Very Scary Productions - Thoughts For The Month Archives 2002

For my first TFTM page, I'd like to discuss the pros and cons of a continuing trend in the horror genre that seemed to start with Wes Craven's movie Scream back in 1996. The trend I'm referring to is not the self-referential nature of many movies, which has worn thin, but the seemingly compulsive practice of loading these movies with "hip and trendy" teen stars. Now, before I discuss what I think is a negative aspect of this whole trend, let me first say that I'm very glad Scream happened, both because Wes Craven deserved another major smash after all his years of toiling in the horror field, and, more importantly, because it gave new life to a genre that appeared to be running on fumes. (Although admittedly none of this is new discussion material, I felt I needed to acknowledge it). However, I believe that the downside with these movies is that

they are so geared around personalities that most pictures just become vehicles for hot young actors and actresses. The horror element, what there is of it, is usually muted and/or spoofed, and the movies are so stylized and concerned with being hip, that they often differ only slightly from teen comedies (which feature

the very same small group of actors and actresses!). I say this not in disrespect to anyone, as there are a lot of talented young actors and actresses seen on screen, but just out of concern that the horror film for many has become yet another passing trend and in many respects has lost the edge it once had in years past with films like Night of The Living Dead (the 60's), Halloween (the 70's) & A Nightmare on Elm Street (the 80's). Being that I'm in my thirties now, I do have a bias toward the movies of my youth - mainly 80's films - which always brings to mind the fact that in 80's movies horror could be scary and effective without any name actors and the movie could focus primarily on the story and the horror element. While many may criticize the 80's slasher films for being low on characterization and overly concerned with gore effects, I would still argue that many of these seminal films cannot be matched today. In the 80's there was always still some doubt as

to whether that "final girl" would make it to the end of the film, whereas with many of the 90's horror pictures you just knew they wouldn't dare kill off that young television sitcom cutie (or when they did it was usually done very quickly or offscreen). Some relatively recent proof that personalities seem to be almost all that counts was found in a review I read for the monster movie Jeepers Creepers. Within the first two lines of this critic's review he mentioned that the brother and sister featured in the movie (the main characters) were played by unknown actors. Maybe I take things too seriously at times, but this bothered me. The thought immediately came to mind that this reviewer was probably taking that fact into heavy consideration in his assessment of the film and that he wanted to caution anybody thinking of going to see it about this possible negative aspect (meaning none of the familiar faces were present here so it might not be worth seeing). I just felt like shouting when I read this and when I thought about how many decent horror movies are relegated to videotape (not the worst fate in the world but just unfair) just because they don't have any popular teen names in them. It seems the movie industry is often telling horror fans like myself that movies I can appreciate are second-rate and should be relegated to this lowly status. Sorry, but we all can't be so trendy.

For this TFTM page I would like to discuss the continuing trend in the movie industry of remaking, and most often ruining, classic horror movies. In the past several years many dismal remakes have been paraded

across American movie screens. However, what compelled me to write about this issue was the news that

a remake of George Romero's Dawn of the Dead is in the works. I don't think I need to go into a long explanation of what an amazing piece of work Romero's movie is, as it has been discussed at length elsewhere, but suffice it to say that it's definitely a movie that was done right the first time. With the recent

slew of terrible misfires like House on Haunted Hill, The Haunting, and of course Psycho, as well as the merely unnecessary updates like Village of the Damned (even the great John Carpenter couldn't improve a nearly perfect movie), you would think that producers would leave well enough alone. Many pieces of fiction

just don't become better by adding computer imagery - they simply turn into empty effects films. (Another perfect example of this would be the American version of Godzilla, which took away almost all traces of personality and character from the world-renowned lizard and left us with scene after scene of mindless effects and explosions).

When asked in an interview about a bad movie adaptation of one of his works, a famous horror author once said that his books haven't been ruined, but are still sitting safely up on his shelf. While this is certainly a positive way to look at the situation (in his case pertaining to filmed adaptations of novels), it still does bother me to see the good reputation of horror classics tarnished unnecessarily. What bothers me even more is the thought that many people in their teens and younger today will grow up thinking of these new "updated" versions when they think of titles like Psycho and The Haunting. That having been said, it looks likely that Dawn of the Dead is going to be added to the list.

While there are obviously several reasons why Dawn of the Dead shouldn't be remade, the only (somewhat) valid reason I can think of for a remake would be the fact that the original movie was made in the seventies

and now may look dated to younger viewers. Since horror can be a hot commodity nowadays, the producers are likely thinking that by giving the story a modern sensibility (no doubt by using the aforementioned computer effects and probably some attractive teen stars as well) they will be able to cash in on the lucrative teen date movie crowd. In my opinion, this standard movie industry mentality just spells another disaster for everyone concerned. First, from what I've been able to gather by cruising around the internet, the general consensus on this project is that nobody asked for it and nobody wants it. (I even recently saw a commendable online petition to stop the remake). Now, it's safe to say that these opinions mainly come from people actively interested in horror films - in other words hardcore horror fans like me. Since it seems the producers are forging ahead with the project despite the negative feedback, this looks to be yet another example of the mainstream movie industry looking down condescendingly at the core genre audience. Hopefully this will come back to bite them where it counts - in their wallets. Even though hardcore horror fans may not represent the majority of ticket

sales for a movie like this, we are usually the first ones to go see the movie, and often are the ones who determine whether or not it expands beyond us. I think it is highly doubtful that mainstream audiences alone

will grant a zombie movie big box office numbers. Recently the movie version of Resident Evil failed to draw big crowds, and this film supposedly had a large fan base of video game players. Resident Evil showed without question that zombies and computer effects don't mix, and it also showed that without a decent script even good performances (like the one by Milla Jovovich) are wasted.

SUBJECT: Digital Video: Salvation for the independent filmmaker October 2002

Recently I did an interview for a documentary titled "Every Pixel Tells A Story: How One Community Joined The Digital Filmmaking Revolution". (See my Acting Credits page for more information on this) This production from writer Peter Hanson looks at how independent filmmakers are using the digital video format for their movies. Every Pixel features several filmmakers each talking about the different aspects

of DV. My interview on the subject inspired me to discuss the topic in this column.

Without getting into a dull discussion of the technical advantages of this exciting (and still relatively new) format, suffice it to say that the picture quality of DV far surpasses the older consumer video formats such as VHS, 8mm and S-VHS. Shooting on Mini-DV or Digital 8 (the prevalent consumer digital formats) allows for

the capture of a crisp and sharp picture which can equal or even surpass the quality of film. In the past there was what I would call a great divide between the quality of any video shot using consumer formats, and anything shot using professional equipment (either video or film). Basically what this meant was that everyday people could only produce videos that looked like home movies. Professional quality was not possible unless you had access to very high-priced equipment and knew how to use it. (I experienced this firsthand when

I began making movies using consumer equipment and would employ every trick in the book, such as over-lighting night scenes and having the camera microphone right in people's faces, to at least try to get closer to professional quality.) Now with DV, everyone has access to quality equipment at a reasonable price.

The real benefit of this technology is that it is helping to democratize moviemaking. People who a few years ago might never have attempted to make a movie - because they didn't believe they could produce anything with any real quality - are now finding that they can indeed produce something worth watching. In my opinion, moviemaking should be as democratic as everything else in our society. Viewers should have limitless choices in what they watch (or listen to) today. This is not to say I have anything against mainstream movies. On the contrary, I'm a huge fan of Hollywood who goes to the movies once a week on average. I just believe that the individual with limited resources should have the same chance at making a movie and getting it seen as the huge company with unlimited resources.

It could be argued the downside to all this is that now people with no skill will be producing a lot of garbage not worth watching. This is true in the sense that making movies on video (or any format for that matter) does require at minimum some understanding of the equipment and hopefully some artistic sensibility as well.

In my own endeavors I have learned that factors such as good lighting and carefully recorded sound are essential no matter what format you're shooting on. (In the field of horror movies, night lighting can be especially tricky and difficult.) Good writing and storytelling ability is always important also. The new technology willundoubtedly lead to a lot of digital crap being produced by unskilled individuals. This is inevitable; however it will probably parallel the world of big- budget movies, where many great films are

made along with an equal number of clunkers. As with anything else, talent will (or at least should) rise to

prominence. Digital video simply allows anyone interested to play the game. How each person rises to the challenge will be up to them.

SUBJECT: Movie Recommendation November 2002

Slashers - directed by Maurice Devereaux

I very infrequently use the TFTM column to recommend or criticize movies. The reason for this is simply because most movies (probably around 99%) are either not spectacular enough to spend a whole column praising, or not terrible enough to spend a whole column ripping apart. Most movies fall somewhere in between these two extremes. However, when I watch a movie that lands in one of these two extreme regions,

I will comment on it. The independent movie Slashers, directed by Maurice Devereaux, is one such production.

Slashers is basically a spoof of reality television. The movie focuses on a hugely popular (fictional)

Japanese reality show called Slashers. As the story goes, this show is debuting in the USA with a huge American special. Six willing contestants are competing for a large cash prize (I believe the sum was 18 million dollars). After an extravagant opening complete with music and dancing, and a perky host who could easily be on any game show, the contestants are let loose in a maze of rooms and corridors, where they are then pursued by three killers. There is Chainsaw Charlie, The Preacherman, and Doctor Ripper. The killers are loosely modeled after a few of today's more popular cinematic maniacs, and you can probably guess some of the weapons these psychos are carrying. The contestants each have distinct personalities and different reasons for being on the show aside from the money. (For example, one contestant wants her death to make a statement about the evils of such shows. Another may only have a short time to live and wants to

go out with a bang. And still another is on the show because somebody dared them to do it, and so on.)

The rules are simple: there are none. The contestant who comes out alive at the end of the hour wins.

Generally I am not a fan of reality television. The whole concept behind these shows just never appealed

to me. I am also usually not a fan of most horror pictures that are intentionally or unintentionally campy.

Mr. Devereaux's movie fits into both of these categories; however I really enjoyed it nonetheless. Even though the story might sound ridiculous, the whole thing manages to work and be very entertaining. The movie is so gleefully over the top, both because of the somewhat overdramatic acting of the contestants, and the broad theatrics of the killers, that it can't possibly be boring or dull. As much as I knew I really shouldn't, I couldn't

help but identify with the contestants and their plight.

There are also some extremely clever ideas thrown into the mix. Because the point of this story seems to be that people on the show are willing to do anything for money, and, more specifically, that every shot counts, both the contestants and the killers must freeze during announced commercial breaks. This way the viewers will not miss a second of the action, thereby keeping the ratings as high as they can be. (This is enforced through the use of producer-controlled shock collars the participants wear around their necks.) Needless to say, the commercials always seem to come at very climactic moments.

One thing gore hounds will no doubt appreciate is the ample amount of blood and guts on display here. Several contestants are dispatched by the killers in gruesome ways. Like the rest of the movie, this is extremely overdone as well. There are some moments where the gore effects are so excessive that it doesn't look particularly real. However this also doesn't deter from the movie, as it is right in line with the overall tone of the proceedings. Given these excesses, I was a bit surprised that the director didn't follow suit with the amount of nudity in the picture. Although one poor girl keeps getting her top ripped off repeatedly throughout the picture, having to run and cover herself with her arms, and another spends most of the proceedings shirtless, wearing only a black bra, the nudity isn't that excessive. Exploitation fans might be a bit disappointed by this.

Another intriguing aspect of this picture is the fact that it was shot on high definition video. This gives the production a crystal-clear look, with none of the film grain we're accustomed to seeing. The glossy image really complements this already unique movie, especially in the opening scenes of the show when the players are being introduced. It helps to enhance the carnival atmosphere of the program.

Finally, the DVD release is packed with extras, including deleted sequences and behind the scenes footage. Since this is a Fangoria Presents picture, there are trailers for other Fangoria home video releases, as well as a long and detailed magazine article about the movie. One thing that I thought was particularly interesting (and unbelievable) was that the director got the idea for the movie from a real Japanese reality show where contestants endured terrible things in order to win cash prizes.

In conclusion, this is an extremely entertaining picture that is really different from anything I've seen in awhile. However as much as I liked the movie, I'm sure there will be those (like the friend I watched it with) who really dislike it. Slashers definitely is one of those pictures you'll really love, or you'll think is extremely stupid.

I strongly recommend checking out this movie. Just remember not to play that Slashers theme song too

many times repeatedly in one sitting!

SUBJECT: "Freddy vs. Jason" Will it work? December 2002

As of this writing, the long talked-about clash of the horror titans Freddy vs. Jason has reportedly been filming for over a month. Unless you've been submerged under Crystal Lake or locked in the boiler room

of a house on Elm Street for the past decade, you're probably already familiar with the project I'm referring to. For the uninitiated, "Freddy" refers to the character of Freddy Krueger from the Nightmare on Elm Street movies, and "Jason" refers to Jason Voorhees from the Friday the 13th films. Both of these characters can be considered horror movie icons, and both have had long cinematic careers. Now they are coming together. The movie that people have been buzzing about for the last ten years or so is finally a reality.

Before discussing the plot of the film, or whether or not the characters from the two franchises will gel together in the same picture, I'd like to first talk about some other factors involved in determining whether or not this movie has a chance at being successful. Making the assumption that the movie will be good - and New Line Cinema generally doesn't disappoint when it comes to their horror pictures - the question is whether or not a lot of people will go to see it. On the surface it would seem to be an easy question to answer. Fans have been buzzing about this idea forever; therefore everyone is going to rush to the theater when it comes out and the movie is going to be hugely successful. For a fan of both franchises like myself, it would be nice to believe that, but unfortunately I don't think it is a given. As I mentioned previously, ever since the early 90's when Scream came out, the horror market has changed dramatically (see TFTM August 2002). Most teen horror films today concentrate on being hip and at least somewhat self-referential. Even for franchises as old as the Halloween series, the style seen in recent films differs drastically from earlier entries. One can already see this influence in the reported casting of Freddy vs. Jason. While Freddy is still being portrayed by Robert Englund*, who would be considered a horror veteran, another lead is singer Kelly Roland from the dance band Destiny's Child. While this is not necessarily a bad thing, the casting of Roland and other newer faces does suggest that this is not going to be a movie populated by actors and actresses who appeared in previous sequels (mainly in the eighties), which would most likely appeal to hardcore horror fans like myself. It's a good bet that this movie is being aimed more towards the youth audience, or, put another way, a young mainstream crowd. The reason I bring this up is that over the years I have heard a lot of discussions about whom, if anybody, from the previous movies (like Heather Langenkamp or Lisa Wilcox from the earlier Nightmare films) would be involved here. As I always suspected, these older genre veterans won't be in this movie. Therein lays the potential problem: in aiming towards a teen audience, will this movie alienate the hardcore horror fans and people who actually grew up watching these films? Also, even with the casting of fresh faces, will the young crowd be interested in seeing these "older" horror icons? The chilly box office reception to Jason X - the excellent tenth installment of the Friday the 13th franchise - makes the answers

to these questions very uncertain. One can only hope that the movie will offer enough familiar elements from earlier franchise entries to appeal to the hardcore genre fans, while still being innovative and fresh enough to attract a teen audience. This is a delicate balance to achieve indeed.

As far as the plot of this movie is concerned, the big question would seem to focus on how these two characters can exist together in the same movie, and who will stand up against them. The first part of this question centers around the fact that, while both franchises have been enormously popular over the years - especially the Nightmare films - the two series really are like apples and oranges. Even though many people group these two franchises together regularly in conversations about slasher pictures, they couldn't be more different. The Friday the 13th movies are a good example of the basic slice and dice slasher formula. Victims are dispatched in various gruesome ways with various blunt instruments by a silent and seemingly unstoppable killer. The Nightmare on Elm Street movies on the other hand are what might be best described as violent supernatural dramas. The reason I say this is that the Nightmare films, while having some obvious elements in common with movies like Friday the 13th and Halloween, just have too many notable differences for them to fit comfortably in the same category as the masked slasher pictures. Without getting into a lengthy discussion of these differences, one obvious distinction is the fact that Freddy, unlike

the killers in many other pictures, is quite vocal throughout the proceedings. This adds greatly to the drama

of the movies. Another difference would be that the Nightmare films center much more on their heroines than other movies. There is a certain gender dynamic and sexual tension at play in the Nightmare films that isn't seen in most other horror movies. While there are female victims in these movies, as in other horror pictures, women characters often occupy a higher place in these films than in other franchises. It's worth noting that when Freddy is vanquished at the end of each movie, it is always by a woman.

And lastly, and most importantly to this discussion, is the fact that much of the action in the Nightmare films takes place in the dream world. This definitely complicates matters for the new film. Blending the back woods stalk and slash style of Friday the 13th with the suburban surrealism of Nightmare on Elm Street will be a formidable task. These two styles have worked exceptionally well in their respective franchises, but can they work together in the same picture? How Freddy and Jason will exist together on the same plane of consciousness is the question I have heard everybody asking.

The last question is who will stand up against these two fiends. If New Line Cinema decides to follow the pattern of their Nightmare on Elm Street franchise (which I believe they will), it will be a resourceful young heroine (perhaps the Kelly Roland character) who reaches deep down inside to find her inner strength and vanquish the evil. Can the year 2003 (which is when it is reported this movie will open) provide us with such a hero? Will she be able to measure up to past Elm Street heroines like Nancy Thompson and Alice Johnson? Only time - and the writers and casting directors - will tell. We can only wait to find out. The movie horror fans are supposedly eager to see is finally on the way. Here's hoping it turns out to be well worth the long wait.

* While Freddy is still being portrayed by Robert Englund, it has recently been reported that longtime Jason actor & stuntman Kane Hodder will not be involved in the movie. While I'm sure there were reasons for this decision, I for one was disappointed by the news. As many are aware, Kane has been supporting the idea

of this movie for a long time now. That's why it comes as quite a shock that he's not going to be involved.

It's difficult to imagine a Jason movie without Kane playing the character.