters mostly sustain it through its general lack of narrative drive, and it cultivates a rich atmosphere which even occasionally touches on the gothic, such as an early scene in a broken church, lit by lightning strikes and candle light, and housing a skeleton with suspiciously sharp teeth. In its specificity of character and place, it is also frequently hilarious. Again, the Count gets some of the best moments, such as when, to mark the occasion of his wedding, he “releases all of his prisoners.” This entails bringing a large cart into the courtyard of the palace and opening countless cages featuring trapped animals – hawks, cats, ferrets, foxes, and many others, before an old crazy witch woman who we had previously met in the forest climbs out and runs off jabbering wildly and cursing his name.  The bit with the animals was a little odd for his many guests, but the revelation that he’d been keeping this poor, mad old lady locked up with his trophy animals was truly shocking. He simply responds to his former prisoner’s curses with a disappointed, “that’s gratitude for you.”

Additionally, the little elements of folk culture shine: a wild group dance in a local village – a strangely expressive interpretive waltz performed by aristocrats, acting out a tale of Rusalki (water nymphs that lure men into the reeds and drown them) right before the doctor mirrors this by spying on peasant girls bathing among the reeds – the degree to which the story of the bear and the Count’s mother is accepted as fact, and even relayed with some erotic charge, an odd moment when, before entering the church, the bride to be is slapped so there could later be grounds for divorce if necessary. These details bring a lot of local color.

And the film is certainly about something.  The Count’s aforementioned trapping and later freeing of wild animals seems to reflect his own ambivalence towards the wildness of his own nature – restrained, denied, waiting to run free – wanting to strike out, to taste blood. Without going into details, the film ends on a bleak note, and this has less to do with a moment of final act violence than it does with a conversation between the doctor and the professor. The professor asks the doctor why, if he so well understood the many potentially dangerous problems of the Count’s family, he did so little to heal them. Basically, the physician explains that he hates them, as he does himself, as he generally does humanity writ large, and their suffering gave him some small entertainment. Then the doctor turns the same question on the professor – as a pastor, as a man of god, why did he do so little to comfort them? Wittembach has no reply. No one is actually good: man or bear, the cultured or the barbaric – he returns home having documented something of eastern folklore, but really bringing back an awareness of his own lack – of a void in his own center. There is a haunting quality to it all.

I will say, however, and I don’t want to fall into criticism, but I feel the film did miss a trick. While it all circles around a tension between the bestial and the human – reason and madness – passion (whether it be lust or rage) and sensibility, the piece as a whole is quite reserved, meditative even. There are small bursts of life, but I think it would have benefitted from giving in a bit more to the barbarity so often discussed by its inhabitants. Perhaps the idea was that, just as the Count imprisoned the animals, the potential savagery of the story was similarly restrained and restricted. While this may be symbolically and intellectually sound, I think the effect of the film would have been stronger with a bit more bloodthirstiness.  Maybe I wouldn’t have this note if I weren’t writing this for a horror blog – no one can say for sure – but I think I would. As it is, it was frequently quite watchable and even enjoyable, while revolving around interesting themes, but I would have loved it to have more fully embodied them. Still – an interesting and rewarding watch.

—

As an aside, I was happy to have the Rusalki referenced, and the dance scene that does so is weird and wonderful. It seemed unfortunately misleading that the subtitles simply translated it to “mermaid,” which I think really gives a false impression. The Rusalka is a really evocative folk figure – capturing the allure and the threat of local nature – that comes up in a lot of other media. I probably first encountered them in the above painting by Pruszkowski (note the one victim trampled on the ground and the next watching them through the reeds) and more recently, there’s a really fun Decemberists song about a Rusalka. Just wanted to share.

Horror as Mirror – House of Psychotic Women

Posted on by — 2 Comments ↓

So recently, I see a lot of attention rightfully being given to the excellent Folk Horror documentary, Woodlands Dark and Days Bewitched, released this fall and currently available on Shudder.  I made reference to it just last week. It is a comprehensive and thoughtful study of, if not exactly a genre (as it questions whether generic boundaries might usefully be set in this case), then a mood, a mentality of film.  The director, Kier-La Janisse, with a very wide range of filmic examples and drawing on a variety of critical, academic, and film practitioner voices, effectively surveys a rich international landscape of the meetings of folk culture and practices and horror filmmaking, sometimes revealing a lingering fear of the past, or of the inevitable future, or, particularly in those outside of the English tradition, simply drawing on elements of traditional folklore and thus exhibiting striking cultural specificities. It’s fascinating stuff.

This is not, however, Janisse’s first foray into cataloguing and analyzing an extensive collection of films.  I first encountered her oeuvre through her engrossing book, House of Psychotic Women: an autobiographical topography of female neurosis in horror and exploitation films. I’d never really encountered a work such as this before.  At once deeply personal, grounded in thoughtful analysis, and wide ranging in its scope, it walks quite a line between memoir, scholarship, and compulsive fandom.

Janisse focuses on “horror and violent exploitation films that feature disturbed or neurotic women as primary or pivotal characters,” films with which she has a very personal relationship, with which she has been obsessed throughout her life as a mirror of her own personal struggles. The appendix alone (which actually comprises about half the book, presenting short descriptions of all the included movies) is worth the price of admission, lucidly detailing a tremendous number of films (some at least heard of by a mainstream audience, but many quite obscure, even to genre enthusiasts) through a reflective and compelling lens and inspiring the reader (or, at least me) to seek out as many as it is possible to find. She approaches each respectfully, on its own terms, however artistically serious or exploitively irreverent its own creators may have considered it. From Troma productions to the New French Extremity, from Rape-Revenge flicks to Austrian Art House cinema, and far, far more, these films are taken seriously and appreciated as meaningful artifacts of psychological life, of shared culture.

But the first half is really the heart of the book.  Here, Janisse neither approaches the films chronologically nor generically, but rather, autobiographically, bouncing from one to the next as it is more or less useful for reflecting on some aspect of her own life, of her own character, of her own story. Her project is nicely set up in the preface:

“Over the past ten years I started keeping a log of these films, accompanied by rambling, incoherent notes and occasionally wet pages. I have drawers full of these scribblings: they’re spilling out of manila envelopes in my closet and they’re all pieces of a puzzle that I have to figure out how to put together. But my starting point was a question, and that question presented itself easily: I wanted to know why I was crazy – and what happens when you feed crazy with more crazy.”

The result is anything but rambling or incoherent, but it is unlike any kind of film criticism or description I’d read before (it’s possible that something like this has long existed in some kind of academic-adjacent circles, but it was new for me). The work is richly researched and informed by a seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of film history and a kind of scholarly rigor, but it is utterly led by the personal; it is absolutely a program of self-inspection, explicitly and shamelessly subjective in its view of the films under discussion, and then, in turn, using those films as tools to interrogate the author’s own thoughts and choices, all while investigating how and why those films have had such a draw for her – what functions they have served.

Janisse is unflinching in presenting her own struggles with depression, substance abuse, self-destructive behavior, and, in fact, outwardly destructive tendencies. Her relationships with family and friends and lovers all come under the microscope as necessary elements of analysis. There is horror in the films, in her story, and in the act of self-revelation. And somehow, as an author, she pulls off this trick wherein her life’s very real difficulties illuminate the films being discussed just as much as those films shed symbolic and psychologically enlightening light upon those very trials and tribulations.

As someone who has taken up a project of writing about horror, discussing the material that I am so often drawn to, this book is as inspiring as it is intimidating. To approach the content from such a personal place, all while really doing the work, both in terms of research and in terms of self-analysis, is an impressive and moving feat. And it seems such an effective way of discussing the material.  We already sail an endless sea of film criticism, literary theory, movie reviews, and fan responses. And all of those can be fine things – I certainly consume my fair share – I also, in this blog, seek to contribute something as well. But it is noteworthy how novel her peculiarly intimate approach is, naturally offering what nobody else can, as nobody else has lived her life. It is a great reminder that anyone with thoughts, responses, and feelings has something to add to the conversation (but also, that it is best added with real precision and thoughtfulness).

Furthermore, the book is just beautiful. From the cover, drawing on imagery from Let’s Scare Jessica to Death, to the sensational vast array of black and white film stills and posters that are peppered throughout, to the 30-something full color pages in the center of the book, collecting striking poster art and images from the referenced films, the whole volume is an art-object, deserving a place on any coffee table. If only I had one…

—

Just as an aside, speaking of mentally unstable female characters in films, thanks to the Gaylords of Darkness podcast bringing it to my attention, last night I watched the 1952 Marilyn Monroe thriller Don’t Bother to Knock (directed by Hammer and Amicus mainstay, Roy Ward Baker) and wow, it is a treat.  I don’t really want to describe it much as I think it’s better to go in cold, but apparently, it was her attempt to be taken seriously as an actor and not only a sex symbol starlet and it is a striking, off kilter performance in an interesting, odd, and sometimes quite tense little picture.  I hadn’t even heard of it before, so if you can find a copy somewhere (and I see it’s available to rent on many platforms in the US – I can’t speak for other markets), I think it’s worth your time.