Something Sinister: 5 Horror Film Classics

Horror films are cool. Well, sometimes. For some, drinking battery acid sounds much more pleasant than sitting down to a horror movie. Others can't get enough of these shows, constantly needing the latest straight-to-DVD exploitative gut fest to ease the addiction. My feelings are more that I like good horror, and hate bad horror. Sounds simple and dumb, but I find that too many of us spend more time with bad horror than good horror.

It's true that horror movies can be uncomfortable and (surprise) horrific. It's also true that the majority of horror films out there are rubbish and exist only as exploitation films that do much harm and little good. I'm not going to try solving the mystery of what makes a good horror film, or try telling you what criteria you should follow when choosing a scary movie. I don't really have the answers to those questions, for my own reasons and rules shift as I think, study, and learn more about life, cinema, and everything else. But I'd like to spotlight five classic horror films that I've found particularly good, though that does not mean these five are for everyone; 'good' or 'old' aren't descriptors that equal 'clean', though these are dreams compared to most any modern horror film. These five I've found to be important enough that anyone interested in looking at the horror genre a bit closer should check them out.

Night of the Hunter [1955]: Now here's a horror film about children that children can watch. Charles Laughton's only directorial credit is one incredible first and only film. Like many horror films, this one deals strongly with religious journeys and inquiries, as well as redemption & mercy, justice & punishment, and sexual obsession; all revolving around kids. And Robert Mitchum is awesome. Terrible, but awesome. It's correct to say the film is critical of religious hypocrisy, but that isn't all it is. Pay attention to Lillian Gish's character, Rachel Cooper. You'll notice how her own faith differs from that of Mitchum's Harry Powell, whose own faith lies more in the belief in one's self and one's divine right to judge, condemn and punish. In contrast, Cooper's faith is a fuller, more sincere Christian faith, rooted in Christ and Christian ideals of charity, love, and forgiveness.

The Unknown [1927]: Tod Browning's film of body horror and obsession is one of my favorites of the silent era. A traveling carnival troupe is always good for a horror film, though you run the danger of exploiting lifestyles and deformities that don't deserve such treatment. Browning worked in carnival shows for a while and knows something about the way people with physical handicaps and deformities were treated by the 'normal' public. In The Unknown, you can see Browning beginning to address some of these issues that he would more fully address in the offensive and brilliant Freaks [1932]. Also, Lon Cheney and Joan Crawford's performances are so good that they're reason enough to watch this film.

Repulsion [1965]: If you were ever starting to think that objectifying someone was cool, stop. And watch Repulsion. Catherine Deneuve is tragically great as the beautiful, psychologically scarred Carole. Thanks to this film I swore off straight razors for life. And rotting rabbit meat - gross. One of my favorite horror films. It's cold, dark and troubling, with a dash of tenderness and a whole lot of sincerity in the film making. Shows Roman Polanski's fascination/obsession with psychological trauma, and while his treatment of that subject might seem overly simple by today's standards, in 1965 it was a fairly new way of thinking about sexual trauma.

Peeping Tom [1960]: Michael Powell wins big points for making a film about serial killer Mark Lewis, who films the horrified expressions on women's faces as he murders them, and then later watches the footage. Collectively panned and banned when released, Peeping Tom has now become hailed as one brilliant piece of work, but initially it destroyed Michael Powell's career. Many thought Powell has just made a snuff film and were disgusted. Well, he didn't make a snuff film, but we should still be disgusted and disturbed by this film, because the subject matter demands it. But that doesn't mean it isn't a great film, because it is. My suspicion (okay, it's not just mine, many people say it now) is that Peeping Tom has more to do with film audiences, and our fascination with and consumption of violent and sexual images, than it does with serial killers.

Eyes Without a Face [1959]: Holy crap, they cut that woman's face off! Holy crap, that mask gives me the serene shivers. Mad scientist films can be cool and this one is very close to my heart. Plenty of fairy tale and myth in this one, along with a potent dose of identity anxiety, obsession, guilt, and complicated accountability. Georges Franju's disturbing film about a doctor's obsession and the consequences it has on family and neighbor alike is really beautiful to look at and has one unsettling, poetic, and gorgeous finale.

What do you watch in a year?

Now that the Academy buzz has subsided a bit, I feel obligated to alleviate some of the post-awards backlash by posting a list of honors based on movies/television that I've watched in the past year. Since part of my proper day job deals with what I watch, I find it helpful to keep a little log - title, year, director/creator, and a basic rating. When I say basic I mean a three star system:

Three*** = I would own it
One* = I'm so violently angry at this particular movie that I spend the next five days rehabbing with non-stop German New Wave films while mainlining peanut butter.

You might think this is a pretty simple system, and I wouldn't disagree; I'm a simple kind of guy. Easy to please you might say. Forgiving. Stupid. Whatever. I justify the simplicity by the fact that I refuse to watch 'anything'. I hate, hate, hate to have my time wasted watching something lame when I could be watching something I know I'll enjoy (see therapy for one-star films). Therefore, I tend to know beforehand a bit about the film, be it history, context, people, etc. and many titles on the list are repeats (yes, I had seen, among others, Back to the Future, Night of the Hunter, and Big Trouble in Little China before). Basically, I know what I like and what I don't. Now that doesn't mean that I don't like to be challenged or surprised - I do. Hence... the variation in the ratings.

[this is the part where your brow furrows as you contemplate the profundity while simultaneously questioning your life's direction and purpose without Boast]

Since this list isn't limited to what was released (and forgotten - Zodiac!) in the past year, it can serve as a ready reference when you need something new (or old) to watch. And, in an effort to achieve our goal of being the coolest, I have also highlighted a few titles that stood out over the course of the year. Think of this as the Oscars minus the annoying bits. Plus you can print yourself a personal copy of the list for free. Now that's what I call the bomb-diggity.

* * * * *
And the Winners are...

Overall Favorite- West Wing (1999-2006)

Aside from being one of the most prophetic shows on television, Aaron Sorkin's blend of drama and comedy is remarkable. A refreshing polar opposite to the current administration.

Weirdest/Coolest - American Astronaut (2001, Cory McAbee)
It's like indie sci-fi New Wave expressionist rock musical noir. The universe that McAbee creates is like Isaac Asimov meets Joss Whedon. Rocks much?

Best movie that I wouldn't watch with my grandmother - Tipping the Velvet (2002, Geoffrey Sax)
Adapted from the novel by Sarah Waters, this BBC drama is a raunchy, dramatic, and hilarious trip through a side of Victorian England that would cause your grandmammy to blush and then slap you silly. Waters' novel Affinity was also one of my favorite reads from last year.

Strangest run of back-to-back movies - Gabbeh (1996, Mohsen Makhmalbaf), Blade (1998, Stephen Norrington), The wind will carry us (1999, Abbas Kiarostami)
OK. So, I was doing a bunch of research and prep for an Iranian Film Festival that I was organizing and presenting at our public library. That is where Gabbeh and The wind will carry us come in. And honestly, I can't think of a better group to sandwich a bloody vampire flick between. Can you?

Most Misunderstood - Barbarella (1968, Roger Vadim)
That is, "Most Misunderstood" by adolescent boys as well as middle-aged city council members. I'll just say that Vadim's brilliant sex-lib satire does more to illustrate the merits of film as a political tool than anything in the mainstream media. If there is any question, Barbarella holds the power people. Barbarella holds the power. And if any of you feel the need to pour on the Hate, I've got an arsenal of yet unpublished material to make you weep like an impotent man-angel.

The Goods:

Three Star Rating System
The List

Serenity Tops 'Best Sci-Fi' List

It comes as no real surprise (to me) that Joss Whedon's Serenity ousts Star Wars for the 'Best of Sci-Fi' as listed by SFX Magazine. In fact, I’m going to be pretentious enough to briefly tell you why I think the folks at SFX got it right.

Both films present a technologically varied universe that remains politically and socially stratified by oppressive governments (cynicism is an essential Sci-Fi trope). These films also apply many of the standard conventions of the Science Fiction genre as well as obvious characteristics from the Western.

Star Wars: A New Hope idealizes the ‘American Dream’ as the rural everyman aspires to something bigger and better – heroic adventure, romanticism, stickin’ it to The Man, and (aside from ignorant incestuousness) getting the Girl. This is cool. This is fun. This is Greek Tragedy minus the Tragedy. This is opera. It appeals to our ‘everyday’ commonalities and fulfills our most ridiculous fantasies (swinging across a treacherous chasm in the arms of a lovely maiden? Oh yeah). It doesn’t insult us (except, sometimes, for the Girl – which is nothing new, so apparently it’s OK).

Serenity, on the other hand, challenges, alienates, disillusions, blames, and questions. There are evil monsters out there but we made them. They are us. Reflections of who we are and can become. Not bent on being set in an escapist ‘galaxy far, far away’, Serenity adds it’s bleak slant on realism by referring to ‘Earth that was’, suggesting humanity’s responsibility for the past tense title. The crux of science fiction has always been the controversy of humankind’s ability to negotiate the morals of natural law – a contest that we nearly always fail. Whedon’s film confronts this in true Sci-fi fashion by making it political as we discover that the government (who effectively suppressed the rebellion) is decidedly monstrous. And the Girl? River's single-handed slaughter of a room full of Reavers firmly splatters mysogeny with such post-fem swank that it makes Mal's bloody eye seem like a limp-wristed plea for sympathy. (although the eye thing was pretty cool, wasn't it?)

In a political climate where the critical teeth of Sci-fi should find the biggest appetite, we can applaud films that challenge, stir, and reflect. This is what the great science fiction writers (Wells, Verne, Bradbury, Dick, Huxley, Orwell, et al.) have all done. And, as dreary and low as our world often gets, we can rest assured that Serenity rises to the top.


Top List from SFX Magazine.

More on Serenity [Link]

Tagged under:
Film

2008 Presidential Candidates' Film Favs

Because the 2008 US Presidential race will most likely be a tight one, with candidate and party platforms, promises, and politicking creating a minefield of confusion as to who you should vote for, the sweaty grubs working in the Boast Research Dungeon have found all of the important info you need to make a well-informed vote...

The Candidates' favorite films!

• Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona: "Viva Zapata" (1952)
• Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York: "Casablanca" (1942)
• Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, R-New York: "The Godfather" (1972)
• Former Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina: "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" (1964)
• Gov. Bill Richardson, D-New Mexico: "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" (1969)
• Former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Massachusetts: "Raiders of the lost Ark" (1981)

This also works as a voting prediction generator. Here are a few possibilities that our analysts have rushed together.

A) The race will boil down to Hillary and Rudy, with Sen. Clinton winning because she prefers a bit of romantic nostalgia to a bloody animal head.

B) John Edwards will take it in a landslide because of his tongue-in-cheek suggestion that Slim Pickins should really be riding a nuke rather than running the country.

C) A three-way tie between Gov. Richardson, Sen. McCain, and John Edwards due to the political relevance of their film choices.
Unfortunately, Mitt Romney's choice, while a pretty dang fun movie, speaks a bit too loudly on demonizing the 'Other', US manifest destiny, and advancing monetary means by way of exploiting Asia and the Middle East - which is kind of old hat these days. If he really wants to stand a chance, our advisory board recommend that he publicly apologize and change his pick to something like, Gold Diggers of 1933, Playtime, Paradise Now, or anything by Kieslowski.
Good luck.

[Link]


Tagged under:
Film, US Presidential Elections