Everything I watched in the theater this summer

 I honestly hate how fast this summer has gone. I always say I need 3 Julys back-to-back before I'm ready for it to be August and this current summer has me feeling that more than ever. My psych program has relaxed a little lately in that I'm basically done with core classes, but my clinical practicums always overlap and I never really get a break from one to the next. This year was ideal because my placement was within walking distance of my house and during the summer I was done for the week by 3pm on Wednesday. This is still all unpaid, mind, so there's that challenge, but the upside is I had time to go on bike rides, read, rewatch Dexter and Twin Peaks, get an AMC A-List Membership, and play Guitar Hero Van Halen with my sons (they are so much better than me it's embarrassing). 

Anyway. I'm holding onto the last 2 weeks of summer, I guess because I have enjoyed how my time has gone. There is plenty I have NOT enjoyed, clearly. Most of what's been going on in this country is very upsetting and continues to be. I think I went to the theater as much as I did because it helped me to both escape and regulate. I cried so much that first month, sometimes even at trailers. Here are some very short thoughts on everything I went to at Southdale, starting at the end of May. 

1. Jane Austen Wrecked My Life

Favorite film this year. I had a good time writing about this one. Every setting so lovely; smart people + books + writing = wins. *****

Go to therapy. Please.

 2. Friendship

 Sad and not one bit comical, although as a production it was put together fine. ***

 3. Sinners

 Loved the story, loved the people, loved the music. *****

 4. Mission Impossible: The Final Reckoning

I was enjoying this very much until I got a text from my daughter that said: Can you come get me? I can't SEE. I left to get her at school, where she had somehow flung a piece of wood from a stick playing pickleball into her eye. 

Her vision was fine in the end. 

5. Bring Her Back

Is this body horror? So much visceral grossness. I also can't handle horror premises around child abuse. Again, put together well but crossed too many lines for me. ***

Cousin Matthew as Hot Priest

6. The Ritual

Also visceral but somehow more tolerable. Oh those Iowa Catholics! ****

7. Thunderbolts

Fine, I guess. Early vomiting sound design did not need to be that realistic, tbh. ****

8. Materialists

Meh characters, meh film. However, Dakota Johnson is very aesthetically pleasing. ***

9. The Life of Chuck

Not nearly enough Tom Hiddleston but whatever. I enjoyed the message. ****

10. 28 Years Later

Not nearly enough Ralph Fiennes but whatever. I enjoyed the message. ****

11. M3GAN 2.0 

Not as scary as the original (or at all, really), but fun. Not fun driving home at 50 mph down side streets with Edina, Richfield, and Minneapolis all blaring their tornado sirens afterward. ***

12. Jurassic World Rebirth 

I kind of felt bad for the dinosaurs, tbh. They were clearly rejected and some of them were . . . a bit difficult to look at. How many of these films do we need, really? *** 

13. Ballerina

Fine, I guess. As with the John Wick series, I get very antsy with the slow, drawn-out deliveries. RED BULL! ***

He's a punk rocker, yes he is

14. Superman

This was good, although I wish I would have just enjoyed it in the moment rather than spending so much time trying to analyze it. The ending and song were the best combo they could have possibly picked. ****

15. I Know What You Did Last Summer

Fine. Not as smart as the first one but still nostalgic and fun. ***

16. Eddington 

It wasn't bad, I just couldn't stand to be in that world for that long. Left after an hour. 

17. The Naked Gun 

I laughed. A lot. Pamela is cute-funny; Liam is serious-funny. ****

18. Mission Impossible: The Final Reckoning

I went back and really liked it. Claustrophobic submarine antics > Overlong plane chase antics ****

She may have forgotten her long legs but remembered her sticks

19. Weapons

Favorite horror film ever in a theater. Scary AND funny. Lost count of how many times characters and viewers together asked WHAT THE FUCK?, but it was a lot. I sat by some excitable 20-year-old and her boyfriend and we had fun being the easiest jump-scare targets in the place. Gladys (Amy Madigan) was immediately familiar to me as Chanice (Uncle Buck) and Sam's mother Mary Taggart (ER). YIKES.*****

Friday the 13th, 1-6

The last time Cameron and I got together for a video discussion was in late July of 2022. I had picked up COVID on an 18 hour flight from Johannesburg to Atlanta and started coughing so hard (from yapping) that we had to stop. Had I known we both had such a love for Part VI: Jason Lives, I would have pushed for this a lot sooner! I remember doing a few solo vids on TikTok during the Friday the 13th of January 2023 after one of my professors inspired me by signing off an email with a dancing Jason gif, but I recall spending most of my time on Ginny from part II and not a whole lot else. I feel torn between doing this again, paying to tribute to Megan, from VI, my other favorite final girl, or just keeping consistent with the Amy Steele love fest and diving into her performance as Kit in April Fool's Day. MAYBE BOTH.

Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark

Sorry the formatting is all over the place on this one. I've tried a million times to put the text right and it's just not possible. Pro tip: a google document does not copy paste to blogger, like at all.

Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, 2019.

Didn't you traumatize me in fifth grade?

d. Andre Ovredal

written by: Dan Hageman, Kevin Hageman

starring: Zoe Margaret Colletti, Michael Garza, Gabriel Rush, Dean Norris 

“You like that scary stuff?” 
This is what the school librarian asked me the first time I brought one of Alvin Schwartz’s
short story collections to the checkout counter. It was the now-famous triology’s second

volume, More Scary Stories; the first had been lost or stolen and the third not yet released,
but I was still excited that my name had come up on the waitlist and I could finally get my
hands on it. I not only liked the scary stuff but thrived on it, and together with my younger
brother, sought it out regularly, anywhere I could. We eventually read all three of Schwartz’s
novels, and together with favorites such as Mother Bates, the beguiling Grady sisters of the
Overlook, and Pet Semetary’s Zelda, committed the stories and their creepy images (courtesy
of illustrator Stephen Gammel) to the depths of our horror-crazed memories. 

It was easy to get hyped for film adaptation--André Ǿvredal (Trollhunter) and producer
Guillermo del Toro are two brilliant, talented artists who have a solid grasp on the narratives,
techniques and themes of effective horror. Overall, the film delivered with a skillful mix of new
fear and old school ghost/monster horror (think Stranger Things or the recent It adaptations with
the music of Lana del Rey mixed in for fun), but I suspect true fans of the books, like me, would
happily trade a half hour off the film’s beginning or end for just one more of Schwartz’s stories. 

You don't read the book, the book reads YOU!

The vehicle of the stories--a group of awkward teenagers who steal a magical book out of a

haunted house--is intriguing, but it eats up a lot of time in setting up how and why everything
is going to go down. As it’s no longer unheard of to experience character development in horror
films, we get some, and it’s sort of nice, but not all that necessary; we came to the theater for
“The Toe” and “Me Tie Doughty Walker,” (not backstory) and we could forgive a few less
personal details in favor of a few more scary things from the books. 

Aesthetic detail, large and small, was what this film succeeded at best--the places and all the little pieces
within them gave a classic, almost John Carpenter feel to the story (rather fitting
considering all the hurting, maiming, and killing that begins on Halloween here). Dark and
shadowy nights alternate with gold, rusty days. It’s 1968, so the cars are huge, as are the
eyeglasses. Drive-ins are still a thing. Corn fields, haunted houses, and psychiatric hospitals
are pretty standard horror staples, and we see a lot of those, but we also get innocent little
objects like a music box, a wax cylinder recording, and a self-writing book that assume very
sinister properties in the context of the lighting, sound, and creature design of the film.

Without spoiling any of the story-within-a-story choices or accompanying villains,

I will tell fellow fans of the book to rest assured: you will recognize each “enemy” and
often cringe or shield your eyes because you know what’s coming next once it has been
introduced. I brought my kids to this film and afterward, each of us walked out having
been wickedly disturbed by a different character, so in addition to being well-designed
and true to the source, they’re a pretty broad reaching crew, as well.

Dust off the old books, grab a friend, and see this one for the nostalgia. If you, too, like
the scary stuff, let’s talk again next month after the second part of It, shall we?

Fire and Blood part 1, Bird Box, and other conspiracy theories

Fire and Blood by George R. R. Martin

This is a book for fans of A Song of Ice and Fire and/or Game of Thrones who are looking for a slightly more long-winded historical account of the Targaryen family. Basically, me. So far this has felt like a very thorough, very "grievance-list" set of well-written family dramas. I've only completed about half of the 706 pages plus appendices, I had to rest it a while once I started getting confused about who was who and why they were pissed at each other--I mean the family tree appendix helps but damn, there are so many Targaryens! I fully believe Martin wanted this released before The Winds of Winter simply because there are several little tricky situations that explain many of the issues that affect the narratives of the proper book series down the line such as the initial doom of Valyria, greyscale disease, general madness within the Targaryen family, stolen dragon eggs, and even a bit about the future of dragons versus White Walkers (in regard to the protective enchantments surrounding the wall). Like a couple other short stories about the Targaryen dynasty, there are several little Easter (dragon) eggs that true fans will no doubt appreciate---in other words, PAY ATTENTION and TRY TO KEEP UP.

Tell me this isn't a role for Charlie Hunnam?

Composed of the collections of the official "writings" of various maesters and septons, the book begins with the history of Aegon the Conqueror, sister-wives Visenya and Rhaenys, and how the family's dragons and descendants shaped the seven kingdoms of Westeros. What makes this an interesting experience, more interesting than the same basic narrative explored in A World of Ice and Fire, is the 2018-weary, self-aware format of the way the facts are presented. The old, fat, white men in power are still the ones controlling the information, but every now and then you'll get a little burn on a septon or maester who has written some vital piece of the story or given a summary or opinion on something where he wasn't physically present and someone else (usually the Targaryen's court fool, Mushroom) gives a different account of the events. Kind of a nice dig on how history in general gets presented, if you ask me. Hey! Were you there? Did you see that baby get pushed into the world? Did you hear the king say that to the queen? Were you physically on that battlefield when the drama happened? Actually no, but you have a big book of empty pages and a fancy golden quill, you could write whatever you wanted, absent of any real facts and people would still listen! How relevant!

Alysanne: Shall we see
what lies beyond the wall?
Silverwing:
Nah, I'm good.

Also, in the spirit of being woke, King Jahaerys I's sister: Queen Alysanne. I loved this character so much! Challenging the laws that govern the continued caretaking of widows, no more primae noctis, winning over the cold-ass Starks in Winterfell, and PROPER DRINKING WATER FOR KINGS LANDING? Highborn empathy exists! Westeros's first true feminist, mother of thirteen children, dragonrider of Silverwing and all-around badass? YASS, QUEEN! I squeezed the book in happiness multiple times during these chapters.

Hopefully the last half of the book holds as many treasures as the first, although it seems really mafia-esque in its general vibe of decline. Stay tuned.

"If you take off your blindfold,
I WILL HURT YOU."

Bird Box, 2018, d. Susanne Bier, screenplay by Eric Heiserrer, novel by Josh Malerman. Starring Sandra Bullock, Trevante Rhodes, John Malkovich

Confession: Outside of So Awkward/Blessed are the Geeks, I never read or watch anyone else's film reviews. I hovered over a few Netflix reviews of Bird Box after I'd watched it already and at first I didn't get why all the venom, but after a few days I have a few statements to make about it.


1. Ease up haters, this is not a typical horror film (and it was probably evil cell phones that brought about the insanity, so that's even more for you to hate)
2. Motherhood has a large effect on how the events of the film unfold
3. The story is smart and emotional but Malorie needed to hold onto those kids better on the boat
4. The ending is perfect, I loved it (no spoilers)
5. I don't know what everyone else is smoking, I don't see gross effects of Botox or cosmetic surgery on Sandy, like AT ALL, I think she looked great

I can't say this film experience is positive, it's anxious and disturbing, but it's a interesting, engaging story. At the core, I feel like the issues are extremely relevant to situations beyond an apocalyptic chaos story and honest to how mothers make decisions. Do I lie to my kids and tell them stories about how things are going to be fine or do I lay out the truth, be a hardass, and prepare them for the reality of life? Are they scared of me? Am I being too hard on them? Do I dare imagine a life where they are safe? Matt drew a ton of fire last month for criticizing the parenting in A Christmas Story when Randy won't eat, and I share his feelings---true, we live in relatively peaceful times now with plenty of food but we've never coddled our kids and never will. This film made me stop and think about what I would do in Malorie's situation. In the end, survival > liking your mom. When times are tough, you harden up, end of story.



Other Conspiracy Theories (Resistance Through Cinema Film List)

Last year around this time I asked everyone for favorite conspiracy or political films to watch for the new year. Funny thing, I still have the list even though I only watched like five or six of them. The remains of the list include Arlington Road, The Fog of War, Fahrenheit 9/11, 12 Angry Men, Wag the Dog, Dr. Strangelove, The Pelican Brief, National Treasure, Enemy of the State, The Crucible, Bob Roberts, The Manchurian Candidate (which I'm reading right now), John Q, The Hunt For Red October, Conspiracy Theory, Zeitgeist, SHOWGIRLS (I mean, why not?), The Contender, Deterrence, Bridge of Spies, 13 Days, The American President, LBJ, Swing Vote, City Hall, and Bullworth. In addition to the Great American Read book list that I'm still working on, I'll give it my best.

IT

(you'll float too)

It, 2017. directed by Andy Mushietti; screenplay by Chase Palmer, Cary Fukunaga, and Gary Dauberman; based on novel by Stephen King

" A group of bullied kids band together when a shape-shifting demon, taking the appearance of a clown, begins hunting children. "(IMDB)




Well let's get the obvious out of the way: this was a redux of a highly popular work repackaged for today's audiences that played heavy on the nostalgia factor to entice older fans into seats, and it seemed to work. According to Scott Mendelson at Forbes, most filmgoers on opening weekend were females above the age of 25 (!) The marketing campaign was pretty brilliant---a solid, everyday object (red balloon), an easy-to-remember tagline ("You'll float, too!"), and a bigger, scarier clown all launched just in time for October, when everyone, present woman-over-25 company included, starts going through the horror list.

Did he "wear" it better?

Fans of the book have said the changes in decade and liberties taken with locations, dialogues, and character development weren't great; fans of the original 1990 miniseries, while admitting its cheesiness, have expressed preference for Tim Curry's more personable clown and insight into the characters as adults (as opposed to a separate film sequel, as this filmmaker has chosen). The book, for me, was way too long and I had a pretty big problem with the "group bonding activity" (aka 12YOGB) at the close of the kids' segment, but still a great story. The mini-series was poorly acted, poorly produced, and cheesy as hell, but understand that it was all we had, back in the day. Many of us needed a good remake of this, and I suppose the bottom line is that you'll never please everyone, especially when it comes to book adaptations or remakes and let alone both. My personal take on this (2017) production is that it competently told the story, tamed the edgier violence themes, and played successfully to the strengths of its young actors.

Setting the story in the late 80s instead of keeping with the original 60s opened up a ton of new possibilities for fashion, banter in dialogues, and best of all, music. The Cult, NKOTB, and Young MC provided a secure anchor for the era, but there were several other significant throwbacks from previous decades as well. The filmmaking captured a great balance between the dark inner worlds of the children Pennywise exploits (Ben's library, Beverly's incestuous apartment and bathroom, Stan's father's office and evil painting) with the bright, wide open landscapes where the kids learn bravery, compassion, and enjoy occasional light-hearted moments and humor. 

Bev shows inner strength

The horror parts were carried mostly by the creepiness of Bill Skarsgaard's not very personable Pennywise, the aforementioned dark environments through which he flourishes, and several well-placed jump scares. Truth be told however, the most disturbing segments of the film weren't when the kids were battling a killer clown but were dealing with real-life danger such as bullying, incest, and the death of a sibling.

One of the first films I saw, at age 6, and I'm
COMPLETELY normal.

Which brings me to the social aspect of all this, but first I'll throw out the disclaimer that we have 4 neurotypical non-nightmare-suffering kids who all singly expressed desire to attend this film (which afterward they all said they enjoyed). Many people are politely horrified when they hear what we let our children watch, and this film was no exception. Our youngest is 8, oldest 13, and though they all grew up watching Sesame Street, Yo Gabba Gabba, Dora, Diego, and all the other kid shows, they've gravitated toward the television and films that Matt and I watch, which is exactly how my brother and I experienced media growing up. They can appreciate Disney films, they have been exposed to silent and foreign films, and they've learned to ask questions and to make comparisons and connections. Where this film is concerned, they had seen half the scenes online before we ever set foot in the theater, so there's also something to be said for familiarity and prepping in stages.

It's my opinion that empathy and humanity aren't only learned from the people in one's life, but in the stories of others, too, outside one's circle. The best way to experience this, for me, is through books, but in a lot of ways, films and more recently, television, have provided opportunities for this as well. Do we teach our kids what honor is? Or bravery? Yes, we do, or at least we try. But having specific memories, verbal or visual, to which they can attach abstract concepts might be helpful someday should the occasion arise.

On a basic level, this film can facilitate discussion about:

1. How to respond to bullying
2. How friends or loved ones can support you when times are tough
3. How being different is okay

Of course I can't say that every horror movie has this ability; I'm hard-pressed to identify any kid-specific, useful life lessons imparted by The Shining or Psycho, (other than maybe "Survival Through Avoidance") but whatever.

I won't shield my kids from the world because I expect them to take an active part in fixing it someday.

Radcliffe and Company Nail It: The Woman In Black

At last, a proper horror film! Director James Watkins' The Woman in Black (adapted from the Susan Hill novel of the same name) gives not only ample scares and carefully crafted nods to its thriller predecessors but wins with inspired performances, sound design, and cinematography as well. Although less is not always more in thrillers like these (or so the suits love to argue) the subtlety and control used by the screenwriter and director in creating this film serve to bring us what might possibly be the classiest endeavor the genre has ever seen (of which lead Daniel Radcliffe is obviously a large part).

Radcliffe plays widower Arthur Kipps, a young lawyer who must leave his son and nanny to settle the estate of an elderly woman off the shore of the eastern corner of England. He's greeted with hostility by many of the villagers, and obviously senses there is a darkness about the isolated residence he's been paid to set in order, but he stubbornly agrees to finish the job---until a strange woman in black shows up and starts manipulating the village children into various acts of doom. Sam Daily, a villager (who is also of professional status) takes a liking to Kipps and invites him into his home but refuses to believe the woman in black is real or has any impact on the village, despite having lost his own son years prior and the fact that his wife strenuously feels otherwise. Kipps' problem, then, lies not only in doing his business in a hostile work environment, but also in uncovering the stalking woman's past and preventing her from doing harm to more children in the village and eventually, his own son.

The aesthetic decisions made in this production were crucial to its overall success, charm, and status as what I earlier referred to as "proper." The constant grayness in color, the long, wide shots in filming the estate, and its proximity to the (gray, long, wide) ocean created a very isolated, drowning sort of feeling, giving the house a sinister personality all its own even before Kipps enters. The villagers don't want him nosing around, won't go there themselves, and once the tide rises for the first time, covering the long, tiny, spindle of a driveway completely, we're with them----who wouldn't be? Radcliffe plays Kipps similarly; melancholy and serious (exemplified wonderfully by his son Joseph's constant sad-face drawings of him), and with neat, angled sideburns and those striking blue eyes, is a bit of a visual treat himself.

Once inside the house, the experience widens with further visual scares, monkey statues, old toys, startling ravens, not to mention the sighting of the woman through the window, but also with aural scares, too: high pitched, threatening notes (very similar to Jack Torrance's psychological breaking point in his investigations of the Overlook Hotel in The Shining), thumps and footsteps in various rooms in the house, the juxtaposition of joyful, wind-up toy music in a child's bedroom (thanks, Insidious, I love evil mixed with an insanely happy melody) with the creaking and exaggerated swaying of a seriously demented rocking chair . . . without ever seeing the villain close up (at least at first), her evil accompaniment, the subtle, material hints of who she is and what's she's done are enough to make us cringe, again and again.

Probably the most important aspect to this film is its setting, not only the house in question nor its location, but the period in time as well. Noted (in Wikipedia) to have taken place during the Edwardian Era, the story, while not exactly holding women in very high esteem on the surface, poses several interesting ideas about power and ability in woman, specifically mothers, during a time when such things were virtually unheard of. Sam Daily's wife, at first shown to be a bit off her rocker (feeding the family dogs at the dinner table, rocking one in a cradle) claims to be able to communicate with her departed son; Sam is embarassed by her and blows her off. The Woman in Black, as it turns out, lost a son of her own, and was driven crazy by her need to reclaim him. Kipps' own wife, having died in childbirth, seems to pop up every now and then, though it's never really clear if her presence is just Kipps' wishful thinking, daydreams, or actually happening, but given the fact that two other women are unable to let go of the children they lost and seem to have developed superhuman abilities in either simply relating to them or avenging them, it's reasonable that Mrs. Kipps, too, might be hanging around for just such a purpose.

No fury like a woman scorned? Yes. And also don't mess with her son, either.

Less is Definitely More: Insidious

What do The Exorcist, The Entity, The Shining, and The Amityville Horror all have in common (besides the ability to cause nightmares)? They all got together and had a son,Insidious. And despite having been directed by James Wan, one of the creators of the Saw franchise, this film takes chances in its subtlety, slow buildup, and technique, and appeals to a slightly more mature audience than most popular (torturous) slasher films. If you come into this flick expecting immediacy or realism, probably best to keep walking, but if it's fright you want, it's fright you're gonna get. (I lost count how many times I actually screamed after three). Take that, Sydney Prescott.

The Lamberts, Josh, Renai, and their three children, notice strange happenings upon moving into their new house. Some books find their way out of a book shelf; a box of sheet music is misplaced and then randomly found in the attic; the baby seems to cry all the time, and so on. But along with these seemingly harmless occurances, Dalton, the eldest son, is suddenly stricken by a health condition that leaves him in a coma which no one can explain. When the child returns home from the hospital, Renai begins seeing and hearing things, an ominous voice speaking on the baby monitor, several intruders looking in on the family or pacing about on the balcony, and later, a bloody handprint at the foot of Dalton's bed sheets. Josh agrees to relocate the family to another house in order to placate Renai, but in vain as it turns out; whatever it is that is haunting them simply relocates, too. "It's not your house that's haunted," a family friend later explains, "it's your son." 

Technically speaking, the film also takes its time, using sound (string glissandos, sudden percussion, crackling noises) and motion almost more than image, at least at first. Camera shots are extremely well done; hovering back and forth, approaching a shoulder, or in a crouched-low from below; this film is terrifying without being in your face. We see the movement and lurking of the hauntings before we see their faces, and this is a good thing, because the look of these things was very nearly too much. All that slow buildup and leisurely getting there? They more than make up for it. A demon is a demon, a creepy old lady a creepy old lady, but for some reason, putting leering, constant grins on these things just about did me in. Adding "Tiptoe Through the Tulips" drives the point home even further---these things don't just want to take your soul, they want you to see how happy they are about it first! (Shudder).

This film's greatness is all about pacing and technique. Getting the audience to know and care about the characters is crucial, and while causing the film to unfold slowly in the beginning, it allows us to see the family in a personal, realistic way (unlike say, a teen slasher ensemble where character at all is an uncommon luxury). Renai holds Dalton in her lap and looks at old photos of herself. The baby is needy and requires holding a lot. Josh puts lotion on his crow's feet before bed and then annoys Renai by singing to her (these people are just like us!) When the scary business starts up, it's all the more alarming because we've been given time to identify with the Lamberts, and the fear we feel is not superficial but legitimate because of this "involvement."  This family, and by implication, all middle class American families, cannot be protected from the evil that stalks them; the devices they depend on ---baby monitor, home security system---are turned against them and they're left utterly helpless. 

Comparatively speaking, every fan of horror films who sees this one will probably notice a hundred different nods to a hundred different ancestors, all of them brilliant. Casting Barbara Hershey (who starred in the extremely relevant The Entity) was a good one, having very similar-looking sisters peek around a corner, (grinning, of course) was another. Bottom line? You will get your money's worth from this film. And perhaps need to sleep with the light on for a few nights afterwards.

American Horror Story

I've held out as long as I can, but damn----this show is freaking AWESOME. If you like horror films and you're not watching this show, you should be. Here's why:

I'll get the mop . . .

1. It's well-acted. Dylan McDermott, Connie Britton, Jessica Lange, and Denis O'Hare (RUSSEL EDGINGTON from True Blood) are great actors, but even the other secondary characters are solid.


2. It's the bastard son of a lot of other really excellent horror films, notably Psycho (the house, Bernard Hermann-esque score) and Rosemary's Baby (the pregnancy) but there are nods to many, many others. "You're gonna die in there," (Reagan from The Exorcist); creep hovering near close line looking up into window (Michael Myers in Halloween); credits and music very much reminiscent of Se7en and . . . I don't know, grotesque other stuff, maybe Alien Resurrection (experiments in jars?) or mad scientists in general. It's fun noticing these things. I half expected the crazy ass neighbor (Jessica Lange) to bring over a "chocolate mouse" for her to eat, but I suppose by then there really was no need---Rubber Man done got the job did, as it were.



3. It's scary. Well, creepy mostly (those credits!). Lots of scurrying around in the background and just strange, unexplained business that keeps popping up here and there. I've of course filed this under "things I will not watch when I am alone in the house . . . "

Don't make me kill you again . . . 

4. There is an underlying mother theme going on here that I may or may not explore for Examiner, but trust me, it's there. I have a very strong suspicion that this whole story got going because the doctor's wife lost her baby; taking a baby away from a mother is the one thing you just can't do (Kill Bill).

Dr. Ben: killer body but huge jerk

 

Cedar Rapids, Rubber, Geeks.

Hail Mary again:

1. Cedar Rapids. I laughed a few times. It was like Napoleon Dynamite with swearing and meth, so good there, and I liked the credits against a yellow screen. Also, Reid Rothchild (John C. Reilly?) has become the token character of my husband's humor in pretty much everything he does lately. If Matt had not married me and had become some sort of traveling salesman I am convinced he would be just like Beansie.

2. Rubber. I thought this was excellent. Tire rolling around on its own, setting off wiggly telepathic head-exploding powers as it goes from place to place? Awesome. It gets a crush on a dark-haired girl in a short skirt. Audience members (on screen) are made to stay in the desert and watch this unfold with binoculars. Forcing the audience to become part of the story. Taking on Hollywood at the end. Love it. This reminds me of the kind of thing I'd have to watch for school (Bunuel, Antonioni, even Lynch) and then come home to watch again with a one-hit and a sixer of Rolling Rock. (nostalgia).

High cheekbones, slightly frosted hair, YOU MUST BE DANISH!
(actually I'm Polish).

3. What up, Geeks?: I'm not watching any new horror films for October this month, last year kind of wrecked it all for me and I'm still not all that cool with sleeping with the lights off even now, so I'm doing something different, something better. TALES FROM THE CRYPT, bitches! All of them. Give me some feedback on your favorites, okay? Also, I am recycling some of my better reviews from last year's Scariest Films Ever list for Examiner; check out my page if you're interested in reading them.

King vs. Kubrick: The Shining.

I picked this up when I was 7.

This isn't going to be easy; I feel like I'm having to choose between my parents or something. I love Stephen King; I love Stanley Kubrick. But I think this "discussion" is a worthy one. And please feel free to tell me your thoughts on this, too, I'd love to hear where everyone else stands. Here we go:

The Shining, 1977, by Stephen King.

Events: Jack Torrance, a writer and former schoolteacher, takes a caretaker job at a grand and mysterious hotel in the middle of the Rocky Mountains. His five year old son, Danny, has a very special talent that allows him to see visions from the past, forecasts of events to come, and into the minds of others---and straight away Danny senses the hotel, The Overlook, is full of secrets and demons.

During their stay, some of the topiary hedge animals seem to move; the hotel elevator begins to operate on its own, and one of the rooms (217) has its own particular franchise on The Overlook's sordid past (REDRUM). These events are at first subtle and would seem almost harmless or hallucinatory were it not for Danny's special gift. From the first moment he learned of The Overlook, Danny saw this stuff happening, he knows that it's real, and he's seen how it ends over and over in his nightmares! Most of the reader's concern involves sympathy and fear for the child, thrust in the middle of events that would make a grown adult soil herself . . . this story is not an easy one to handle: nightmares, lights left on, nightmares, did that book shelf just move? Fire hose, bathtub, REDRUM! REDRUM! I had about three seriously ridiculous nights of discomfort trying to shove these things from my mind and think happy thoughts!

 At the same time the hotel really gets going, tomfoolery-wise, Jack, who struggles with his own personal demons of Daddy Issues, failure, and alcoholism, begins to unravel. It's explained over and over in many ways just how meaningful and complicated Jack's relationship with Danny is, and as he tries to focus on his work, both hotel-related maintenance and his unfinished play, Jack finds himself having strange, angry resentment toward his family and becoming more and more obsessed with the hotel and its history. King said in an interview that many of the events in this novel were confessionals over feelings of anger and resentment a father (or mother) feels toward children, which can go hand-in-hand with feelings of intense love and adoration the parent also feels; it's a complex thing, but not invalid, you know? It's a pretty ballsy thing to do, not only writing about stuff that is taboo, parenting-wise, but then owning it honestly and admitting that it grew from actual feelings. Heavy. Jack Torrance in many ways is an extremely real character because of this, there are many chapters written from Jack's point of view and he's just as bothered and confused by it as we are!

Some might see this as a horror novel, and it is horrifying, but the most disturbing things are not the evil hotel or any of its twisted, rotting minions, but the almost casual subtlety of the evil, those moving hedge creatures scared me the same way the hotel room menu did in 1408: ("the menu was in Russian; the menu was in Italian; there was no menu,") and the documented descent of human beings who are flawed, but still people nonetheless. This is an extremely sad of bunch events, and it's the struggle that has real power here, not the end but the means to it that pack the greatest punch.

Writing: King has a genius ability to do two things in his novels, well, three if you count SCARING THE PISS OUT OF READERS, but that's actually not important right now. The first thing about King's writing that occurs consistently in all of his stories is the knack for telling and explaining things as if he is actually speaking it aloud, to you, personally (or making you feel as if he's your friend Steve, the storyteller). I don't know anything about Stephen King personally, have never met him, probably never will, but dammit, don't you feel like you know this guy? It's clearly due to the heart he pours into his characters, which of course, comes from his own, but seriously, I feel somehow connected to him just because of the way he writes, and that's probably the greatest compliment a writer can get.

Secondly: Humor and Sarcasm. Aces.

(Danny ponders a conversation his father had), " . . . but Mr. Ullman would probably do neither because he was a CHEAP PRICK. Danny knew that this was one of the worst epithets his father could summon. It was applied to certain doctors, dentists, and appliance repairmen, and also to the board of his English Department at Stovington, who had disallowed some of Daddy's book orders because he said the books would put them over budget. 'Over budget, hell,' he had fumed to Wendy---Danny had been listening from his bedroom where he was supposed to be asleep. 'He's just saving the last five hundred bucks for himself, the CHEAP PRICK."

(Jack is locked in the pantry) "Have to use your brain. The celebrated Jack Torrance brain. Aren't you the fellow who once was going to live by his wits? Jack Torrance, best-selling author. Jack Torrance, acclaimed playwright and winner of the New York Critics Circle Award. John Torrance, man of letters, esteemed thinker, winner of the Pulitzer Prize at seventy for his trenchant book of memoirs, My Life in the Twentieth Century. All any of that shit boiled down to was living by your wits."

Comparisons: All right, let's get to it. Is the novel better, or is the film better? The film (as you know from my past ramblings) is one of my very favorites, and is neater, cleaner, and obviously more visually and acoustically moving than the novel. But that doesn't necessarily make it better. I think the heart of the story was honestly about something bad happening to (mostly) good people, and you are only going to see that if you read the novel; the film has no love for any of the Torrances.

Whereas King's Torrance is clearly conflicted, Kubrick's Torrance seems to be destined for lunacy. He hardly shows any (sober) emotion at all to anyone, if you don't count Nicholson's arched-eyebrows grin to Ullman after hearing the unfortunate tale of Mr. Grady et al. The relationship with Danny and Danny as a person altogether hardly matter in the film. ("Dad? I'm hungry." "Well, you should have eaten your breakfast." The end).

You don't sense any emotion between any of the Torrances because Kubrick hardly has them speak to each other; there is a lot more conversation in the book, maybe even a bit too much, but they at least seem to matter to each other or explain what they're thinking. King's Jack was an interesting guy, funny even, and we mourn his metamorphosis into Crazy-Overlook-Jack because we lose touch with the real Jack and we care about Wendy and Danny. Not so in the film. Kubrick and Nicholson's Jack was almost like a man caught in limbo waiting to become Crazy-Overlook-Jack, and as viewers, we find this Jack infinitely more interesting. Where Kubrick is motivated by isolation and insanity, King is motivated by humanity and tragedy. Two very different themes. And while I will always-always-always consider The Shining one of my very favorite films, I'm more of a writer than a filmmaker, and I almost think Kubrick should have credited it "inspired by" rather than "based on" King's original work. I do not get the feeling of closeness to Kubrick that I do with King, and I get the feeling that Kubrick kind of likes it that way.

That said, I wouldn't have either of them change a thing (how's that for diplomacy?)

This is what is known as a HAIL MARY.

I am so tired I could die; it's 8:40 and all I want to do is crawl in my cozy bed and fall asleep dreaming of George Clooney, Brett Favre, Viggo Mortonson, Lucius Malfoy, etc., etc., but I AM COMMITTED TO MY OCTOBER LIST, by God, through loss of life and limb I will finish this. You'll have to forgive me if it seems a little rushed but October was a *smashing* month for my little Television Lady blog, so I'd be looking the proverbial gift horse in the mouth if I wasn't the last man standing at my own party. . . so you get it all, but you get it all at once. (thanks everyone who has read, enjoyed, commented: this has been great fun for me!)



1. The Birds, 1963, Alfred Hitchcock. This was my first viewing all the way through, and I had no intention of being rattled by it. But guess what? This film is severely disturbing and I was very bothered by it. Why, oh why, these birds? You never find out. I like that. In Terror in the Aisles, there's an interview with Hitchcock about suspense in film; he says something to the effect of, "you can't just blow your wad all at once, you have to make the audience wait and squirm a little and then, BAM!" This film was very much that way, you wait a hell of a long time for the BAM, but once it happens . . . (shudder).

Random questions:
1. Did anyone else get any lesbian overtones from The Schoolteacher? I thought it worked just fine, but when she said she had "dated" Mitch, it really threw me for a loop.
2. Can the birds smell them? I was screaming at everyone to go hide in a closet, completely enclosed.
3. Constant calling his mother "dear?" And the jealousy of all girls he brings home? Unresolved remnants from young Master Bates, perhaps?

2. Psycho, 1960, Alfred Hitchcock. First scary movie I ever saw (age six). My dad told me about it and I begged him to let me watch it when it aired on channel nine. He went out to his machine shop after dinner that evening and I hovered around the television, waiting for it to come on; once the music started I must have gotten some kind of clue as to what I was in for. . . I ran out to the steps and yelled for him to come in.

This whole film is tense. Marion steals the money, she lies to the cop, she dumps her car, she meets Norman. They have this really uncomfortable conversation (hello, A BOY'S BEST FRIEND IS HIS MOTHER) and well, you know the rest. I just clench and writhe every time. The most disturbing part of this film isn't the murder, it isn't the corpse in clothing, it isn't the superimposition of Mother Bates's face onto Norman's at the end, it's the way she just stomps out of that bathroom after she cuts up Marion. Just stalking right the hell out of there, like "well that little skank just got what was coming to her AND GET OUT OF MY WAY, I'm *STILL* PISSED ABOUT IT" stomp, stomp, stomp!

Once Matt, to get a rise out of me, dressed up in some ridiculous jumper I had in the back of my closet, grabbed the biggest knife he could find, and just stood silently in the doorway of our old apartment with his mouth frozen in this huge, disgusting grin, just waiting for me to turn my head over and see. . .

ugh. But you must admit, Norman Bates is one of the absolute best time-withstanding villains. I know most people will not agree to this, but I think his portrayals in the sequels are just as entertaining and disturbing. I'll be getting to that on its own, soon enough.

The rest?

Dracula by Bram Stoker: Wonderful. I loved it. I think the thing I loved best was that Winona Ryder was not anywhere near it.

Alfred Hitchcock, Tales of Terror. Hitch chose the tales, he didn't write them. But they were wonderful, I loved them all, mostly.

The Thomas Mann Reader. This was probably my favorite book this month, but as I was getting pressed for time and these tales were not really related to Halloween, Vampires, Psychopaths, or things of this nature, I had to shelve it after only a few stories to try to keep on task. They were amazing and made me cry, though, I will definitely return to this, probably in December.

It's Psycho Two and Three tonight. . . Matt is growing quite annoyed at all the Dexters we've been missing, but has been very sportsmanlike in allowing me full control of the television. Plus his leg is still in a cast and he can't really do anything about it anyway. At least it's horror and not Traveling Pants, right Larry?

Sound, Redrum, and Isolation: The Genius of The Shining

The Shining: 1980, directed by Stanley Kubrick.

"A family heads to an isolated hotel for the winter where an evil spiritual presence influences the father into violence, while his psychic son sees horrific forebodings from the past and of the future."

I love Stanley. I love the longness of his films, the creepy oranges, distinctive lights, how everyone faces some internal struggle, all of it. This film, horrifying as it is, is one of my favorites, ever. Disclaimer: I can't talk about King on this one, the book and film are just horses of different colors in my mind (and ne'er the twain shall meet, right?)

Normally if a film is good, I try to break it up and talk about narrative, technical elements, and theme. In this film they are all one and the same, really. The narrative is spiced with fear and evil, accentuated by isolation. (The Overlook Hotel is evil and makes Jack crazy. Jack is a writer who can't write. Wendy and Danny can't get out). The filmmaking exemplifies fear by drawing out scenes slowly and sneaking up from far away, using color, sound, and motion (The Overlook is shown many times to be a vast, grand structure. Characters are constantly going down halls, coming upon different surprises, most of them unpleasant. Oranges, yellows, and golds vibrate with danger. The simmering teakettle instrumental music mirrors Jack's own boiling point, the glissandos up and down the scales by strings echo Jack's psychological ups and downs. The steadi-cam behind Danny's big wheel shows not only the difference in size between Danny and the hotel, but suggests corners, twists, and dead ends like the hedge maze outside). I'm sure you all know what a steadi-cam is, but in case you don't: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steadicam 

They can't get out.

This film is what it is because they're isolated. If they were at some Howard Johnson somewhere, they'd just have to bust out and pound on a neighbor's door, but they are stuck inside the Overlook Hotel with no one but themselves and the ghosts (The Grady Daughters, The Woman in the Bathtub, Lloyd, Mr. Grady, Various Partying Guests, The Two Masked Men Engaged in (implied) Fellatio, etc.). That's scary.

The sounds: Danny's big wheel alternating between solid floor and carpet. Jack's tennis ball thumping against the walls and floors. The sound of the typewriter. Later, the axe slicing into wood. In the hotel, these things all take on ominous properties; they were done really, really well. Original music was composed by Wendy Carlos and Rachel Elkind. Bravo, gals, really.

Another thing the film does exceptionally well is foreshadowing. With a troubling story like this (Dads killing kids, etc.) you almost need to drop hints, or at least prepare the audience a little. From the very beginning, it's clear that there is one way this is going to end: BADLY. All the pieces are there.
1. Mr. Ulman explains to Jack the murderous story of Charles Grady; Jack seems absolutely thrilled (!)
2. Tony (Danny's imaginary friend) doesn't want to go to the hotel but won't say why. Shows Danny image of blood flooding from elevator.
3. There is a history of abuse (Jack injured Danny's arm while drunk).
4. The mention of The Donner Party as the family drives to the hotel (cannibalism)
5. Through his conversation with Dick Halloran, Danny discovers there is something bad at the hotel, specifically room 237.
6. As Wendy fixes lunch one day, a news program alludes to a "missing Aspen woman" who had been missing ten days after a hunting trip with her husband. Did he shoot her or what?
7. Danny tiptoes to his room to get his fire engine and apparently gets a disturbing look inside his father's mind, prompting him to say, "You'd never hurt mom or me, right?"
8. The blizzard. The phone lines down. The fact that no one else can get to them.

Poor Danny. Not only did he have to get his neck all mangled by the old gal in 237, but through his shining, he had a front row seat to Jack's Bathtub Lady experience, his mother's getting trapped in the bathroom during the whole "Here's Johnny" segment, Dick Halloran's unfortunate collision with the axe, and then the chase through the hedge maze. Enough, already! I'd say he probably needed some temporary relaxation in the rest home like Eddie Van Halen (Hot for Teacher) when it was all over.

If you ever get the chance to watch the extras on this disk, do it. There is a documentary included, shot by Vivian Kubrick, and it's amazing. And while I thought Shelley Duval was perfect in the role of Wendy Torrence, the little documentary shows an entirely different side to what was going on during the filming and gives you an idea of what working with actors is really like . . . it's funny.


So, there you have it, this is my scariest film, ever. I saw it when I was seven; I'll never forget the sound of the woman's laughter when Jack sees her in the mirror. . . I don't think anything will ever scare me as much as this did (and does). But it's nice to be cinematically moved at the same time, don't you think?