intertribal: (strum strum)
I haven't read much in the way of Twilight (like a few excerpts), but I own the soundtrack to both movies because they are pretty freaking awesome IMO.  "Eyes on Fire" by Blue Foundation is one of my favorites from the first (which I never would have ever found otherwise), and off the second, "Hearing Damage" by Thom Yorke.  Keep in mind almost all these songs are used sloppily in the movies, because the movies are like way out of its league compared to the soundtracks.  But see, that's my issue with the whole Twilight movie franchise.  Elements of it - cinematography, music choice, setting - seem to belong in a way better movie.  And then you see Pattinson and you remember they're albino Fortune 500 vampires and you're like, "oh, man."

Then of course there's the classic Twilight song, "Decode" by Paramore.  I'm a sucker for the pop song that tries to be epic (I like Shiny Toy Guns for similar reasons), so naturally I'm a big fan of "Decode."  My favorite part is near the end where she's all, "I think you know!" and the electric guitar goes "rarr, rarr, rarr, rarr"... yeah, I can't narrate music.   But it's basically like this dramatic musical telenovela bitch slap, and it's great. 

So I was trying to listen to the lyrics, and I convinced myself that this song was a bad choice for Twilight, because it's actually about a couple that is having serious problems.  There's "How did we get here?/  I used to know you so well," there's "Not gonna ever own what's mine when you're always taking sides/ But you won't take away my pride, no not this time."  My favorite, though, was: "But you think that I can't see what kind of man that you are/ if you're a man at all."  It's like, ohhhhh, burn.  And I wanted it for my OTP.

Then I looked it up and it turned out Paramore's Hayley Williams wrote it for Twilight.  So "if you're a man at all" literally implies that he's a vampire.  

Sigh.  And that's what I get for listening to the Twilight soundtrack, badam-ching.

P.S.  Saw Splice the other night.  It's definitely an uncomfortable movie, with a rather uncomfortable (perhaps problematic?) narrative arc as well, but I don't think it's going to poison the wells of society or anything.  I think I'm going to come down somewhere in the middle on this one.  Well-made, but didn't know where to go with the premise (and hey, don't I know how that goes!).  Still, some interesting things to say about sexuality and parenting. 
intertribal: (Default)
The Telegraph: Ghost Sightings Highest in 25 Years (via Charles Tan at sfsignal)

The study found that despite being in time of accelerating technology, 21st century Britons have not turned their back on ghouls, boggarts, hell-hounds, witches, wizards, banshees and black magic curses, with a whopping 968 reports of demonic activity in the past 25 years.

The report indentifies Yorkshire as the centre of ghostly goings-on demonic activity with 74 reports of demons, including Uncabus and Succubus (male and female demons that make sexual attacks on sleeping victims), instances of demonic possession and sightings of hell hounds, water demons and demons with repulsive forms such as ghouls and werewolves.

Sightings of demons in Yorkshire have included a hideous shadow-like hell-hound with no discernible facial features which collided with a car between Northallerton and Leeming Bar on the A684. A sea-going water demon has also been reported off Filey Bay in Yorkshire. Witnesses claimed to have seen a ghostly creature with a long neck, a vast serpentine body and glowing eyes.

Wiltshire is one of the most popular areas for sightings of phantom dogs, shucks or hell-hounds. At Black Dog Hill near Black Dog Woods in Chapmanslade, there are reports of a huge black hound with eyes like red hot coals.

People in Inverness report sightings of 13 water ghosts in the last 25 years, evil spirits whose main purpose is to lure their victims into dangerous water and then drown them. The water ghosts contribute to the area's overall total of 39 demonic beings and one of the most notorious water ghosts resides in the area of Boat of Garten, which lies on each side of the River Spey, near Chapeltown and Tulloch Moor. The paranormal reports from Boat of Garten involve an ancient, inscribed stone visible when the river is at its lowest. According to legend, the stone is cursed and guarded by a malevolent water-demon, or kelpie-type entity, who protects it savagely. Anyone touching it or attempting to move it is said to become prey to this aquatic, demonic being.
intertribal: (blue nails)
Anybody know of the manga Uzumaki by Junji Ito*?  I'd been wanting to read it for years, and when I mentioned this on [livejournal.com profile] ontdcreepy, I was told it could be read online - so of course I sit down and read half the whole thing (me: "egad!  manga can be read online for free?  what a brave new world we live in!").  It is fucking psycho.  It's about this little town that's cursed by... spirals.  Spirals, the most "mystical" shape, the most "perfect" shape.  Mesmerizing, undying, self-perpetuating... and found everywhere.  I'm hard-pressed to classify it beyond "horror," because the real antagonist here is the spiral.  It's incredibly graphic and horrifying but also, you know... captivating, as much as I hate to say it.  Some chapters (like Jack in the Box) are just damn creepy/horrific/awful/High Octane Nightmare Fuel, but others (like Medusa, or even The Snail) have a real aesthetic grace to them.  


Which makes sense, because the spiral itself isn't some kind of evil entity - it's more of an unknowable entity, with very real ties to the phenomenon of love (Twisted Souls, The Snail, The Scar, Jack in the Box... um... all of them, really).  Hence the obsessive behavior of those afflicted (that continues after death), the irresistible draw of the spiral, the self-destruction, the way the spiral twines and intertwines.

Ah, it's great stuff, and I really recommend the series - but be warned there is serious Disturbing Imagery therein, and some of it may hit one of your squick points.  I decided to take a break after Chapter 11 (The Umbilical Cord), because that was just viscerally awful, and I had to read like three volumes of Dragonball to get back to my happy place.

D:

* He came up with Tomie, you may have heard of her.  He also did Gyo, which I really want to read too, though I suspect it's like incredibly grotesque.
intertribal: (she dyes it black)
All I really have to say is... where the hell has FARGO been all my life?  

I watched this on the plane going to China.  This is the clip where I was like, "OMG, it's Nebraska."  Except of course it's not, and it's not our accent, but whatever.


The whole movie is on YouTube, so seriously, no one has an excuse not to watch this beauty.  It's already vaulted into my top ten.  If I'm not careful my entire top ten will compose of Coen Brothers movies and Apocalypse Now.

I've managed to recently watch quite a few movies that I should have seen long before.  Like, The Matrix.  There are some really neat ideas tucked in here, and great music that I already own.  But damn if Keanu Reeves is not a horrible actor.  I wasn't blown away.  Especially by the climactic events.  This was sort of - worldbuilding = A, plot = C.  I fell asleep watching The Matrix Reloaded, but not before getting creeped out by their future human city.  Another movie I fell asleep watching was The Informant.  Really I watched the first 1/3 and then woke up for the last fifteen minutes.  Which seemed interesting, really, and I want to try to watch it again, but the dialogue was so quiet and I couldn't hear it on the plane.  Don't ask why I could hear everything on Fargo. 

I also watched the entirety of The Shining (Stanley Kubrick) for the first time.  I'm a Nicholson fan, and a Shining fan, so it's not like this could really go wrong.  It's not as scary as the book, and I admit some changed details annoyed me, but uh, I had to look away during Room 217.  That was not good, and it went on way too long for comfort.  I hadn't known much about Insomnia, but I clicked on it because I saw Christopher Nolan and "land of the midnight sun."  It's one of those cops going crazy movies, and it's actually pretty good.  Mostly because Alaska makes for such an intense setting, and it's filmed with aplomb.  Get Carter - Stallone the financial adjuster goes home to the Seattle burbs to find out who killed his brother - is pretty entertaining for the first 2/3 of the movie, all this off-beat humorous violence and stuff.  Then it turns into a rape-secondary-revenge movie and gets all somber and icky.  Still, not bad for a let's-be-criminals movie. 

The Legend of Drunken Master/ Drunken Master II is some seriously good shit, better than the first.  I know some people aren't into kung fu attempts at comedy, but I was literally laughing like 80% of the movie (I mean, you know me).  Anita Mui is just fucking fantastic in it - she plays Jackie Chan's stepmother.  Oh yeah and Jackie Chan.  Basically I wanted to join their family.  And yes, I know - I watched the dubbed version.  My only other language choice was French!  Thanks, Netflix!  I can't recommend Bloodsport, though: '80s Van Damme movie about an underground world fighting tournament.  Yeah, you hear world fighting tournament and you're like, oh man, it's gonna be awesome!  Not really.  More like land o' cliches with no entertainment in sight.

I watched a few of Showtime's Masters of Horror pieces.  They're not very good, in general.  That Damned Thing is under an hour but probably the best, about a monster in a small town in Texas.  The acting is reasonable for a TV movie and the plot feels... I don't know, genuine in some way?  I don't want to totally recommend Dreams in the Witch House, a modern adaptation of the Lovecraft story, but for you horror junkies, it may be worth a view.  It's not only creepy in a fun way but it's highly amusing as well, kind of like a good Tales From The Crypt.  Nightmare Man, about an evil African fertility mask, is very very bad - laughably bad.  Valerie on the Stairs, about a haunted writer's colony, is even worse because you can't even laugh at it.

So many religious horror movies!  I lost interest in The Prophecy pretty much immediately.  Requiem, on the other hand, is a really interesting movie if you want to know the true story behind the "true story" behind The Exorcism of Emily Rose.  As in, this is what really happened to the girl - epilepsy and intense religious pressure, from within and without.  Depressing movie, but good, with a very retro/antique feel (set in the '70s in rural Germany).  On a similar note, we've got The Woods, a sort of B-movie-trying-to-be-A-movie-or-is-it-really-trying? about a girls' boarding school with a supposed history of witchcraft, and oh, the evil woods.  If you're into that sort of thing, it's not bad.  I can't say it's worth watching though.  Picnic on Hanging Rock is a far superior treatment of the Witchy Boarding School idea.  Hell House, the original Jesus Camp, is a less scathing, more personal documentary about fundamentalist Christians trying to save America - by building "haunted houses" to scare people out of being gay or having abortions.  It really gets in the heads/motives of the organizers, though, with interesting results.  Not a movie, but I also watched an episode of this BBC show Apparitions - about a Catholic priest who exorcises demons in modern London - and quite enjoyed it, particularly the emotional honesty of the characters portrayed.  Plus I'm a sucker for the whole ambiguously "good" versus "evil" fight over some guy's eternal soul thing.  Apparently British people didn't like it, because it got canceled.  C'est la vie.

Oh yeah, and I watched Shutter Island.  I never felt like it was a real movie.  The acting made it seem more like a community theater production.  Like, way below the caliber I expect from all these guys involved, including Scorcese.  A couple unnerving shots, and I will admit the last 20% of the movie felt like a step up from all that came before - ironic given the plot - and of course, gratuitously scary asylum is gratuitously scary.  I'm not going to rec it though.  I have very mixed feelings.  Like disappointment matched with bewilderment.
intertribal: (the light and the dark)
I only recently discovered The Sisters Of Mercy ("This Corrosion" was on a rock collection thinga-ma-jig, and I was like, oh, ok, goth choir!) and oh God, they are awesome.  This video for Temple of Love (1992) reminds me of the video for Swans' Love Of Life.  Ok, well, Love Of Life is a lot creepier (and supposedly "Luciferian"! - watch that one at your own risk!).


Sorry in advance, Lindsey. 

This kind of thing always makes me feel bad for not liking The Crow.  I feel like it's my duty to like The Crow.  And it's not that I dislike The Crow, I just can't take it seriously (also, Ebert said The Crow was better than all of Bruce Lee's movies, which I find really hard to believe, but I'm more forgiving of martial arts movies in general I suppose). 

Still, I've actually seen all the sequels on SciFi.  Boy, they are repetitive.  3 out of 4 concern dead boyfriends who come back to life to avenge dead girlfriends.  That is terrible, people.  SAW and Halloween are less formulaic.  The last one is hilarious because Tara Reid is in it.  Oh, and David Boreanaz.  They're both evil Satanists, speaking of being "Luciferian."  LOL. 

ETA: Extra LOL to the still-shot of the YouTube video being Ringu-ish!
intertribal: (Default)
I was watching Ghost Hunters International on Hulu, and I like it, with all its Nazi-chapel-castle-built-on-the-gates-of-HELL!-stories, but my favorite "paranormal investigation" show ever remains MTV's Fear.

Six young amateurs are dropped off at a huge haunted locale and told to do various occult stunts in exchange for money (all via computer).  Very rarely did all five make it to the end - in one episode, every single contestant dropped out.  MTV never gave the actual names of the places they visited and they made up all sorts of stories to tell the contestants before sending them out to do a voodoo ritual or seance, and there was never any "evidence" or "analysis" here.  All you get is the expression on the poor suckers' faces.  Total fucking fear.  This show is all about the mental mindfuck that is our concept of and interaction with the paranormal.  And I think this made Fear much more interesting than the professional ghosthunting shows being made now. 

This is the middle clip of the episode where they all quit, Mina Dos Estrellas in Mexico - supposedly the only place where MTV didn't make up a backstory (it was a mine, there was a flood, many many people died).  Two people have already quit.  There's a lot packed into this snippet.  Especially love Zach's meta-poetry there at 6:30. 
intertribal: (things i put myself through)
So, I went to the midnight last night. Wasn't my idea, but I enjoy midnight showings (except for the tight-asses that want everybody to be quiet so they don't miss a line in the oh so majestic movie). And here's the thing about the Twilight movies: I don't dislike them.

I know that's scandalous. This doesn't apply to the books, I should add. Never read them, don't want to try. I suspect what I like about the movies would not be present in the books. But I went to the first one as a joke, just to laugh at it, and I actually ended up enjoying it somewhat. I wonder if I would like it more if I was still in high school (or better yet, middle school).

A. New Moon: Demographics

Most of the people at the midnight showing fit a certain type: the tween-girl Hot Topic shopper (when I was a tween-girl, I should add, I found Hot Topic too scary and edgy, though appealing). They're not cheerleaders. They're too "intense." They dye their hair. They under-achieve. They all showed up to New Moon wearing horrific overstretched Twilight shirts, and they sit with a couple friends, probably the only friends they have, and drown in the wish fulfillment of this movie. People make fun of them, but people have probably been making fun of them their whole lives, so they're used to it. Twilight is a franchise for them, and part of me wants to say that that's great, because everybody else ignores them. They don't have any other franchises. Gossip Girl is not for them. Harry Potter has too wide of an appeal, and Harry Potter is pretty damn hegemonic anyway. A lot of movies pander to outcast boys (Zombieland being the latest I've seen), because outcast boys can grow up to be smart or secretly cool, but outcast girls have no value in society, and they don't get movie-candy. Except for Twilight. Both of my friends who unabashedly like Twilight were loser-outcasts in high school. So was I.

B. New Moon: Aesthetics

Gloomy and angsty is the vibe Twilight goes for. It's the only teen franchise that does, really. And I'm all about that shit. Bella, the heroine, mopes 24/7. She also screams in her sleep and drives a beat-up truck and slouches. She walks awkwardly, arms crossed over her stomach. She doesn't do a lot of smiling - laughs are even rarer. Her eyes never quite seem to be totally open. And because she's played by Kristen Stewart and this is a movie about wish fulfillment, she's pretty, but not jaw-droppingly so. She isn't sunny, that's for sure. Her make-up's done to make her eyes look sunken in and her face unhealthily pallid.

The landscape - a gorgeous, misty, rustic town in the Northwest U.S. - is equally morose. The sea thrashes violently, the beach consists of hard pebbles. The roads are all hair-pin curves surrounded by dense woods filled with monsters. Honestly, I would go to these movies just to see Forks, because it's one of the richest movie landscapes I've ever seen, and definitely somewhere I wouldn't mind living.

Then of course there's all the brooding. Vampire boy broods, Bella broods, werewolf boy broods. The only one that doesn't brood is my favorite character, Bella's long-suffering, clueless cop father, Charlie. Charlie (played by Billy Burke) is just a great character - essentially, a single dad who doesn't know what to do with a moody teenaged girl, but he sure tries his damn best. Back to the teenagers: there's a lot of dramatic talk about not being able to live without so-and-so, and suicide, and not talking and not eating, and running away. But teenagers - especially this subset of teenagers - are dramatic and they do talk that way. The franchise becomes laughable when it actually takes this teenaged angst seriously - but let me make a distinction here.

1. Bella's vampire boyfriend, Edward Cullen, decides that he's a danger to her and moves away. Bella goes into a very deep depression. This part of the movie is pitch-perfect. I've read a lot of complaints that Bella is pathetic and a "bad role model" for going into this depression, but seriously, I've had friends react to break-ups like this. It's not unrealistic and quite frankly it's a very honest portrayal of something that a lot of teen movies ignore. And as someone who was clinically depressed for a few of my tween-years, I found it encouraging that a movie can be honest about depression in teens. Then Bella starts hanging out with werewolf boy, Jacob, and things look up, sort of. But Jacob wants to be more than friends and Bella is just using him as a crutch; when Jacob pulls away to join the werewolf brotherhood, Bella freaks out. Is it selfish of her? Sure. Is it realistic? Absolutely. So this isn't what I mean by the movie taking teenaged angst too seriously.

2. What I mean is the ultimate plot of New Moon, which is a slipshod version of Romeo and Juliet: Edward jumps to the conclusion that Bella is dead, and then goes off to Italy to kill himself in dramatic fashion. Bella has to go and stop him. This leads to a confrontation with the vampire aristocracy and basically, the teenaged doldrums turn into something much larger and more consequential than they really are. Thankfully they don't involve saving the world, but it's still far too extreme. Edward (who is 109) tells Bella that leaving her is the hardest thing he's done in a hundred years. Seriously? Geez. The only good part about this plot line is that you get to see Dakota Fanning as an evil preteen vampire, a la Kirsten Dunst in Interview with the Vampire. Hopefully they won't share a career trajectory, because Fanning makes a good baddie.

On a couple other basic movie-review notes, the acting is shit except for Dakota Fanning and Billy Burke and to some extent (when the material gives her something to actually do), Kristen Stewart. The non-romantic dialogue is passable, but the romantic dialogue is total tripe. The pacing is poor. The narrative arc is non-existent, as is the tension. The only things the movie succeeds at are song choice (but not musical score), and landscape. But we all knew these weren't going to win any Oscars.

C. New Moon: Social Implications

The biggest problem that I have with the Twilight series: Edward and his vampire family. Bella is believable as a human girl, and Jacob is believable as a werewolf boy - by which I mean, their actions and reactions ring true. But the Cullens are these opaque monoliths. They literally look corpse-white, all have extremely vacant, stony expressions, and when they say cheerful words to Bella it's just creepy as all fuck. They certainly don't act like hundreds-of-years-old, wise-but-jaded vampires (I'll give it to Anne Rice that she makes a convincing vampire of this type). Edward is totally unreadable, and the things he says are unbelievable. I hate the Cullens. They're unattractive and snobbish. Edward looks like a cross between Edward Scissorhands and The Crow, except in chest-revealing, expensive clothes. The werewolves, by contrast, are clannish but relaxed and homey. They're clearly flesh and blood, vivacious, adventurous. Bella's healthier with Jacob than she is with Edward. I could believe that all of this is done consciously, because vampires are supposed to be undead and icy and soulless. Except the movies make it obvious from the get-go that we (the audience of Bellas) are all supposed to swoon over Edward. We're supposed to want to become a vampire, like Bella does. And I'm like, why?

The worst part of the entire franchise, in my opinion, is what it contributes to race and class issues. Here's what I haven't said: the werewolves are all Indians. The Cullens, and 99% of the other vampires (there's one evil black vampire) are white. The werewolves are, as follows, also poor. They do things like drop out of school and fall in with "bad crowds." The only example of domestic violence here is attributed to the werewolf clan. The vampires, by contrast, are extremely fucking loaded, zipping around in expensive sports cars - Bella knows that one of them is at her house because she recognizes the fancy straight-from-a-car-commercial car - and living in a huge glass mansion, something out of the special Aspen edition of Home & Garden. They're also, you know, wise beyond belief and have refined, classical European tastes. They can do a bunch of fancy tricks like flying and Matrix acrobats and memorizing Shakespeare, while the werewolves are pretty much just very strong, as Bella remarks over and over. Like they're "on steroids." All this is made painfully obvious when Jacob and Alice, Edward's sister, confront each other at Bella's house. There's Jacob, in his (sort of) ratty clothes, and then there's Alice, in her very expensive-looking white coat and professionally-rendered hair and make-up. She tells Bella that she'll come back to talk, "once you put the dog out."

Yet we're all supposed to conclude, at movie's end, that the werewolves are well-meaning but crass (and perhaps violent?), while the vampires are cool and sexy and everything-you'd-ever-want-to-be-and-more. Incidentally, Bella's awesome dad fits right in withe the werewolves, personality-wise and socio-economically, meaning to join the vampires Bella also has to cut off her own family. This is where Twilight becomes shameful and nasty. The vampires are the plasticized, photo-shopped, megamillionaire celebrities - or, if you'd like, the cold carcass of capitalism - that we as the masses are all supposed to fellate, while the werewolves and humans are all the real, normal people (like friends and neighbors and family) that we're all supposed to trample in our hurry to dote upon the vampires.

And that's shitty and stupid and has nothing at all to do with being an angsty teenager.
intertribal: (darling little demon)
A/N: I meant to post this earlier this week, but I failed, because I fail.

Consider this my first foray into both mixes and mediafire.  But it's Halloween and I love Halloween so I decided to make a playlist of Halloween-y music.  I split it into four manageable, slightly coherent volumes.  I tried to include various types of Halloween-y music, but of course what they ultimately have in common is that I like them.  If there's no lyrics posted under the song, that means it's either instrumental or in a different language or I can't figure out what the fuck they're saying. 

Also, if you download the Death in June and you live in Germany, it is not my problem if you are arrested.

So, hope you find something you like!

table of contents and zip files )
intertribal: (life's a witch)
"The Danger of Celebrating Halloween" by Kimberly Daniels for Charisma Magazine, via The Wild Hunt:
The word "holiday" means "holy day." But there is nothing holy about Halloween. The root word of Halloween is "hallow," which means "holy, consecrated and set apart for service." If this holiday is hallowed, whose service is it set apart for? The answer to that question is very easy—Lucifer's!

The key word in discussing Halloween is "dedicated." It is dedicated to darkness and is an accursed season. During Halloween, time-released curses are always loosed. A time-released curse is a period that has been set aside to release demonic activity and to ensnare souls in great measure. (A/N: Is that something like a time-share?)

For example, most of the candy sold during this season has been dedicated and prayed over by witches.  (A/N: Witches at the Hershey factory!)

Mother earth is highly celebrated during the fall demonic harvest. Witches praise mother earth by bringing her fruits, nuts and herbs. Demons are loosed during these acts of worship. When nice church folk lay out their pumpkins on the church lawn, fill their baskets with nuts and herbs, and fire up their bonfires, the demons get busy.

Gathering around bonfires is a common practice in pagan worship. As I remember, the bonfires that I attended during homecoming week when I was in high school were always in the fall. I am amazed at how we ignorantly participate in pagan, occult rituals. 

Halloween is much more than a holiday filled with fun and tricks or treats. It is a time for the gathering of evil that masquerades behind the fictitious characters of Dracula, werewolves, mummies and witches on brooms. The truth is that these demons that have been presented as scary cartoons actually exist. I have prayed for witches who are addicted to drinking blood and howling at the moon. (A/N: Sweet, thanks!)

While the lukewarm and ignorant think of these customs as "just harmless fun," the vortexes of hell are releasing new assignments against souls. Witches take pride in laughing at the ignorance of natural men (those who ignore the spirit realm).  (A/N: Cackle cackle cackle.)

The word "occult" means "secret." The danger of Halloween is not in the scary things we see but in the secret, wicked, cruel activities that go on behind the scenes. These activities include:
  • Sex with demons
  • Orgies between animals and humans
  • Animal and human sacrifices
  • Sacrificing babies to shed innocent blood
  • Rape and molestation of adults, children and babies
  • Revel nights
  • Conjuring of demons and casting of spells
  • Release of "time-released" curses against the innocent and the ignorant.
There is no doubt in my heart that God is not calling us to replace fall festivals and Halloween activities; rather, He wants us to utterly destroy the deeds of this season.
intertribal: (life's a witch)
Halloween video!


Audio: "Nobody Likes You When You're Dead" by Zombina and the Skeletones
Video: "Wild Zero" by Guitar Wolf [a rock opera?]
Mash-up by: DeadboyandGravegirl

intertribal: (relic)
Ok, this article is a few months old and it's from Entertainment Weekly and I read it in a hair salon, but that doesn't mean it doesn't raise an interesting point.
Name any recent horror hit and odds are that female moviegoers bought more tickets than men. And we're not just talking about psychological spookfests like 2002's The Ring (60 percent female), 2004's The Grudge (65 percent female), and 2005's The Exorcism of Emily Rose (51 percent female). We're also talking about all the slice-and-dice remakes and sequels that Hollywood churns out.

''I don't think there was anyone who expected that women would gravitate toward a movie called The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,'' says Chainsaw producer Brad Fuller of the 2003 remake, which became a female-driven $81 million hit. ''For us, the issue now is that it's harder for us to get young men into the theater than women.'' And female audiences stay loyal. ''I've seen married women who are, like, 35 years old at horror movies and they're like, 'Oh, our husbands are with the kids and we all came out together,''' says Clint Culpepper, the president of Screen Gems, which is releasing a remake of the 1987 slasher film The Stepfather in October. ''Men stop seeing horror at a certain age, but women continue to go.''
The article goes on to give some pretty ridiculous, flat-footed reasons for this: 1) oh, it's about the empowerment of the final girl!  2) it's an excuse to cuddle up with the boyfriend.  The second explanation contradicts the data presented; the first explanation is old news.  As a woman who goes to horror movies, I don't think either has got anything to do with anything, but all I can really say is "I like horror!" 

I've always thought there's something more bizarre going on, whatever it is.  Like, does it matter that The Ring, The Grudge, and The Exorcism of Emily Rose all feature female "monsters"?  Nobody seems to talk about that aspect of "women and horror" because we're so stuck on the protagonists, but it's an interesting thing to look at.  The Exorcist is a classic example (I read a reasonably good analysis about that one for class, but then the analysis concluded that what made Reagan horrific/powerful was that she was masculinizing/masculinized, and I was like, *groan*).  So is Carrie.  The really scary ghosts in The Shining are female.  The really scary ghost in The Sixth Sense is little Mischa Barton.  Even Rosemary's Baby features evil within Rosemary (and personified by the nosy female neighbor).  The Omen is one of the few horror movies where the evil is totally masculine, although of course it's a little boy.  The Descent featured a bunch of fairly gender-neutral subhumans, but there was a lot of bloody women killing other bloody women in that movie, IIRC.  Regardless of what drives writers and producers to fill their movies with female monsters (I think for the most part that's a different issue), I wonder what these monsters reflect about the female audience. 

Then of course there's the serial killers, the last refuge of the male "monster."  For all their apparent immortality, these guys are not metaphysical, horrifying, all-powerful and all-present ghosts that seem to kill by the sheer fear they inflict.  Like zombies, they're beatable.  Serial killers also aren't demonic in any frightening way - the jury is out on Freddy Krueger, I suppose, but he's not literally summoning Satan like Reagan.  I personally don't find serial killer movies very scary, but more importantly, I frequently root for the serial killer.  For all this talk of empowerment, a lot of people go to serial killer movies to watch annoying teenagers get killed.  Sure, you'll say "don't open the door!" but it's to protect yourself from the jump, not because you give a shit about Girl In Halter Top.  No one goes to see horror movies for the protagonists.  They go for the monsters, for the slow creeping death, for the fear. 

It's terribly ironic that the article mentions Lars von Trier's new Antichrist as another horror movie with a female protagonist - for many reasons, not the least of which is that Charlotte Gainsbourg is "the Antichrist."  Listen to a bunch of male studio execs trying to figure out why women want to see their movies and they conclude meekly that "The appeal is in watching women in jeopardy and, most importantly, fighting back" - all I can do is laugh.  That's like seriously arguing that rape/revenge is feminism in disguise.  It's a fundamentally dishonest assessment of the horror experience.  What made The Descent phenomenal was that no one survived.  Is Naomi Watts really fighting back in The Ring?  Remember, Samara/Sadako "never sleeps." 
intertribal: (ceremony)


The Children of Loki: (L to R) Jörmungandr, Fenrir, and Hel

It's too bad another son, the eight-legged horse, didn't make it into the photo op. 

Seriously though, I wish I knew more Norse mythology.  It seems really bad ass.
intertribal: (relic)

Now, I'd see this.  It's aggressive and fantastical, two traits that sadly rarely go together.  But see the part where he says, "your child is the only hope humanity has of surviving"?  I literally ROLL MY EYES.  That was the major reason I ended up not liking Children of Men - the whole "the fate of humanity rests with one unborn child that must be carried to term" bullshit.  I wonder if that's a TVTrope, because it should be.  Okay, apparently it's not (the closest is Babies Ever After or perhaps Birth Death Juxtaposition, neither of which is really the point here - Infant Immortality?).  Lame.  Remind me to make a big dead baby post soon. 

This one, on the other hand, looks good, if rather... plotless (extended X-Files episode? The X-Files movie that wasn't?). Creepy, though, am I right? Toward the end?


* "please enjoy."
intertribal: (here comes trouble)
I decided to check out several horror books (novel / short story collection) this summer and read them.  I tried to pick both un-read classics and newer ones.  Also, Stephen King is like my barometer in horror fiction, which is why he's mentioned in (almost) every review.  This is part of the reason I need to read more horror!  Anyway.  In the order I read them:

1.  The Haunting of Hill House, Shirley Jackson (1959).

This is the mother of modern haunted house stories.  You can see where King took "inspiration" from her for both The Shining and Rose Red.  The idea of houses as beings unto themselves - in this case insane and manipulative and ever-desiring of more humans to "take in" - must have started here.  It's a pretty atmospheric book - no gore and only implied ghosts - but it was extremely difficult to put down and is a very fast read (which doesn't mean the writing was simplistic, because it's excellent).  Basically, a scientist has launched an expedition to Hill House and the protagonist, Eleanor, is one of the psychics he's invited to "wake it up" (yeah, Rose Red basically copied this part).  And Hill House eats at Eleanor, which is very real for the reader because you are positioned with Eleanor, who is both crazy and extremely sympathetic. 

Because of its paranormal elements it's labeled horror, but The Haunting of Hill House belongs with the likes of Virginia Woolf and Charlotte Perkins Gilman (this could be considered a sister to "The Yellow Wallpaper," a story that I really think everyone should read).  There's a lot of feminist themes in this one, and I mean that in the best sense possible.  It's very much about gender roles and their intersection with mental stability (Eleanor's best friend/antagonist/love interest is the perky, beautiful Theodora).  The insane house just plays on those themes, teasing and aggravating the raw emotional nerve. 

I don't know how this book would read to a reader who was more of a Theodora, or a Luke.  But as an Eleanor type - the high-functioning kind - it was like having someone stick their finger in your artery and swish it around.  I understand it's been made into movies, but none of them seem to be honest about the book.  This isn't for some slapdash B-movie director - this one needs a visionary at the helm.  A must for anybody interested in "women and horror" as an issue, and I'm infinitely glad I read it - and really happy to have been a Shirley Jackson Award nominee.

2.  20th Century Ghosts, Joe Hill (2007).

I have to say it: Joe Hill's dad is literally Stephen King.  That said, they write with totally different styles.  Hill is more heart and soul and literary persuasions, whereas King is more blood and guts and utilitarian speech.  I will tell you straight up that 20th Century Ghosts is neither very scary nor very creepy, but I don't think Hill is trying to scare the pants off anyone.  He uses the paranormal to write literary stories, following the argument that if it's "weird," it's horror (an argument I've tried to convince myself of, but in vain).  But anyway.  The first story, "Best New Horror," is very good.  It's a satire about the horror publishing industry, and the protagonist is the editor of the horror collection of the title.  It's dead-on, unfortunately. 

The second story, "20th Century Ghost," I couldn't get into.  Okay, I have a really strong bias in horror fiction - I hate, double hate, loathe entirely the "performance ghost" genre.  You know, the ghost of a former lounge singer who goes back and plays the piano and clinks the glasses on the bar, the sort of shit you see on "America's Most Haunted."  I just find these stories boring and trite and pathetic and I don't know who would enjoy them, but I guess somebody does because horror writers love to pull out ye olde "performance ghost."  

So, moving on.  "Last Breath" and "Dead-Wood" were both short, creepy, and wonderful - about people's dying breaths and the ghosts of forests.  The kind of stuff Hill should spend more of his time on, because there's not a lot of horror writers with the patience or skill to pull off that kind of story.  Unfortunately, I can't say that any of the writing held my attention enough to plow through the rest of the book.  I'm sorry, Joe Hill!  Maybe I'll try you again some other time when I'm in a more literary mood? 

3.  The Descent, Jeff Long (2001).

[Disclaimer: My review here covers the first 1/3 of the book, at which point I could not bear to go on reading.  Therefore, it cannot be taken as an overall assessment of The Descent, which I will note I picked up in the first place because of several glowing reviews on Amazon.com]

No, this is not the cave spelunker movie, but they have in common underground humanoid monsters.  If you know any Lovecraft, or have even heard of Hollow Earth theory, the whole subterranean nether-world premise is nothing new.  That being said, the first chapter, where a Himalayan mountaineering expedition stumbles into a cave and find a mummified corpse inside, is spectacular - and I mean, spectacular.  Grotesque, scary, unbelievably bold in terms of what Long was putting on paper.  I had really high hopes for the rest of the book. 

Unfortunately, in the chapters that followed I ran up against a couple things I couldn't get past.  First, the chapters that follow are very "international," but boy can you ever tell they were written by an American.  It reads as though Long did  wikipedia research and read some Lonely Planet in order to explain to you that Srebrenica was a "killing field" as if he's parlaying some local info that every adult shouldn't already know.  His protagonists are a sadly all-American cast of goodie-goodie-good-guys (except for a couple random Europeans, people of other nationalities don't talk) - none of whom are racist, they just think foreigners are "savage" or "fiend"-like, but that's cuz they are, goddamnit, those African lepers making sacrifices to pagan gods have crossed the line from pathetic to horrifying!  I about cried when Long set a chapter in Indonesia (identified only as "Java".  He also says that gamelan music takes a lifetime to learn to like, which sure explains why they play it in hotels to greet tourists).  And this is why Stephen King sets all his stories in Maine!  I felt that any substantial international experience Long has did not show - which is really very unfortunate. 

I might have been able to keep going if not for the sense that this book was shaping up to be more of a thriller than a piece of horror fiction (and not just because the scares stopped in chapter one) - which explains the action-adventure feel and the annoyingly unrealistic characters used to info-dump (the worst was the beautiful, spunky nun from Texas, but the slew of rugged individualist heroes got old fast too).  Ultimately it was this thriller vibe that made me realize that I didn't know why I was reading this book, since I do not enjoy thrillers and I do not read writers who mishandle Indonesia (and seemingly ignore post-colonial race dynamics) - I stopped reading Sam Winchester's critically-acclaimed Krakatoa for this same reason.  So the book went back to the library.  The first chapter, however, will live forever in my heart.

4.  Books of Blood, Vol. 1-3, Clive Barker (1984).

I'd only been exposed to Clive Barker through this Sci-Fi B-movie, The Plague, which wasn't so good.  I don't blame him for that because Books of Blood is really, really fantastic.  It's a collection of short stories, five or six per volume, and he explains what a "book of blood" is in the first story of the first volume - literally, it's apparently when legions of ghosts grab you and carve stories of their violent deaths onto your body, but Barker's real point is that we are all books of blood.  Barker's awesome because he wields the blood and guts with the boldness of say, the first chapter of The Descent, but he's got writing chops up there with Joe Hill and at times, Shirley Jackson.  There are, of course, a couple clunkers - Barker's not so good when he's being more light-hearted, like in "The Yattering and Jack," and he too pulled out the dreaded "performance ghost."  But the non-clunkers are frequent and magnificent.  

In volume 1, "The Midnight Meat Train," "Pig Blood Blues," and "In The Hills, the Cities" are all A+ stories.  It's funny, because "In The Hills, the Cities" is also based in the former Yugoslavia (like parts of The Descent), but it feels infinitely more real and poignant because Barker treats all his characters like actual human beings, not caricatures/props.  You'd think it would be easy.  "Midnight Meat Train" is mostly a fine piece of gore about a serial killer in New York subways that takes a mind-blowing turn at the end, one that lifts it up into the sublime. 

Volume 2 is a little more solidly "good" instead of either "ho-hum" or "great," but "Hell's Event" - a really fun, adrenaline-filled story about demons trying to win a human marathon in order to destroy democracy (great to see sports in sf!) - and "The Skins of the Fathers" - an absurdly fantastical story set in the Southwest about monsters in the hills (and in our veins) - are both great.  To my surprise, I actually wanted to read the "performance ghost" in Volume 3's "Son of Celluloid" - but seeing as how it's about the ghosts of movies taking root in a disembodied tumor, it was kind of different.  "Rawhead Rex" is gruesome, no other way to describe it, and I felt the ending was lacking, but damn if the rest of the story wasn't horrific.  "Scape-Goats," on the other hand, is one of the most lovely, macabre pieces of purely existential horror I've ever read, about a ship-wrecked quartet of young people on an "empty" Northern island.  To put it simply, Barker totally gets the idea that horror should be a meditation on the world and humanity and all the darkness therein.  Can't say enough about these stories, really.

5.  The House on the Borderland, William Hope Hodgson (1908)

If Hill House is the mother of the modern haunted house story, then House on the Borderland is the father of the Lovecraft monster-god story.  Fittingly, it's also older, lesser-known, and more deranged than Hill House.  In one sense, the style is very old-fashioned (obviously) - half-utilitarian, half-needless prose, describing every little detail of every little action - you know how it is with most writing of this period.  On the other hand, as the story continues the style begins to have the effect of a much more recent phenomenon: the Blair Witch Project. 

The bulk of House on the Borderland is purportedly a discovered "manuscript," and unlike, say, Heart of Darkness, which is clearly just a framed fictional narrative, there's a slap-dash, seemingly amateur, random quality to the writing, much like Blair Witch's unpolished acting and "bad" camera angles, that make House on the Borderland seem like it could be real.  A lot of Lovecraftian stories have this quality - like it's just insane enough, and just un-literary enough, and just out-of-bounds enough, that it feels eerily real.  Apparently some people don't like this, but I find it a very interesting reader experience, if one that I wouldn't want to repeat too often. 

So anyway, here's the plot: the unnamed narrator, the manuscript's author, is an old man living with his sister Mary and beloved dog Pepper in an isolated mansion in Ireland.  The house is surrounded by wild gardens, and beyond the wild gardens is a big ravine called The Pit.  Things start coming out of The Pit - horrible humanoid Swine-Things that force the narrator et al. to hole up inside the house.  The narrator also has these psycho metaphysical visions where he goes first to a mountainous "arena" in The Plain of Silence (which is surrounded by gigantic mythological gods of destruction, like Kali and Set), then watches the Earth die, then goes floating around other planets and the Dark Sun and the Dark Nebula and... uh, yeah.  I must admit, I got a little lost.  But thankfully the story brings us back to the House, maligned now not by Swine-Things but by the Thing from the Arena, which is really a gigantic Swine-Thing... and it all ends very creepily, of course.  Hodgson clearly started something huge in horror fiction here: "cosmic horror," monsters of incredible unknown and incredible powers, huge hidden parallel worlds... overall, good stuff.  It's in the public domain, so I recommend taking a gander.

intertribal: (Default)
In honor of "Worst. Children's Books. Ever" at the American Scene, I present my own assessment of children's books I read (and a few un-read) - mostly as a child.  I expect bits of it will be contentious.

WORST

- any Enid Blyton.  ANY.  OH MY GOD.  Yes, she taught me about kitchen middens, stilts, and macaroons - this information was not worth the ordeal of reading any of her badly-written, status-quo-enforcing stories in which thieves are foreign and girls must be taken care of.  Hers are the first books that I remember consciously hating and eviscerating out loud.  Even my mother had to stop reading "Five on Finniston Farm" when it got to the horrible American villains stamping out cigarettes with their feet as they try to rape Britain of its medieval history.  I don't know who gave me her books but I should probably thank whoever it was for sowing the seed of anti-colonial rage.  Never fear, the Daily Mail is still on Ms. Blyton's side: "not one of those voices raised in clamorous complaint against her belongs to a child."  I was a child when I objected, Daily Mail, fuck you very much. 
- "The Chronicles of Narnia" series, except for "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" and "The Silver Chair": heavy-handed, two-dimensional characters.  Veeeery easy to see through.  I always liked Puzzle the Donkey and the White Witch, of all people.  I always hated the "yay we're dead" ending.
- "The Swiss Family Robinson": "Father, I think I've just killed the most beautiful creature in the world!", etc., etc.  Learn how to use turtles as laundry basins and boat engines.  Kill all non-humans in sight.  I said kill!
- "The Devil's Arithmetic": a mind-blowingly bad attempt to force children to appreciate Judaism.
- "Little Women": a bunch of annoying teenaged girls, a pathetic author stand-in, and unimpressive prose.  Kick it out.
- "Charlotte's Web": overrated, mediocre.  mediocre, overrated.
- "Harriet the Spy": virtually unreadable and boring prose.
- "The Railway Children": sentimental claptrap, painfully boring.
- "The Boxcar Children": and even more (unrelated!) sentimental claptrap that encourages children to run away because they'll survive and eventually get discovered by some fabulously rich, kind relative.  Caution: will only work if the eldest is a strong presentable boy.
- "The Cat in the Hat": most annoying houseguest ever.  Always made me want to scream.
- "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie": sooooooooooo tedious.

Books I Never Wanted to Read (and that weren't Foisted Upon Me):
- "Anne of Green Gables" series
- "Pippi Longstocking": no, I did not have a thing against redheads. 
- "Are You There, God?  It's Me, Margaret"
- "The Secret Garden"
- "A Little Princess": also, I mixed this one up with the one above all the time, and still do.
- "Winnie the Pooh" series: my mother loved them but never passed them on.

Meh:
- "Where The Wild Things Are": the fact I remember none of it says that I never found it interesting.
- "The Little Mermaid" (not Disney): not bad, but not fun.
- "Black Beauty": see above. 
- "Rapunzel": see above.
- "Goodnight Moon": but then again, I was a baby when this was read to me.
- "Around the World in 80 Days": some truly wtf cultural moments, and Fogg has a stick up his ass, but it's a decent read.
- "The Borrowers": disturbing as all fuck, but not as disturbing as that book about people made out of wool.
- "Island of the Blue Dolphins": rather a cold, distant read, but interesting subject.
- "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory": Roald Dahl's not so good when he writes as Preachy McRighteous.
- "Matilda": see above.
- "Number the Stars": my twelve-year-old self said yawn to the entire genre of "the great Holocaust caper".
- The "Wrinkle in Time" series and all their progeny: I felt pretty much only one amazing moment ("We're shadowed.  But we're fighting the shadow." - WiT) in the whole franchise.  Not bad, but never my favorites.
- "The Ugly Duckling": pretty pictures, iffy moral.
- "Tuck Everlasting": I think I read this and promptly forgot it.
- "Ramona the Pest" series: pretty much the definition of meh.
- "Bunnicula": creativity points, but must the cat always be bad?
- "How the Grinch Stole Christmas": oh so secular, but didn't engage me much.
- "The Little Engine That Could": uh, golf clap?
- "Heidi": only thing I remembered about this one was the "ghost".  That was also the best part, as I recall.
- "The Wizard of Oz" (abridged but the original, if that makes sense): I never got into Wizard of Oz.  I think something about it really frightens me (and not the witch).  Still, I appreciate the hidden socio-economic commentary.

BEST

- "The Wind in the Willows": God's gift to children's lit through his prophet Kenneth Grahame.  Likable, flawed characters (who you will probably be able to see friends/relatives in immediately), humor, war, class upheaval, and even pagan idolatry (apparently sometimes cut from later editions, which is blasphemy).  It doesn't get better than this.  I can still sing "When The Toad Came Home."  I also wanted to be a weasel for the longest time, which apparently means I had early Bolshevik tendencies.  LOL!  Compare these woodland creatures to the ones in Narnia and you will see why the latter fails my standards.
- "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass": These two were my literary bibles growing up - especially Looking Glass, which with its complex political structure ("Alice, Mutton. Mutton, Alice."), haunting hallucinations and fits of insanity, is really pretty remarkable for a children's book.  Adopt Wonderland and Looking Glass creatures' wisdom as your guide to life and it explains my problems.  I totally believe ten impossible things before breakfast.
- "Peter Pan" (not Disney): The Disney version is standard fantasy adventure.  The original is, I remain convinced, a story about dead children (they "fall out of their prams in Kensington Gardens," for Chrissake) and a story about the inevitable treason of the revolutionaries (when Peter starts wearing Hook's clothes).  It's also haunting and haunted and finely written to the end.  I wrote my final paper in Colonial Encounters on this book.
- "The Jungle Book" (not Disney): The Disney version is musical and giddy.  The original is probably the darkest piece of children's lit on this list.  To populate your book with monsters is one thing - Kipling is basically writing "Heart of Darkness" for children.  That's how sophisticated the animal hierarchies and human-animal hostilities are.  Shere Khan, Kaa, and the Bandar Log are all unforgettable creative inspirations for me.
- "Just So Stories": Rudyard Kipling continues to show what a bad-ass writer he is.  Bemusing creation myths for the lyrical soul, destined to drive children insane with descriptions like "my long and bubbling friend."  I long ago decided that I am "the cat that walked by [her]self, and all places are alike to me."  That story, about the domestication of animals (except for the cat, which refuses to be hurt by humans), has been known to make me very emotional.
- "The Owl and the Pussycat": so freakin' cute and tropical, and the illustrations are amazing.
- "The Lion and the Gypsy": I hesitate to use "profound," but it pretty much is.
- "People": I do not hesitate to use "profound."  This is a book every little kid should own and live by.  The humanist bible.
- "Caddie Woodlawn": As a "frontier girl" book, the lesser-known "Caddie Woodlawn" is actually superior to the Little House series, both technically and artistically.  Caddie is the definition of "fierce" and "irrepressible," far more so than any of today's "relatable" heroines.  The climax, when a snotty cousin arrives and the family has to choose whether to reclaim their inheritance in Britain and "live like little lords and ladies," is a stellar piece of patriotic Americana.  
- "Little House on the Prairie" series: Laura Ingalls was one of my really early heroines.  The books aren't exactly high art, but they do feel palpably true, and they always got me invested in rooting for Laura to wear pink in her brown hair, defeat Nellie in both schoolyard and romantic combat, and wear a black wedding dress.
- "Fairy Tales" (by Terry Jones, Monty Python guy): probably my most-frequently checked out book in elementary school.  The thirty stories are creepy, funny, and existential all at once.  My favorites were the (creeeeepy) Fly-By-Night, the (creeeeepy) Ship of Bones, and the (existential) Island of Purple Fruit.  Sort of like the Just So Stories, only more modern and overtly fantastical.
- "The Hobbit": my first "grown-up" book, one my third-grade teacher told me to read.  I started reading it with my mom but finished it alone because the story was so engrossing.
- "James and the Giant Peach": trippy as hell.  Probably one of his less-read books (and it's the one I don't own), but it's deserving of more attention.
- "The Witches": deliciously disturbing and scary, although Dahl's crazy biases are very evident here.
- "The BFG": see above, but without the biases and probably scarier.  So scary I wouldn't let my kids read it if they had psychological issues.
- "Animalia": Grahame Base is such a powerful illustrator, he doesn't need a plot.
- "The Prince and the Pauper" (Disney): I found this both hilarious and exciting, a winning combination.
- "Yertle the Turtle and Other Stories": my favorite Dr. Seuss.  Very anti-fascist, anti-social-Darwinist stories.
- "Madeline": probably the only "sweet" book on my "best" list.
- "The Tale of Peter Rabbit", etc.: a lot of people think Beatrix Potter is too archaic now, but I'm still convinced her quaint countryside stories are what got me into Midsummer Murders.  Ok, these and "The Wind in the Willows".
- "Buffalo Gals, Won't You Come Out Tonight": ok, so probably not for young children.  Still awesome.
- "The Velveteen Rabbit": to quote Christie Keith, "if you want your children to realize that other creatures have their own worth that's independent of our use of them, it's an important [lesson]".
- "Dinotopia": ignore everything outside the original picture-travelogue about a human-dinosaur utopia. 
- "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" and "The Silver Chair": it's like C.S. Lewis let himself have fun with these books, because for the most part the "preach" doesn't come through at all.  Of course, these are also the "cousin" books, which may have something to do with the liberties they take.
- "The Grouchy Ladybug": "hey you!  wanna fight?!" was pretty much me.
- "The Runaway Bunny": sentimental favorite.
intertribal: (bloodflowers)
But it's a quiz about vampires!  The password = lamia.

Grrarrrgharrr!
intertribal: (and god don't like ugly)
Watched Rosemary's Baby. This is the movie that my mother had to walk out of, when she saw it in theaters around my age. I had no such reaction (and was more scared by re-watching The Others after that) - probably because I'm not generally scared by things that, in Clarkesworld's words, "depend on some vestigial belief in Judeo-Christian mythology in order to be frightening (i.e., Cain and Abel are vampires, the End Times are a' comin', Communion wine turns to Christ's literal blood and it's HIV positive, Satan's gonna getcha, etc.)."


When the baby's in a black bassinet and the mobile's an upside-down cross, Something is Wrong.

But I wish I could write about all the social issues this movie brings up.  It's kind of like a better-made Passion of the Christ in that it's controversial, but resolves all its controversies in socially conservative ways.  Briefly:
  • Witchcraft - existent? Evil by nature?  Rosemary's Baby:  Existent, evil.  Bloody, child-killing.
  • Women - pathetic?  Evil/weak by nature?  Rosemary's Baby: Pathetic, either evil or weak.  Stupid.  Slow.
  • Abortion?  Rosemary's Baby: Totally out of the question, even when the child is the spawn of Satan.
  • Hedonism/alternative medicine/"Unusual behavior"?  Rosemary's Baby: Sure sign of evil.  100% of the time.
  • Are they out to get you?  Rosemary's Baby: Yes.
Still, Roman Polanski's obviously a good director, and Mia Farrow is very convincing, although I spent most of the movie wanting to shake some sense into her character.  There were some Fellini-esque dream sequences, which are always fun trips.  But God (so to speak), from the good Catholic heroine from Omaha (yes!) to the eccentric villainous neighbors who criticize organized religion, this whole movie is like a big hysterical exercise in social suppression of any alternatives to the mainstream.  You know, kind of like Reefer Madness, but with witches.  And of course, witches do not congregate naked in covens and paint themselves with baby's blood - nor do they go around screaming, "Hail Satan!" and "God is dead!"  Oh, exercises in fear.

Then again, this movie was released in 1968, the year my history professor called America's only serious crisis of legitimacy.  I'm sure the agents of cultural warfare were running full throttle.
intertribal: (queen of the wild frontier)
I decided to see Drag Me to Hell because it got a NYTimes critic's pick.  Apparently it was supposed to be a combination of funny and scary and Evil Dead-y, or something.  And it was funny, in some parts.  But it was never funny without being scary.  While not soul-crushingly scary like The Ring - a good thing, since I wouldn't have enjoyed it at all if that were the case - it was definitely full of jump-scenes, major gross-outs, and some serious supernatural heebie-jeebies.  I had my eyes protected about 1/5 of the time, I would say, but that's because I'm scared of jump-scenes.  The part where I actually felt genuinely afraid was the seance.  Ho ho, that was a bad ass seance.  That was when I said, "okay, I'm not watching this."  Luckily I went with Christina, who being Greek Orthodox understands exactly where I'm coming from.  The whole idea of curses is not a suspension of disbelief for either of us, it's safe to say.  Regardless - damn load of fun, if you're into this sort of thing.


discussion, spoilers, etc. )
intertribal: (monster man)
Today I'm going to discuss supervillain names.  Being a non-absolutist, I really think that "evil overlords" should not be given names that make them sound even more evil than their puppy-kicking actions imply them to be.  They should be names that you don't look at and think, "yep, that's the big bad."  They should also be names that aren't from a blatantly different, darker, more evil and more ancient universe than your heroes (ex. Vorgendor should not do battle with Mike Collins).  Creepy names are fine.  Creepy is nuanced.  But just like you can't name your villain Pure Evil or Satan or Devil when you're not intending to go tongue-in-cheek (see Austin Powers' Dr. Evil), you can't name them the following:
  • Darken Rahl.  Pretty much the worst villain name out there, imo.
  • Cruella de Vil.  Enough said.
  • Voldemort.  Voldemort vs. Harry Potter?  Do we really have doubts?
  • Mordor.  Not a villain's name, but a villain's home, and a very unambiguously evil-sounding one.  [Sauron, by comparison, is not that bad, and I have a particular fondness for both the Witch-King and Angmar]
  • Doctor Doom.  Ow.
  • Apocalypse.  Hammer, meet head.
  • Hannibal Lecter.  As much as I love the dude, he does not exactly have a subtle name.
  • Darth Vader.  Sorry, but no.
And some not so shit names:
  • Dwight Renfield.  Ok, so Stephen King didn't exactly come up with this one.  Give Bram Stoker credit for it, except Stoker also named his supervillain Dracula (ew).  King made it the big bad's name, and what a good choice it was.
  • Pennywise the Clown.  Stephen King has a knack for horror language.
  • Nurse Mildred Ratched.  It's almost caricature, but toes the line with reality just enough to be memorable.
  • H.A.L. 9000.  Need I say more?
  • Sandman.  Starting with E.T.A. Hoffmann's short story, a legendary villain with a rather confusing [if you, like me, hear the Chordettes' "Mister Sandman" whenever you come across the name - I had to sing it in choir] and innocuous name (because the Sandman was a good guy in folklore!) was born. 
  • Freddy Krueger.  Freddy is innocent, but that "Krueg" sound is an especially unconventional and nasty one.
intertribal: (blaargh)

Goddamn, I am such a goth.  The cernunnos in the beginning is basically the best part, too.  Also, I watched Triumph of the Will last night, but I'll talk about that later.  Don't worry, still not a Nazi!  No amount of German music will turn me into one.  I'm too much of a humanist.
Page generated Jun. 27th, 2025 10:13 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios