TREATS NOT TRICKS (HORROR CINEMA)
Halloween may traditionally be a time we indulge in the macabre and otherworldly, this may take the form of watching ‘Horror’ movies. So, for this blog, I wish to discuss a few films and talk about the horror genre. Horror is my favourite genre of cinema; it was my introduction to cinema, and it is an ever expanding genre that strives to re-invent itself and push cinematic boundaries. I've never tired of horror cinema, and whilst I'm a fan of all cinema of all kinds, I still find horror fascinating, and believe it is the most important genre of cinema historically and, indeed, the most influential, both past and present.
The horror film has its roots going back right to the early days of cinema at the beginning of the 20th century. Some films go back further, but in my opinion, it was the early European films ‘The Cabinet of Dr Caligari’ (1920), ‘Nosferatu’ (1922) and ‘Haxan’ (1922) which not only put horror on the map but revealed the power and potential of cinema as an institution for years to come.Horror has been an ever-expanding genre and has depicted visions of everything from hell to marauding zombie apocalypses. It isn’t afraid to be smart. Films of the genre have explored anxieties surrounding the human body, or the dark recesses of our sub conscious & teenage anxiety explored in film by American film-maker Wes Craven in films like ‘A Nightmare on Elm Street’ and ‘Scream’.
Where would the so called ‘Scream Queen’ be without Halloween’s tough yet vulnerable babysitter Laurie Strode? This notion of strong female so called Scream Queens has carried through to present day with a new Halloween released this October, and of course, the show 'Scream Queens'.
I've
always been passionate about the horror film since child-hood, and I
enjoy them. I've always interpreted cinema and horror cinema as an
evolving medium of ideas. In the sense, new directors and writers keep
trying to break new ground and bring in something new, whilst being
inspired by the old.For the blog, I’ve picked a few mainstream movies and a couple of independent films for the blog, because I think it’s important to speak up for independent movies especially when they are so good.
Horror cinema despite being synonymous with death, if nothing more, makes you feel grateful to be alive, whilst it explores the nature of human vulnerability in what is an unforgiving world on and off the screen.
Horror cinema, when treated correctly and with respect, tells us something about ourselves - it taps into darker areas of the human condition that other genres rarely go, and exposes the often frightening and unpleasant real mechanisms of the human soul; there is no conceit with horror cinema: we always know where we stand with it and what to expect.
Horror
cinema is open and excepts all. Many genres, say romantic films, often
neglect a wider audience and the themes present may fundamentally
alienate certain demographics of viewers. Horror cinema has indeed
blended romance with horror, in films such as Bram Stoker's Dracula
(1992), but they remain, nevertheless, 'horror' films that retain common
themes and tropes that horror fans enjoy.
Horror
cinema is a safe and healthy way to explore repressed feelings and the
darker recesses of the human soul, without getting into any trouble.
What other genre of cinema has the power to do that?
The protagonist in the film Terrifier,
a clown, is symbolic of a multitude of horror movie creations past and
present and the films tone and explicit gore are evocative of late
1970's to early 1989's grind-house, a exploitative low-budget type of
American cinema that incorporated lurid or graphic gore done on the
cheap, which commonly had a misogynistic vibe, commonly involving the
death of women.
The misogynistic aspect is debatable, and has been a subject of debate for decades, but if I've said it once, I've said it a million times: if we replaced all the female scream queens and fictional victims with old, wrinkly, 90 year of women, the films fundamentally would not work. Hence, horror cinema requires a beautiful, young, and eventually slain victim in order to work as horror cinema. So this isn't a misogynistic choice, but a necessary creative choice, and there are many female horror directors too, who follow the same pattern.
These are aesthetic choices, and there is no escaping that. You could not have Hostel (the elderly version)....for instance, as not a frame would work.
HENRY: Portrait of a Serial Killer would not work if the disturbingly realistic dead bodies/scenes were elderly people instead of young women: there is just an unspoken rule that visual aesthetics, even grim or unpleasant ones, require the female form in youth.
There
are many hundreds of grind-house horror films, and many are not worth
viewing, but some are classics. Low budget semi-art house grind flicks
like The Driller Killer and I Spit on Your Grave have
garnered cult status, with the former now regarded as having some
feminist qualities ( there is a sense of female empowerment in the
narrative herein).
I'll be honest, I quite like many of them. I think watching Terrifier worked as a trip down memory lane for me, as I'd grown up watching grind-house horror, and it was amongst my first introductions to cinema, outside of fantasy.
Why are they worth watching?
They are anti-Hollywood for a start. There is just this raw, uncompromising, organic feel to many of them. Grainy photography and buckets of fake blood are a hallmark of many of the best, and they just retain this gritty documentary style feel all of their own. But they are not for everybody....
Despite the low budget nature of these films, and quick shooting schedules, they are surprisingly difficult to pull off. Many new young film-makers try to capture something similar to grind-house and lose their film altogether.
Horror
cinema often plays psychological games with its audience, and has over
the decades created its own rule book, particularly in the slasher
genre, which have resulted in a series of common themes or character
actions that marry notions of death or give audiences 'signals' that
death is approaching: the usage of women using phones, often to call
boyfriends, and being killed shortly afterwards was fetishized in 1978's
Halloween, and would become a common situation in the slasher genre; it would eventually be parodied -somewhat- in 1996's Scream,
which took this idea as far as it could go, and, indeed, created its
own sub-genre of post 90's slasher films, literally recreating the
horror genre and given it a much needed boost.
Horror cinema is still flourishing, but has reached a stalemate in terms of fresh ideas that can re-envision the genre as a whole. I suspect it is on the horizon.
Strip away all the gore effects, masks, psychopaths, killers, and costumes and you’re left with a
genre, in horror, that represents death as a human anxiety—the nature of which was
within the origins of horror from its inception to present day.
Candyman (1992)
After an excellent foray into horror in the spine-tingling psychological horror ‘Paper house’, director Bernard Rose turned to a work from writer Clive Barker—’The Forbidden’ (this source would be re-interpreted dramatically). The resulting film would become 1992’s ‘Candyman’; a mainstay in classic horror and a bench mark 90’s movie.
‘Candyman’ tells the story of Daniel Robitaille (Tony Todd),
a painter during the 1800’s in Chicago. He is commissioned to paint a
portrait of a wealthy land-owners daughter whom he falls in love with
and she becomes pregnant in secret.However, once the landowner finds out she’s had a child out of wed-lock with his daughter, Daniel is brutally assaulted by thugs, smeared in honey, and stung to death by bees from a nearby apiary.
He returns to present day Cabrini-Green from beyond the grave, not just to haunt the site of his death but to keep his legend alive by killing anyone who doubts his existence.
Candyman… Candyman… Candyman… Candyman…Director Bernard Rose injects this story with tough social commentary (Candyman himself is literally filling a void via psychological reinforcement (fear) at the notorious Cabrini Green housing complex since other systems have failed). Whilst incorporating a nod to the urban legend ‘Bloody Mary’ (you turn off the light and say the name 5 times whilst looking at a mirror).
It’s this venture into the world of urban legends that highlights ‘Candyman’.
Its hook-handed antagonist is only empowered by people’s own belief or
fear of him. Taken out of the context of the film, this philosophy can
be applied to aspects of our daily lives. We read about the frightening
stories in the news, but should we be driven to fear or anxiety over
them?
Learn from horror cinema, embrace it, and see what parallels between the fiction and the reality you may find, as the two are closer than you think.
A new adaptation, sequel, to Candyman is due out soon.
I quiet like these 1980’s grind-house cinema throw-back movies which have become popular in recent years. Titles include ‘Wolf-Cop’ and ‘We Are Still Here’.These films are effective, like so many of their type in 80’s, because they don’t overstep the confines of their budgets, and more-often-than-not this allows film-makers to really put their imaginations to use, and as a result, the films capture something in the process that may not have been intended on the page.
1980’s inspired ‘Terrifier’ is one such movie. Don’t be put off by the unimaginative and ungrammatical title. The film is a traditional grind-house slasher with a dark comic tone, if not a little mean spirited in places. The story is straightforward, two women (Tara: Jenna Kendall & Victoria: Samantha Scaffidi) fall prey to a what appears to be a man in a black and white clown costume, and the horrors of the night start to unfold from there on in.
The film is raw & uncompromising with a darkly comic undercurrent with tongue-in-cheek parody. The film takes advantage of its subterranean & moody neon-lit environments, and, of course, its admirable use of practical effects which though distasteful are a parody in and of themselves.
The villain of Terrifier, like most horror movie antagonists, is devoid of any redeeming features—zilch, not even a nuance, which gives the film a politically incorrect backbone which I admired.
Horror cinema must move with the times in order to survive, and for right or wrong, what scares us or shocks us has had the bar raised 10 fold, so Terrifier, despite being tongue in cheek, doesn't walk on egg shells with what it wants to put across: it just does, and it does so effectively, for a independent horror movie, which is paying homage very well to classic grind-house cinema.
Fender Bender (2016)
Another 80’s throw-back, ‘Fender Bender’, which takes its name from a minor car collision, follows the story a young woman, Hilary (Makenzie Vega) who, after a minor car accident with an unknown adult male, finds herself terrorised by a masked assailant at home whilst her parents are away.
I found this hiding on Netflix, and gave it a watch with low expectations and was pleasantly surprised. It's actually very well assembled and has a sado-masochistic undercurrent which sets it apart from many recent slasher/horror efforts at least, which are not willing to dig a little deeper contextually or symbolically.
If I watch a horror film, it has to make me feel uncomfortable, otherwise it isn't doing its job correctly.
‘Fender Bender’ is a solid independent horror film and a respectable effort all round.
It doesn’t step anywhere it doesn’t need to and keeps things tight and claustrophobic with slow burning tension.
The score—industrial rock meets John Carpenter—is fantastic and is provided by Night Runner.
Both Fender Bender & Terrifier are effective 1980’s infused horror gems.
HOSTEL: PART 2 (2007)
Hostel:
Part 2 is a 2007 slasher film directed by Eli Roth, and it's ok. The film is a
vast improvement over the ropey original. Hostel: Part 2 is a shade wittier
than its predecessor, but the films main strengths lie in its
unwaveringly lurid set up, and sleazy modern-day grindhouse sensibilities.
The
films plot, like the original, is standard slasher fare, and involves a group
of silly American 20 something women travelling through Europe looking for sex,
only to be
picked up
as part of a lurid criminal syndicate who deal in selling women to be brutally
tortured, maimed and murdered for a high price.
The
film is a shade smarter
than it needs to be and Eli Roth has a deliciously dark sense of humour.
Director Eli Roth has bags of potential, but requires more restraint.
He gets carried away in some places and loses the thread of the entire
movie, but when he switches his brain on and crafts these tongue in
cheek, smart, and slightly amusing movies, he excels.
The
European location well utilised, and the film makes the most it, but this story
can only be told so many times, and the film suffers from deja vu. Nevertheless,
it is a worthy, if slightly restrained in the gore department, modern day grind-house/slasher movie,
with lots of blood.
HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER (1986)
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer is a classic horror/crime film from 1986. Some 30 years plus and it still has great power and resonance. Made on a small budget by first time director John McNaughton the film retains a gritty documentary style realism that compliments it 10 fold.
The film tells the fictional story of Henry (Michael Rooker), a drifter and violent serial killer who lives in an apartment with prison friend Otis. The situation at the apartment changes when Otis brings his sister to stay at the apartment with Henry. Afterwards, Henry and Otis's crimes appear to escalate and become more sporadic. But the pairs voyeuristic tendencies are fuelled when they obtain a video camera.
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer is the low budget grind house crime horror with brains that were few and far between in their 1980's heyday. The film captures traditional docu-drama realism with grind-house/exploitation undercurrents.
The film is genuinely disturbing, chilling, and well crafted. The film has borrowed many elements from various documented serial killers, and blended them together to tell one grim, raw, and unforgiving tale. I admire what it does as a work of cinema, but I still find it an uncomfortable watch.
The film is cruel and uncompromising, and tough, but it is just so well done for low-budget cinema. It is the fact that the film does fully deliver on what it promises (to shock), which forgives it its visceral and exploitative violence. Henry:Portrait of a Serial Killer is a bench-mark of American independent cinema and some 30 years later, it still stands as amongst the most promising, original, and vibrant debuts in cinema history.
Even some 30 years later, it is still an extremely uncomfortable watch, which is a testament to its quality. So not a fun watch, but if you admire low-budget cinema and want experience a horror film and not just watch them, then this is the way to go.
Hush...
Director Mike Flanagan knows how to craft cinema on a small budget—a
remarkable skill & something that benefits the industry and viewers
alike. There are so many expensive movies that can’t craft tension or
atmosphere; subsequently, they tank at the box office and disappoint
audiences.‘Hush’…is a prime example of the craft this director and his team are capable of. Hollywood has caught notice and Mike Flanagan is set to direct, write, and produce an adaptation of Stephen King novel ‘Doctor Sleep’ (a sequel to The Shining).
The movie centres around deaf novelist Maddie Young (Kate Siegel), who lives in an isolated property in the woods. One night when she’s struggling for inspiration, a masked killer (John Gallagher Jr) appears outside her home and subjects her to a night of terror.
The ambiguous killer in the film wears a plain white mask which is evocative of the ‘faceless embodiment of evil’. Horror cinema often gets this right in films like ‘Halloween’ (white plain mask) and the ghost-face mask in Wes Craven’s ‘Scream’ (based on the painting ‘The Scream’ by Edvard Munch).
As noted by many film critics and Stephen King himself, the film is evocative of the tidy 1967 suspense film ‘Wait Until Dark’ but with a darker, modern edge.
It manages to stay true to traditional horror movie law, whilst feeling fresh by adding a few modern twists; the film notably incorporates the use of iPhone and messenger.
The ambiguous antagonist in ‘Hush’ is cold, cruel, and methodical, but he’s also clumsy and over confident. Has he met his match with Maddie? Watch Hush to find out.
The Witch is an unusual gothic horror film which is drenched in ambiguity. The
films end credits suggest the film was inspired by real documented
accounts and folklore, and these have ideas have clearly been put through
the blender in for this film.
This isn't a criticism as the film concludes with a message saying it was based on tales of folklore, but it is this patch-work of different ideas into one which makes the film unique.
It chronicles a dysfunctional Puritan family living on a farm on the outskirts of large forest. One day the family’s daughter Thomasin (Anya Taylor-Joy) is playing peek-boo with newborn baby brother Samuel, when in the blink of her eyelids he vanishes, apparently taken off into the woods by possibly a Witch.Hysteria and ambiguity follow as the family breaks down over who or what took Samuel and why.
The Witch is so elegantly constructed you forget you’re watching a horror film, but it is nonetheless frightening and disturbing.
The film appears to make the viewer question what really happened to Samuel and asks audiences if we may interpret the family’s consequent behaviour as evil and in effect responsible for possibly validating what may or may not have occurred in the woods, or in turn validate who or what is responsible for taking the baby.
It appears there is more at play in this god-fearing home than anything supposedly lurking in woods.
In essence, these dynamics in the plot concerning hysteria, guilt, confusion, and blame during the 17th century were rooted historically in humanities turbulent movement towards civilized society.
Religion and Christianity were used to frighten and control people during these times, and in many instances women became a figure of scorn if they fell into a certain societal placement, be it prostitution, witch-craft, or anyone opposing any repressive regime or system of governance.
Nothing much has changed then.
Times
were tough and people looked for answers in the stars and sought
validation for evil, death, child-birth, disease, or famine.
Ultimately, there is no validation.However, in this cinematic instance the symbol of all this angst, guilt and confusion and, indeed, source of a validation/rationale for evil is a Witch. The film itself stands completely alone in its genre both thematically, structurally, and within the narrative.
It incorporates an effective use of sound & imagery resulting in a handsome visual aesthetic, as well as an effective use of natural lighting capturing that all too rare tangible sense of the outdoors woodland setting.
The Witch doesn't pander to any conventions, it wisely takes its time telling its story, and it showcases a very impressive debut for director Robert Eggers.
2017’s I.T was light years better than I thought it would. Writer Stephen King and cinema have had an unnecessarily bumpy ride over the past three decades and this lowered my expectations.
Argentine film director Andy Muschetti has accomplished quite a feat here, and he benefits from a decent screenplay which gets the best out of its young cast, which includes Stranger Things – Finn Wolfhard and Sophia Lillis, who work well together and have on-screen chemistry.
The story, based on one of writer Stephen King’s most enduring works of the same name, tells the story of a group of seven misfit youths who come face to face with an ancient embodiment of evil that takes the form of a clown – Pennywise.
The film wisely lets Pennywise dwell in the background whilst
focusing on the narrative surrounding the youth. This is important
because this ‘coming of age’ tale hinges on its characters overcoming
they’re personal demons and this malevolent shape shifting entity acts
as a catalyst for them to confront not just the evil entity but these
personal issues as well: a sort of symbolic psychological reinforcement
in many ways.In terms of horror cinema, too much of I.T leads to an unbalanced narrative. Pennywise becomes a ‘horror film’ plot device, and it’s important to use these devices sparingly or save them until the end creating cinematic momentum (all best film-directors do this).As far as writer Stephen King is concerned, I.T perfectly combines the most human of stories with a frightening horror creation, and if you can do that, you not only understand horror —you respect it.
The scene where the evil entity’s sewer-based lair is revealed includes the missing children suspended in mid-air; I found this scene very disturbing and effective.
A sequel to I.T will follow next year featuring actress Jessica Chastain in the role of an adult Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis). I’m hoping the film succeeds, in providing a smooth and believable transition of these characters into adulthood, whilst meeting the same quality as this surprising 2017’s creation too.
Ultimately, 2017's IT is nastier, sharper, smarter and more stylish than other adaptations, and an admirable take on the Stephen King novel on which it is based.
HALLOWEEN (2018)
Even though the original Halloween
is my favourite movie, I'd all but given up on the series thanks to Rob
Zombie's painful z-grade student movies bearing the title of Halloween.2018 saw this follow up/re-boot, and to be honest, it works. What we have here is a back to basics approach to the Halloween series, which retains the DNA from the original John Carpenter masterpiece.
In short, Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) is living a secluded life, tooled up with guns and traps waiting for Michael Myer's to one day return so she can kill him. Thankfully, Michael escapes the mental health facility he's been residing in, and so the story begins...
The film, as mentioned, retains the right Carpenter-esque vibe from the offset with a nostalgic opening credits sequence which evokes the original with the lit up pumpkinhead, and the shape or Michael Myer's is portrayed perfectly and has that cold, lifeless, aura that made the original portrayal so memorable.
Director David Gordon Green incorporates a great tracking shot of Michael prowling around American suburbia at night, with the children unaware he's not a trick or treater; this short but memorable sequence is the films crowning moment as it really encapsulates what the Halloween series is all about, and that is the dark undercurrent that boils under angelic suburban Americana.
On the critical side, as pointed out by everybody, the introduction of a Dr Loomis type villain in the form of Dr Sartain was a mistake. This character feels unnecessary and undermines the great character of Dr Loomis from the original.
Overall, a much needed follow up that gives you a taste of what Laurie Strode has been up to all these years, whilst giving you an update on her troubled brother as well.
A sequel will follow this October.
HALLOWEEN H20
1998's Halloween H20 is set 20 years after the events of the first movie and ignores the continuity of the sequels, plus it's set in the Summer, in California.
Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) is now a headmistress at a nice private school, Hillcrest Academy, in California. She has a son called John (Josh Harnett) who attends the school, along with his friends including Molly (played by Dawson Creek's Michelle Williams).
Rather than go on the Summer school trip to Yosemite with the rest of the students, John and his friends throw a party on campus, but, unbeknownst to them, Laurie's unstable brother, Michael, will be joining them.
Halloween H20 was directed by Steve Miner who had a background in horror movies, and it shows.
This is the strongest sequel to date, is littered with references to classic horror films and the original Halloween, and at the time, captured the spirit of those self-referential aesthetic driven 90's teen slasher movies that got started after Wes Craven's Scream.
Halloween H20 takes its time building up Laurie Strode's backstory and introduces its characters well. The cast look great and have strong chemistry.
Many of the film’s references are visual, and it’s a 90's version of a 1980's stalk and slash film. The film enters a formulaic form once Michael has entered the school, and it's all the better for it. This is the way it should be in these types of horror movies.
Halloween H20 is briskly paced, stylish, menacing, feels like it’s been made by someone who knows horror, and concludes nicely.
The film is not particularly gory at all, but the scenes involving Michael Myers are harrowing and stylishly executed, a sign of filmmakers who understand horror. The other sequels failed in many ways, but not least in the way they used cheap shock tactics to drag the story out using poorly executed gore scenes.
The sequels overlooked traditional slasher movie tropes and got bogged down in some truly dreary overly complicated melodrama. Halloween H20 builds on an awkward relationship Laurie Strode has formed with another middle-aged teacher, and then Michael Myers just shuts it straight down in the films third act. Despite the violence, you're relieved as it breaks the on-screen tension, and in a sick way this situation has some cathartic release for Laurie Strode. She's too damaged to form a relationship with a man. This is made quite obvious from the films first half.
Horror film fans would expect her boyfriend to go first as the horror film teaches us that extremes in fiction represent the only solution out of toxic human relations. In horror, this is represented as death or murder. Ultimately, Laurie Strode breaks the final tension, though with reluctance, by decapitating her brother with an axe. Her story line is concluded, and she can move on with her life.
Beautiful.
This isn't just a good story line for Halloween H20. This is traditional slasher horror, and made by somebody who respects it, and understands John Carpenter's original film.
Horror cinema, and particularly Halloween, deals with life and death, and beauty and death.
H20 is the strongest sequel since the original films release. It isn't a masterpiece, but it's a strong work of horror cinema, and more importantly, a strong franchise sequel, which is extremely rare occurrence in the course of a 100 years of horror cinema, where the genre follows the rules of diminishing returns.
Even the way Michael Myers is portrayed and the actor chosen are spot on. There was a very distinct quality drop in the fourth, fifth and sixth, and eighth instalments, in the way Michael Myers is portrayed. The physicality is missing in the aforementioned films and the mask looks like a piece of cheap rubber with scissor cut holes in it (I believe, but don't quote me, that this was in part due to rights issues held by John Carpenter; his original score certainly wasn't used, but I'm not sure about the reasoning surrounding the change of mask).
H20 just sticks to the originals roots, but borrows many themes and is clearly influenced by elements from Halloween 2, a film I think has little merit, but nonetheless has a few decent moments.
Horror cinema has always been very stylish going back to The Cabinet of Dr Caligari, to Nosferatu to Cat People to Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, so in my opinion, style should come first, then script, and then delivery. Franchise sequels tend to undermine horror cinema by just crafting something as quick cash-in, and Halloween went from being amongst the most eye catching, iconic, and memorable horror films of the 1970's to leaving a by-the-numbers legacy of unremarkable movies. For franchise horror cinema to succeed, it must respect the original source film and horror movie law.
Not all horror film franchises suffer this fate, Ridley Scott's Alien did more than produce a string of decent sequels. It acted as a catalyst to change the way we viewed science fiction horror cinema.
Rather than just move forward from the original film, the sequels would contain the original film's DNA and would essentially evolve as they went along. Things got really interesting with prequel Prometheus, but this genius idea of a new series was short-lived with a dreary follow up Alien: Covenant, a film that essentially sacrifices all the ideas that its predecessor built on so well on.
As for Halloween, the most recent instalment Halloween (2018) is a step back in the right direction, but only just. I was disappointed with it. It was well shot, stylish, and the interpretation of Michael Myers was worthwhile, but the script and story was unremarkable and strained, and amongst the worst stories in the series save Rob Zombie's ego trips and the cheap, rushed, studio knock off Halloween: Resurrection.
That being said, it had provided a decent foundation for further sequels, which have potential with new script-writers, as the direction is fine, and take on Myer's is fine.
Halloween is a benchmark in horror genre, and it created a formula, a set of rules, that needs to be respected and understood. The first sequel, Halloween 2, just took the basic structure of Halloween and cut and pasted it together as a film. The following sequels tried to introduce a dire mythology and a tawdry dialogue heavy narrative. Halloween H20 went back to basics and made a great movie as a result.
The series is still going strong with the most recent aforementioned film released in 2018, but either way, the horror film genre succeeds when it goes back to its roots and franchise horror films need to take a note of this excellent sequel.
-----------------------------------------------------
SLASHER FILMS.
It is not at all uncommon for slasher films to show a symbolic and metaphorical relationship concerning repressed feelings, in these instances they are usually sexual. We see this very clearly in John Carpenter's Halloween and the complex relationship between Michael Myers and Laurie Strode, and the uncomfortable brother/sister bond that results in any number of bodies piling up in suburbia, but she always seems get away. One is essentially being governed by the other, but neither fictional character is fully aware of it.
Wes Craven's Scream would take it full circle and introduce the real elephant in the room, which would be us - horror film fans. We are in and of ourselves viewing what we want to view...a masked man staking women and butchering them. Scream's characters would be horror film fans themselves, and they would essentially carry out or re-enact principle themes of a traditional slasher film, but everyone on the screen would be in denial as to why and who or most importantly why. It was a really smart idea that was nice whilst it lasted.
Midsommar is channelling themes present in 'The Wicker Man' but slasher horror is first and foremost in its DNA. It is because in spirit, like Hereditary, it stays true to horror film law whilst adding something completely original that it works. So many new horror films just ignore traditional horror or that which has come before it, and create something that just can't stand alone by itself. That would be a re-invention and we have yet to find a film-maker capable of that at this point in time.
DON'T TALK TO STRANGE MEN (1962)
I had a, somewhat regrettable, personal affinity to the title of this movie, which drew me straight in.
Whilst technically not a horror film, this little seen gem from 1962 has Scream written all over it. I don't know if Wes Craven had seen this movie, as he suggested the influence for Scream came from the lyrics of a song from 90's band Republica.
Nevertheless, it has the same sort of dynamics not least in the fact that the killer utilises the telephone. The film understands horror's relationship between beauty, vulnerability, and innocence.
1960's pin up Christina Gregg excels here and was perfectly cast as the somewhat dozy yet beautiful and charming potential victim. The film has been shot on a small budget and uses limited locations: it doesn't show. The film is perfectly shot and has a really smart cinematographer behind the lens, whom takes full advantage of the 1960's British landscape, beautifully evoking dread, terror, and vulnerability. Also, the killer remains faceless, even in the films closing moments we only see his back and footage of him out of focus - this was also smart.
Overall, a really effective, beautifully crafted, 1960's crime drama that, just somehow, has stood the test of time.
The Haunting (1963)
It takes a great many talents to make a film, but all the creative
pieces of the puzzle are only as good as the hand that ultimately guides
them into place. Director Robert Wise was one such guiding hand, and he
directed this flawless 1963 masterpiece based on the ‘The Haunting of Hill House’ by Shirley Jackson.A true auteur, Robert Wise was known directing the equally masterful ‘West Side Story’ and an array of classic films spanning almost five decades: he was a hugely influential figure in the Hollywood and a true one off.
‘The Haunting’ begins with a paranormal investigator, Dr John Markway (Richard Johnson), and his investigation into possible supernatural activity at Hill House—former residence of the bitter Hugh Crane, whose wives died in strange circumstances.
Accompanying him are psychic Theodora (Claire Bloom) and Eleanor Lance (Julie Harris) as well as, heir to Hill House, Luke Sanderson (Russ Tamblyn). As the story progresses, the dark and disturbing secrets of Hill House are revealed.
Standing the test of time
Easily the best film on this list and amongst the greatest horror films ever made, ‘The Haunting’
has truly stood the test of time. It hasn’t aged a day in terms of its
aesthetics and craft as well as its effective use of tension and
atmosphere.Everything is balanced: from the set design to the excellent performances and script; the film doesn’t rely on any excess nor is there anything explicit in the film.
Modern horror cinema feels the need for excess in terms of violence, and it’s just not scary at all.
Director Robert Wise builds up the dramatic tension with expert precision, leading to a truly intense final 20 minutes that just doesn’t let up—the nature of this is missing in today’s horror cinema.
Overall, The Haunting is an ageless, expertly made, tense, perfectly acted, milestone of the last 100 years of cinema, a truly remarkable work of cinema.
‘It Follows’ feels like it belongs in director John
Carpenter’s filmography; there are so many of his distinct flourishes are present
here—both deliberate and accidental. Some of the influences from other
horror film-makers can become inescapable in many ways.I was particularly thinking of John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness. In the sense, you get the feeling watching Prince of Darkness that the world is empty and there is only the people in building alive, not unlike Halloween and Assault on Precinct 13. It Follows captures that similar almost apocalyptic sense of isolation perfectly, so to my eyes it was evocative of John Carpenter at the peak of his powers in the late 1970's and early 1980's.
As the title suggests is about a nameless/faceless entity which
begins to follow high school student Jay Height (Maika Monroe) after a
creepy situation unfolds with her boyfriend, and not before long the
entity is following not just Jay but her friends as well.
‘It Follows’ is an exercise in atmosphere and tension. The
film uses the American landscape and suburban urban environment to
create a tense and claustrophobic feeling of isolation and danger, which
is helped by an ominous 1980’s infused electronic score.
The nature of the entity in ‘It Follows’ is rooted in something tangible and this makes it scarier.
Sleepless Nights guaranteed
The film really picks up in the latter half and in typical John Carpenter fashion, the protagonists appear isolated or unnoticed by the world around them…as they are relentlessly followed by an invisible force which can take the form of people it has had contact with.
Horror film fans enjoy new interpretations of themes taken from classic horror movies, and ‘It Follows’ stay’s refreshingly true to the old, whilst bringing us something new to give us sleepless nights.
To Conclude...
Do horror films still have the power to evoke fear and angst?If they do or can, they’ve got to recognise the seismic shift in what people are afraid of these days. The most effective horror films, in terms of the fear factor, connect with contemporary fears and anxieties.
Good film-makers bypass the nature of ‘contemporary fears’ by crafting ‘tension’ and atmosphere, but how often is this done nowadays?
Has horror cinema been reinvented in the last decade or so?
I don’t think so. We’ve seen some memorable horror movies in recent years, but film-makers are still borrowing or being influenced by the film-makers that preceded them.
Is there anything wrong with that?
Absolutely not, but I yearn for something ground-breaking, like what John Carpenter achieved with ‘Halloween’ in 1978 and what Wes Craven brought to ‘A Nightmare on Elm Street’ and ‘Scream’ during the late 1990’s— they were reinventions of the genre and effective ones.Is the portrayal of women in the horror genre questionable?
Contrary to popular belief, horror cinema has long had a history of utilising strong female
characters.
The legacy this genre promotes stays true to strong female protagonists (Ellen Ripley – ‘Alien’ and Laurie Strode ‘Halloween’) who are nevertheless created, though not always, in a male orchestrated paradigm.
To close, Halloween is a good period to embrace the otherworldly and arcane in a fun and healthy way and indulge in treats. Happy Halloween, readers. Don't get too carried away with the festivities. :)
