A Recurring Nightmare

So far in writing this blog, I’ve often tackled films that, if not obscure, are at least somewhat off the beaten path, at least enough that I feel there is still something to say about them. But this week in looking for something to write about, I just had such a hankering to re-watch one of the biggies, one about which I’m sure most has already been said.  So, standing on the shoulders of horror bloggers, critics, and fans of yore, let’s dig in to Wes Craven’s original Nightmare, kicking off one of the biggest horror franchises.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

As I’ve written previously, I’m not really a franchise kid. My entrance to horror fandom did not revolve around Freddy, Jason, or Michael. That said, in my youth, as in film, they were unescapable. Late night on HBO at my grandparents’ who had cable, it was easy to stumble into these guys. They were on magazine covers, in newspaper ads. Other kids who were more into this kind of stuff (which I was totally not ready for at the time) would recount on the playground, scene by scene, the terrifying events on display.  And I think of all of the 80s boogeymen, no one loomed larger for me than Freddy Krueger. 

Ubiquitous in the second half of the 80s, Robert Englund’s Freddy was in Mad Magazine, on t-shirts, on a 900 paid phone service, in the toy aisle, and being rapped about by the Fresh Prince. You couldn’t avoid him if you tried. And I tried. He creeped me out. And it wasn’t the burned face or the knives on his fingers (though both of those were disturbing to my young imagination). Rather, it was the essential, perfectly scary idea at the heart of the character: that your dreams could hurt you. That they could kill you. That this evil, laughing sadist could hunt you where you were most vulnerable and that there could be no respite, no egress.

I mean, I didn’t use the word ‘egress.’ I was like 8 or 9. But still, the concept rattled me.

It didn’t matter that I never watched any of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies until I was in my 20s, this monster already haunted my dreams, and I didn’t want him there.  I never actually believed that this was somehow real, that I could be attacked in my sleep, but I would still avoid images of him, scared that they would cause me to dream exactly what I most wanted not to. But I did – many times. Even into adulthood, drifting into sleep, I might have the passing thought that I wouldn’t like that dream again, and therefore, would be doomed to; aware that I was dreaming, that awareness not allaying the fear, but rather, making it worse. The very fact that it was a dream made it more real, more seemingly dangerous.

It didn’t help matters that in my middle school years, I lived on Elm St.

Eventually, having come to love Horror, I finally sampled some of Freddy’s filmic wares and honestly really like them, but I think it wasn’t until a few years ago when I fully ran the series, including the later entries of varying quality, that I finally overcame my trepidation by means of overexposure.  While there is still some value in those later films, such as the endless room for visual creativity afforded by the dream settings, I doubt I’ll ever revisit them.  However, the original, as well as Part 3 – Dream Warriors, and Wes Craven’s New Nightmare, which I think stand together as a kind of trilogy, have become strong favorites to which I return again and again.

Craven’s original film really holds up.  Though it had a relatively low budget, it really doesn’t look that way at all. The story intrigues, the kill scenes startle, the effects wow. And it is just fun. Just as Goonies would do one year later, this offers the thrill of young people up against terrible odds and unthinkable threats, with no help or support from their parents (though I think fewer kids get eviscerated in Goonies). Really, all of this is the parents’ fault anyway and at this juncture, they are absent at best. (I particularly love when Tina wakes up from her first nightmare, her nightshirt mysteriously clawed open, and her mother offers the helpful advice, “Tina honey, either cut your fingernails or you gotta stop that kind of dreamin.”)

But I think the film’s success is largely due to how it offered something different from many other Horror films of the time.  Until Nightmare, most slashers had primarily offered non-verbal, looming, stalking killers.  Blank, vacant stares, ‘the devil’s eyes,’ or wild madmen whose POV we looked through, but who we didn’t get to know.  Freddy, on the other hand, actually talked, joked, taunted, played.  This would get taken to further extremes as the series progressed (by the sixth film, he was almost an evil Bugs Bunny, with endless one-liners), but it was already there from the beginning. He only spoke a bit, but it was always playful and cruel. And he wouldn’t stop laughing. It was a wholly different kind of monster. At once threatening and fun. At least he was always having fun.

Additionally, the fantasy element of dreaming really opened the door to something other than a standard stalk and kill scenario.  In later films, the dreams got more extravagant, but even in this relatively low-budget first film, the dreams work. Images and sounds drift in and out of them without explanation, but always feeling very natural. Locations come and go around dreamers who smoothly move towards a point of focus, not questioning the impossible geography. Horrible images, glimpsed for a moment in waking life (such as a friend’s arm slipping out of her bloody body bag) resurface in dream, making the events emotionally scarring as well as scaring.

And the other key element, which I am not the first to praise – but that won’t stop me, is Heather Langenkamp’s Nancy. In her, the trope of the ‘final girl’ evolved in a deeply satisfying way into something of an action hero.  Now, I’m not enough of an expert in the subgenre to confidently claim no one had done so before her, but she did it so well.  The traditional ‘final girl’ was a survivor – the last survivor of the terrible events, the one who, hunted and terrorized, finally could turn on her attacker, take up a sharp implement, and take him down.

Nancy, on the other hand, while certainly hunted and terrorized, is just so proactive.  She has these nightmares, starts drinking coffee, learns her friends were having them as well, has some caffeine pills, seeks out their source, avoids warm milk, investigates the sins of the fathers (and mothers), and armed with knowledge of local history, a book on ‘booby traps and improvised anti-personnel devices, and something she heard about Balinese ‘dream skills,’ she goes into the dream to hunt the monster, bring him out again with her, and take him down. All on her own. Because somebody has to. She has to.

And I think the thing that’s really special here is that she is not cool. She is not a badass girl who’s trained in kicking things while wearing improbably sexy tight pants. No. She’s a kid. A nice kid. With nice friends who are being murdered. Langenkamp was 18 at the time of filming and I could have believed she was much younger. She feels like a teen, and not a 90210-30-year-old-teen, but a teen who is still basically a child. In her own words, “she looks like an average teenager. She has ugly hair. She’s wearing a pair of boy’s jeans. All of her clothes are kind of pink. Like, who wears pink?” This normal young person, who is not aggressive or hard, has to walk towards unimaginable danger, and rise to be a legitimate hero. When that happens, it’s particularly rewarding.

And still, while she does go after this monstrous killer of children with the tenacity of Schwarzenegger in Predator, she never stops being a believably endangered horror film heroine. Thanks to this, the final reel takes on something of the charge of an action movie, but without losing the nightmare quality of horror. It is exciting. And scary. And thematically sound (at least until it has to carry the weight of a producer mandated second ending so the series could continue – but oh well, that part’s kinda cool too).

I think every time I come back to this, I appreciate it more.  As its own film, I think it is an impressive, nearly perfect horror flick (easily overlooking some occasional shaky dialogue and acting). But it also somehow serves up a kind of nostalgia for my own childhood, bringing many warmly unsettling memories from a time long before I ever watched the film itself.

Life is weird, huh?

What is Horror? Can it be defined? Should it?

There are some questions that continually resurface as you discuss a genre, and when it comes to Horror, defining the basic term is one such question. It can be surprising, interesting, and even infuriating to what degree this fundamental notion can prompt such endless disagreement among its devotees, creators, and proponents. I doubt baseball fans ever argue online about what baseball is.

And, yet, here we are…

Blood spatter image created by jannoon028 – www.freepik.com

Some Definitions or Descriptions

According to literary historian J. A. Cuddon, the horror story is “a piece of fiction in prose of variable length… which shocks, or even frightens the reader, or perhaps induces a feeling of repulsion or loathing.”

Stephen King wrote “I’ll try to terrify you first, and if that doesn’t work, I’ll horrify you, and if I can’t make it there, I’ll try to gross you out.  I’m not proud.”

H.P. Lovecraft famously wrote, “the oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown.”

Ok, so what is it? What are we even talking about here? My basic definition is this: 

‘Beyond fear or disgust, horror is an encounter with something so wrong, so alien to one’s sense of what is right and good in the world that it poses an overwhelming and immediate threat to one’s sense of self/reality/morality.’ 

Within this sentence are many key concepts.  Though I claim horror to be beyond fear or disgust, I think it safe to say that within an experience of horror, one often encounters both.  A horror is usually not only threatening to one’s safety, but is also revolting or offensive on a physical or moral level.  Your ‘skin might crawl’, or you might ‘have the creeps.’  In fact the Latin root of horror, “horrere,” literally means “to shudder.”

I think both elements are of significance.  If something is merely scary, it may be a thriller, if it is merely disgusting, it may gross us out but not horrify.  Horror consists of an encounter with a wrongness that threatens.  This combination can be profound.  Terror resulting from the knowledge of threat is a very animal experience.  Revulsion is very much an experience of the body.  Horror combines these reactions of the mind and the gut in an overwhelming fashion.

Wrongness

This wrongness may take a variety of forms.  In “The Philosophy of Horror,” Noel Carroll makes the argument that a monster in horror fiction is always interstitial; combining, blurring, or confounding categories, and in so doing, disrupting understood cultural schema.  This means that the monster is always a play of categories thought impossible.  A werewolf combines human and animal. A zombie blurs life and death.  Frankenstein’s monster is built from many different bodies.  Lovecraft’s amalgamations of octopodi, crustaceans, and humanoid forms certainly fit the bill, and Clive Barker’s wet and sticky imaginings confound the basic boundary of the skin, blurring inside and outside, self and other. 

For Carroll, the impossibility of the creature is of great significance in defining the genre.  ‘Beast’ in Disney’s ‘Beauty and the Beast’ may be physically similar to a werewolf (though in the original story, he was more of an elephant-fish hybrid), but he exists in a fairy tale world of which he is a key element.  He may be feared, but his very existence does not horrify.   Carroll sets his definitions more tightly than I find entirely useful, binding the genre to this specific type of monster to the exclusion of a horrific event or a human monster such as Norman Bates.  Still these ideas, if overly restrictive, still provide useful insight into strong undercurrents of horrific works.

And those works are so varied. For all that horror is a known and accepted genre, it is tremendously difficult to pin down.  Clive Barker has noted astutely that horror ‘describes a response rather than a subject.’ Is the genre that which shows us the experience of horror, or that which horrifies us, and could either of these serve exclusively?  If something horrifies (such as footage from concentration camps) does that fit it within the ‘horror genre?’  If a work contains people reacting with horror to an interstitial creature (as in ‘the elephant man’) does that place it in the genre?  I think any definition is open to successful counterexample so this I will not attempt.

Crossing Boundaries

It is relatively safe to say that the elements of the definition listed above resurface as common themes within the genre.  Most significant for me thematically is the consistent act of pushing and breaking boundaries.   When a knife cuts flesh, the boundary of skin is broken.  A ghost represents a breaching of the line between life and death.  When Regan in “The Exorcist” masturbates with a crucifix (or more accurately, stabs herself in the crotch with a crucifix – there is no sense of pleasure, sexual or otherwise, in the scene), any number of boundaries pertaining to children, sex, the body and religion are broken.  When Jack Torrence falls under the influence of the Overlook in King’s ‘The Shining’ such that he attempts to kill his wife and son, boundaries of the self are breached—both in the influence that the hotel holds over his mind and in the violations of essential ideas of family (at least in the book version—the film has a different focus). 

This boundary play contains both the elements of fear and disgust.  Fear involves the boundary of perceived safety being threatened while disgust obviously involves the presence of something beyond the bounds of the acceptable.  Rot and gore are obvious examples, but I believe this tent also covers issues of morality, psychology, and taste.  This container of breached boundaries also holds many other prominent themes within the genre such as sex, violence, power, moral absolutism, and identity: a list which is by no means comprehensive.

The Film Genre of Horror

So what does this mean for the genre? When an argument arises about defining Horror, it is generally because a non-horror fan has said something like “Well, of course I like ‘Silence of the Lambs,’ but it’s not really a horror movie, is it?” or a horror fan has said something like, “I don’t get why everyone loves ‘The VVitch so much. It’s not scary – I don’t think it’s even a horror movie.”

Well, now we can just apply a simple formula to check if something is or isn’t.

Just kidding. That would be stupid.

While I believe there is value in pondering the delimitations of an experience, and yes, a genre like Horror, I don’t know that there is much point is getting so worked up over whether or not a given work qualifies.  Some things are just too subjective, especially when the definitions themselves depend on subjective experience, such as what personally makes us shudder.  And I think those definitions must remain subjective as otherwise counterexamples render definition itself impossible. For example, if Horror must have a supernatural monster, then sure, ‘Silence of the Lambs’ doesn’t qualify. Neither does ‘Psycho’ or ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.’ A lot of babies in that bathwater…

Ultimately, and circularly, Horror is that which is perceived as Horror to the viewer, or to the maker, in question. I personally love ‘Silence of the Lambs,’ but don’t perceive it as a horror movie.  I get how others could.  It has horrific elements and if you compare it’s production design or score to that of Michael Mann’s ‘Manhunter’ (the first film to feature a detective coming to Hannibal Lecter for help with a case), Mann’s film feels much more like a cool, stylish thriller, and the stone walls of Demme’s film suggest more of the gothic. But at the end of the day, for me, it just doesn’t feel like horror. I get that horror fans want to lay claim to this award winning film, but I can’t make the leap.  Others can. That’s fine.

So what is the point of all this? If we can’t claim an objective definition that works in all cases, why devote time and energy to making the attempt? I suppose, for me, there is value in the meditation.  There is value in the mental work of trying, even if it is all in vain.  The effort of the consideration justifies itself, though in doing so, we doom ourselves to the soul rending realization of the futility of our endeavors.

Oh, the Horror…

Unknown Cruelty and Delight

You know, it’s easy sometimes to feel like you’ve seen everything worth seeing.  You’ve seen the classics, the cult-classics, the so-bad-they’re-good treasures, and so much of the new stuff you sample fails to make a particularly deep impression.  But then, every once in a while, you can find something unknown that’s been hiding in plain sight all along, that you had just never heard of before, that can really blow you away. This is one of those.

The Unknown (1927)

This late silent era collaboration between director Tod Browning (who would later direct the horror talkies, Dracula and Freaks) and Lon Chaney, the ‘man of a thousand faces,’ is a blisteringly intense and occasionally hilarious tale of obsession, manipulation, madness, and murder.  And somehow, I had never heard of it until very recently. I’m so grateful that I finally did and sought it out.  Wow. It is a doozy.

I will say, The Unknown is quite plot heavy and it’s practically impossible to discuss effectively without spoiling it, so I suggest you do yourself a favor and go check it out first.  It’s only 50 minutes long and it is worth every second.  It’s currently available at this link (which I hope will stay active indefinitely—if you’re reading this years after I wrote it and I never noticed that the link died, sorry—try google).

Great, you’re back! Wasn’t that a kick in the pants?  The Grand Guignol extremity of it all, the absurd moments of self-realization, the double amputations!  But seriously, let’s run through the story in brief.  So, we follow here the story of Alonzo the armless, who performs in a circus, using his feet to shoot the clothes off of and throw knives at the object of his secret affection, Nanon (a young Joan Crawford), the daughter of the circus owner. She has an overwhelming fear of the hands of men, so it is unfortunate that she has attracted the attention of Malabar the mighty, a big goofy puppy dog of a guy who works as the circus strong man.

Alonzo, determined to keep Nanon all for himself, consistently gives Malabar the very worst advice he could, suggesting that he take her in his strapping arms to make her feel the strength of his love. Malabar is pleased to notice that he does in fact have arms and goes, once again to try hugging the pretty girl. This of course terrorizes her and causes her to feel ever closer to Alonzo, the only man with whom she can feel safe. 

What we soon learn is that Alonzo is actually a criminal on the run from the law, who has contained his arms in a special corset to avoid suspicion. On his left hand, he has a double thumb, which would immediately give him away as the perpetrator of various crimes.  And then a new infraction is added to the list when he strangles Nanon’s father, who had sought to keep Alonzo away from her.

Aided by his friend Cojo, a little person who is sometimes dressed as a devil, Alonzo comes to realize two things: Should Nanon ever marry him, on their wedding night she would discover his subterfuge, as well as his extra thumb, and she had seen her father murdered by a man with just such a thumb. Furthermore, he has grown so accustomed to doing everything with his feet that he no longer needs arms at all.

Thus, Alonzo blackmails a surgeon into amputating both of his arms for real so that he could finally consummate his love.  But of course, in the weeks that Alonzo is away, recovering, Malabar finally comes to understand what he’s been doing wrong all this time, and learns to keep his hands to himself, thus winning the trust and the love of Nanon, who ceases to fear his touch.

Finally Alonzo returns, learns that Nanon and Malabar plan to marry, and sets out to sabotage their new act in which Malabar has his arms strapped to two horses running on treadmills while Nanon whips them on from above.  Should the treadmills suddenly stop, nothing would prevent the horses from running off, taking Malabar’s arms with them. Have you noticed that it’s a film about arms?  Anyway, Alonzo attempts this treachery. The horses almost tear the sweet goofball apart. Nanon tries to stop them and is almost killed. And finally, saving her, Alonzo is trampled to death. Love triumphs. Hate dies. Horses eat hay.

At the end of the day, it’s a straightforward bit of melodrama, but it just plays so well.   The emotions are all so heightened, but in a way that really lands, that you can feel.  I believe Nanon’s fear. I believe Alonzo’s hate and his madness. I believe the earnest charms of Malabar the mighty.  And there are moments here that are simply staggering. 

When Alonzo comes back from his surgery and goes to find Nanon, she initially expresses joy at his return, saying, “now we can be married.” Of course, she’s referring to Malabar, who she calls into the room.  As their arms entwine and Alonzo sees that his self-mutilation has been in vain, we are treated to a perfect moment of cinema.  The film cuts back and forth between the young couple intimately holding each other and warmly laughing and Alonzo laughing in a building crescendo of mind shattering madness, before screaming in despair and collapsing.  The whole sequence last less than 90 seconds, but it feels like it goes on forever, and by the end of it, you may feel a bit mad as well.  It’s a hell of a performance.

And that ending.  The set piece of Malabar between the horses, Nanon lashing them into a frenzy, and Alonzo carrying out his final act of betrayal, builds to such exhausting intensity.  In the end, no arms are extracted, but that almost doesn’t matter.  The horror of the possibility is what lingers.  The mind has already seen it.

And the themes of the film feel surprisingly modern.  When Nanon laments that “all my life men have tried to put their beastly hands on me…to paw over me…I have grown so that I shrink with fear when any man ever touches me,” the sentiment resonates today.  Malabar may come across as a good hearted doofus, but the way he is oblivious to how he is menacing this woman he loves feels…not okay.  To his credit, when he finally gets it through his thick skull what’s going on, he makes the requisite effort not to be so grabby and she warms to him, even coming to love him.

Alonzo, on the other hand, is a fascinating character.  He is truly the protagonist. This is entirely his story.  It is his choices that drive the action, and he is enjoyable to follow.  Crafty, clever, bitter and lovelorn, he is a charismatic presence. And he is undoubtedly a monster. An unrepentant killer, he manipulates and deceives the woman he purportedly loves, murders her father, subjects her to assault by advising Malabar to keep trying to take her in his arms, and finally tries to maul and murder her lover.  He is not a good guy.

But he also feels reflected in the contemporary context.  My whole life, popular culture has prominently featured the trope of the ‘nice guy,’ an intelligent but physically unimpressive outsider, who wants the pretty girl and hates the jock who seems more likely to win her, who insinuates himself as her friend, only to be locked out of her romantic considerations,  and who performs some deceitful act to try to win her. Typically, this has been in a romantic comedy and after this trickery has come to light, the lovable loser is forgiven and finally loved.  But in recent years, this trope has lost allure, has come to feel quite toxic.  He was never a ‘nice guy.’ This guy is a dangerous incel.

And here, while he is our protagonist, Alonzo is never shown as anything other than a monster.  From the beginning, his obsession with this young woman (Chaney was 42, while Crawford was 18 at the time of filming) is shown as possessive and ugly.  He repeats that “no one will have her – no one but me!” The happy ending involves him being crushed by a horse. It couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.

Horrors of Fandom

So, since starting this blog, I’ve had to become a bit more active on social media. I don’t know any other way to promote the writing I’m doing here.  But now I’m a member of at least ten different horror groups, so that I can post about different blog entries in groups that seem specifically open to the content of the entries in question. And I will say that, while I appreciate some of the conversations that happen there, the space of fandom is…difficult…to say the least.

It’s strange how the primary activity of many fans seems to be hating things.

Whether it’s fans hating ‘Halloween Kills’ because it betrays the legacy of its characters and loses the thread of its story, the ‘Hellraiser’ reboot because it will feature a trans actress as the lead Cenobite (never named in the source material, but popularly known as Pinhead), or the 2019 ‘Child’s Play’ reboot because the studio ripped the property away from series creator, Don Mancini (who is running a ‘Child’s Play’ TV series currently), there’s a lot of anger out there.

Just as with everything else in modern life, there are endless cycles of outrage.  Someone is ticked off because Rob Zombie has unsurprisingly cast his wife in his upcoming ‘Munsters’ film (big shock – she’s in pretty much all of his movies).  Someone else is enraged that this other person was angry about it.  Yet another person chimes in, attacking the second poster personally, and we’re off to the races. Before you know it, we’re hundreds of comments deep into a sea of vitriol and aggression, just as with any political discussion.

Putting aside the specific merits, or lack thereof, of people’s complaints (which I can sometimes understand and which sometimes, as is the case with ‘Hellraiser,’ I find obtuse, grating, and rooted in the same kind of reactionary mindset that believes that rebooting ‘Ghostbusters’ with an all female cast could somehow destroy their childhood; ‘Pinhead’ has been recast before, most of the sequels have been weak at best, doing more to tarnish the legacy of the series than any casting choice ever could, and in the novelette on which it’s based, the lead Cenobite is described as neither male or female, but with a high, girlish voice, so this casting seems pretty appropriate), I do wonder why this trend has become so prominent.

Is it the inherent toxicity of social media, echoing and amplifying any negative sentiment to the nth degree? Is it just a natural outgrowth of the process of really coming to know something and therefore, having more fully developed critical reactions? Is it an issue of human beings simply being entitled and demanding, feeling some sense of ownership over things they love and assuming that film makers owe them for their allegiance? Does this just happen because we love something so much that we can’t accept any changes to it (for instance, would people have gotten angry about the 2019 ‘Black Christmas’ if it had had a different name – it was a completely different story and if they’d removed a couple direct nods to the original, it could have stood on its own legs; some trollish types could still object to its heart on its sleeve social consciousness, but they probably wouldn’t have paid it so much attention)? And is this all really a problem, or is it just a natural, if sometimes depressing, aspect of caring about something?

I mean, if we want to believe that good art in general, good film (more specifically), and good horror (most precisely) can be of value, can somehow do good, justifying the tremendous amount of time, energy, creativity, talent, and money that goes into producing it (and I do want to believe that), we must accept the inverse: bad art/film/horror is of negative value, can do harm, wastes vital time, creativity, care, and resources, and must, therefore, be stopped at all costs.

And I can’t say I’ve never gotten worked up over something.  Back in the early-mid 2000s, when Horror was on a big reboot kick, I was personally offended at the idea of Michael Bay producing an expensive, slick remake of ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.’ How dare a film studio buy the rights to some property, with the blessings of its original creator, and try to make more money off of it? But seriously, I hated it at the time.  Same deal with the pretty popular Zack Snyder ‘Dawn of the Dead’ remake.  I remember thinking that this blatant cash grab, this expensive, action packed audience pleaser really missed the point of the original film, flying in the face of its critique of modern consumerism.

Maybe I was right on both counts. Maybe I was over-reacting to an innate feature of show business – this is a business and in both cases, as with other remakes I may have rolled my eyes at, there was an audience for the film. Neither was made for me, and I probably didn’t have any right to expect otherwise. Panned at its release, the 2003 ‘Texas Chainsaw Massacre” has since been reappraised by many fans and is held in better esteem. And the 2004 ‘Dawn of the Dead’ was a hit which, along with ‘28 Days Later’ from two years earlier, helped kick off a zombie renaissance.  I have not revisited either film since first viewing, but maybe if I did, with some distance, I could find things to enjoy in them both. Or I could find myself holding a grudge; I don’t know.

These days, I find myself more sanguine in the face of such things.  There is so much to see, so much to catch up on, that it feels like a waste of my very limited energy to focus on things that don’t appeal to me.  I’m trying on this blog to only write about films that I think are actually worth writing about. I think that’s a fair rule. I’m not a journalist. I don’t have some sort of responsibility to take in every new horror film on offer and give an objective adjudication of its value.  I can choose to discuss the works that actually interest me.  I can devote my efforts to analyzing only pieces that excite my critical mind.

Of course, I may eventually break this self-imposed restriction. I may get so offended at the aesthetic or social messaging crimes of some flick that I just have to come here to vent my spleen. I may see or read something wherein a blistering critique feels called for, feels like the most interesting choice. There are things, of course, that need criticizing. The world is generally, not great…

But, for now, let’s keep it positive. On my horror blog. Yup.