Very Scary Productions - Thoughts For The Month Archives 2007

SUBJECT: Movie Review: "Black Christmas" (1974) - A look at an unforgettable Cult Horror Classic

Plus: A review of the recent "Black Christmas" (2006)

Note: The following reviews of the two versions of Black Christmas contain some plot details which could be considered spoilers.

Review of the 1974 Original:

The original Black Christmas has quite a simple story. A mysterious psychopath sneaks into the attic of a sorority house right before Christmas break and terrorizes the sorority sisters there. First the girls start receiving obscene phone calls and then things get much worse as the unseen assailant begins a killing spree. The police don’t really get involved until a 13 year-old girl turns up dead in a local park, and by then it may be too late.

This film is a slow, methodical murder mystery that is truly chilling to watch. While the description I gave in the preceding paragraph really doesn’t do it any justice, the simplicity inherent in the story is ultimately what makes the movie so successful. Filmmaker Bob Clark is also successful in utilizing a risky, but ultimately effective, storytelling device. Unlike in many murder mysteries and horror films, here he chooses to show the audience at the outset where the unidentified killer is, in this case in the attic. The audience therefore knows all along while the sorority sisters do not. This throws a blanket of dread and uneasiness over even the most mundane scenes. This sense of terrible things to come is even more disturbing because the cast of female characters are fully fleshed-out and portrayed in a believable way. The casting here was very well done, with the compelling Olivia Hussey and Margot Kidder in two key roles, while the police chief is played by reliable genre veteran John Saxon. Margot Kidder’s performance as ill-mannered Barbie Coard is particularly good, while Olivia Hussey shines as resourceful, yet vulnerable lead Jessica Bradford. There is also a subplot about Jessica’s boyfriend Peter (Keir Duella) which both adds to the depth of her character and deepens the mystery in the film. Indeed these are people we quickly get to know and identify with. Had they been the empty-headed model types

present in so many teen slasher films today, this could have been an entirely ineffectual movie.

Another effective part of Black Christmas is the killer himself (or herself). Cinematographer Reg Morris uses some nice POV shots to portray him lurking around. He also uses long, slow tracking shots through different rooms in the house which make it appear as if someone is thoroughly examining every inch of the residence. Despite never being fully seen this is one creepy individual, and the gibberish the girls hear on the phone is particularly bizarre and bone-chilling. His banter is a mixture of perverted heavy breathing, disgusting language, screams, animalistic sounds, and plain nonsensical rants with the occasional utterance of the name “Billy”

thrown in for good measure. (We never know who or what Billy is or what it has to do with the murders). And when this person does strike it’s even more disturbing. For example while the first death scene isn’t bloody or visceral, the image of a young suffocated coed haunts every moment of the rest of the film. * And this death scene is followed by further kills which are just as memorable, including one involving a sharp crystal sculpture that is by turns brutal, shocking and stylistically artistic in the best tradition of a Dario Argento gaillo film.

Bob Clark’s Black Christmas is a quiet chiller that is hard to forget. This cult gem has also no doubt influenced more well known films that followed such as When A Stranger Calls and Halloween to name but a couple.

For those who haven’t seen it I highly recommend doing so.

Review of the 2006 Remake:

Okay ladies and gentlemen, it’s that time again. Time for another... (Drum roll) remake review. Once again I’ll omit the long tirade regarding my mixed feelings about remakes and get right to it. At the very beginning of the film this new version of Black Christmas presents the same basic setup as the original 1974 version (see above). We meet a group of attractive sorority girls spending the Christmas holiday at their dorm house. However here is where any similarity to the original version ends. We learn via flashback the story of yellow-skinned Billy Lenz and his violent, demented past. It seems young Billy was quite a disappointment to his

wicked mother, and reminded her only of her husband, whom she hated. With the help of her lover the two murder the husband and lock Billy up in the attic after he witnesses the killing and their subsequent disposal

of the body. Some time later his mother has another child named Agnes, who is conceived in, shall we say,

a rather unsavory way. Billy’s situation is further aggravated when he is given a telescope as a Christmas present and begins spying on people around the neighborhood who look to have normal, pleasant relations.

One Christmas grown-up Billy finally snaps, kidnaps Agnes, and murders his mother and stepfather. He then uses a cookie cutter to make flesh cutouts from their corpses, puts his cookies in the oven, and soon sits down for a snack. The police arrive to witness this gruesome scene and Billy is sent off to the insane asylum, until years later when he escapes and returns to his now occupied home. This is when, of course, the killing begins again.

This new version of Black Christmas was an absolute disaster from beginning to end. It’s one of the worst remakes I’ve seen since The Fog 2005 (see the November TFTM column). The challenge in reviewing it is figuring out where to begin discussing everything that went wrong. A good place to start is with the “characters”. At the beginning of the movie we meet a group of attractive coeds who are so vacuous and unappealing that

one could care less about their fate. The lack of characterization makes the weakest Friday the 13th sequel look like high drama by comparison. And the fact that this remake is basically a straightforward, old-school style slasher film spotlights this weakness even more. ** As anyone familiar with the slasher horror film subgenre knows, there is always a clearly identifiable (at some point) Final Girl whom the audience can root for and relate to. In this film all the women (and men) are utterly disposable, and it’s anyone’s guess who will survive until the end. I can’t recall a slasher film in recent memory where I couldn’t even at least guess who the Final Girl was until almost the very end. And it should also be noted that the supporting characters were just as ill-defined. For example sorority head Ms. Mac talks early in the film as if she knows all about Billy Lenz and his history, and

later asks the boyfriend of one of the girls about him as if she’s oblivious to his history. Overall she, like the girls, proves to be a clueless and disposable character.

Lest one think my above criticism relates only to hardcore horror fans or the conventions of the slasher film subgenre, there are also many, many other serious flaws in this movie. For one thing I found the constant flashbacks from year to year in Billy’s past to be both confusing and also disruptive to the flow of the film. Generally speaking, I believe it’s usually a bad sign when there is an overabundance of flashbacks (or flash forwards) to different time periods using on-screen graphics. Such is the case here, and it just serves to detract from the already weak aforementioned narrative. And it’s amazing how with all the talk about Billy in both the past and the present, that the outrageous back-story still seemed confusing and muddled.

One of the most serious things wrong with this film was the absolute lack of suspense or terror in it. The original Black Christmas was chilling right from the start, and after the first murder took place there was a constant sense of dread present. After the first murder in this remake it’s clear that chills are going to be extremely hard

to come by. In fact, it was pretty obvious after that scene that I was in for a campy gore fest at best. Put simply the new version totally discarded everything that worked in the first film, and throughout its running time relied

on cheap shock effects and gore to carry it. The killings were both clichéd and predictable, and the utter lack

of characterization of the victims (mentioned above) magnified this. In a well-written movie a bit of cliché in the death scenes might not have mattered much, but here the film suffers immensely from it. Also because the story of Billy is so inherently unbelievable, the proceedings quickly turn into one big unintentional joke. And it’s worth mentioning also that the totally unnecessary ending hospital sequence, which I won’t give away here, thoroughly cements that status on the film.

SUBJECT: Independent Filmmaking and the Information Age - Some random thoughts... and reminiscences

Being an independent digital filmmaker to me means not only using digital technology resources like DV cameras, computers, computer hard drives, and non-linear editing software, but also staying up to date (or at least attempting to) on the latest technological gadgets, trends and news. For example recently I’ve been reading about the battle raging between the new high-definition DVD formats Blue-Ray and HD-DVD, and how several factors will determine which one, if not both, will ultimately be accepted by the public. These factors include prices of players, acceptance by major Hollywood movie studios, and titles available, to name but a few. What often occurs to me is how in this age of instant information fueled by the Internet and the World Wide Web, among other things, predictions about new technologies such as these are made and discussed by the public well before the products become public successes or failures. In past decades such widespread, instant information wasn’t so easily accessible. (For example, years ago the battle between VHS and Beta to become the consumer standard was decided before I really knew much about either format). Right now I’m researching and reading reviews of the latest line of HD and HDV cameras heading to the market, anticipating a purchase before I begin making my next movie. While studying products like these I also reflect back on how things have progressed, and how relatively simple they were when I started on the glorious endeavor of independent filmmaking. Although I have always been a big movie fan, I first learned about the process of video production in college when VHS was the established consumer format and a few very fortunate individuals were able to work with Super VHS. At the time I thought linear VHS editing machines were amazing technological wonders I was fortunate enough to be learning and using. * When I worked with a friend editing early short films shot in the 8mm video format, we used the “pause and record” method for getting our raw footage into finished form on VHS.

The memories of the excitement of those early editing sessions are still with me, and looking back it’s really amazing how well we did and how happy we were with the results. I wonder how many other filmmakers started this way as well.

Today there are many columns where different writers talk about what’s happening with, and what will happen with, leading technology companies and individuals on the cutting edge of the industry. Other columns discuss the ever-changing state of digital communication and digital media, with rising emphasis on how media is being created and distributed by an increasing numbers of individuals. This is being fueled by web video sites and media creation software, and is becoming more and more important as consumers have more and more choices, and major media companies work to adjust and adapt to these new frontiers. (** As it relates to independent filmmaking, I’ve often referred to this empowerment of individuals to create and distribute their own content as “the Democratization of Filmmaking”). When I want to watch a video now I first turn to the internet and revel in the number of choices available for any given subject. Looking back once again I can remember in the 1980’s when I would come home from school and eagerly switch on the new cable channel MTV. Watching a

few dozen or so music videos grace the screen made me feel like part of a wondrous new trend. Never then would I imagine that I’d some day be creating my own content and sharing it with the world. Oh how far things have progressed.

* The “pause and record” method of editing, as I call it, is the practice of connecting a camera to a VCR in order to edit onto a tape in that VCR. As mentioned above, early in my filmmaking career I used the then-currently widely available 8mm video format. After shooting was completed our post-production process would entail hooking up the 8mm camera to a VHS VCR using a composite cable, playing the raw footage in the camera, and pushing the pause button on the VCR to initiate our (cuts-only) edits. This was delicate work, both because the edit points were not incredibly precise, and because we needed to edit the entire movie from start to finish

in one sitting. Stopping and starting again often meant glitches and other mistakes. That’s one reason I smile looking back at some of our earlier productions and think how well they came out considering our resources available at the time.

** I’ve written previously on what I call “the Democratization of Filmmaking”. For further discussion on this topic read my May 2005 TFTM column entitled “Criticizing the Critics - A discussion on “Indie” Cinema, Underground Cinema, and the “Democratization of Filmmaking”.

SUBJECT: Movie Review: “Grindhouse - Planet Terror/Death Proof”

A look at the exciting new retro-style double feature from directors Robert Rodriguez

and Quentin Tarantino

In a past Thoughts For The Month column about the 1980’s B-horror movies Chopping Mall and Night of the Comet (see TFTM July 2006) I used the phrase “back in the day” quite a few times. That phrase once again seems appropriate in discussing Grindhouse, the most recent collaboration from filmmakers Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino. The two movies in this double bill are Rodriguez’s Planet Terror and Tarantino’s Death Proof, each of which is stylistically reminiscent of movies made in the golden era of the Drive-ins and Drive-in cinema. As many know, lower-budget fare (often called B-movies) once found a home

at the Drive-ins, and later during the home video revolution on VHS. (* As I talked about in the aforementioned column, I discovered movies like Chopping Mall and Night of the Comet at home on VHS tape and on pay cable). The use of this retro-style makes Grindhouse differ quite a bit from the typical big-budget event movie often seen today at multiplex theaters. At the same time, the picture is a unique and daring event in itself that is well worth some serious discussion.

The first half of the Grindhouse double bill is the zombie opus Planet Terror. This film is an action-packed horror romp complete with all the exploitation movie trimmings one could want including copious amounts of blood and gore, exploding heads, severed limbs, sexy women, nudity and more. The main plot concerns a chemically-caused zombie outbreak of epic proportions which involves the plight of several interesting characters. The cast is a big strength of this movie and is headed up by Rose McGowan as Go-Go dancer Cherry, and Freddy Rodriguez as her mysterious gun-toting ex-boyfriend Wray. Other recognizable actors on hand are Michael Biehn as the local sheriff, Jeff Fahey as his brother J.T., Josh Brolin and Marley Shelton as husband and wife doctors whose marriage is in shambles, and Bruce Willis as an army officer bent on controlling the situation at all costs. Makeup effects wizard (and genre favorite) Tom Savini also appears as a Deputy. The leads are both very good with sexy Rose McGowan steaming up the screen and at the same time giving a very believable and often heartfelt performance as a woman whose hopes and dreams have somehow slipped away from her. She is equal parts sultry and tough, and the sequences with her machine-gun leg (as highlighted on the movie poster and in ads) are both funny and exciting. Rodriguez is equally impressive as the man-of-few-words Wray, while some of his lines, delivered in a low deadpan, are memorable to say the least. And while I could go on at length about the rest of the diverse cast, suffice it to say the other players are all right on the money in their roles as well.

Besides the excellent cast in Planet Terror, I also thought the zombie action in the film was first-rate. ** Thanks partly to the directorial prowess of Rodriguez, and partly to the work of the always reliable KNB FX team, the zombie scenes are fast-moving, suspenseful and ultra grotesque. Standout moments include a sequence reminiscent of Night of the Living Dead with a group of people trapped inside a house, and a bit where a helicopter chops off several zombie heads ala Day of the Dead. It was also refreshing to see the abundant use of prosthetic makeup effects as opposed to the typical CGI (computer-generated imagery) usually on display nowadays. *** And of course this entirely fit the retro-style of the film, as did the use of some synthesizer music that immediately made me think of early John Carpenter films and Euro-horror classics featuring the music of the rock band Goblin. Simply put, I had very little to complain about, except for perhaps thinking some references to current world events and people (actually components of the plot) seemed a bit at odds with the otherwise 1970’s/80’s feel of the film. However aside from this minor quibble I found Planet Terror to be an extremely well-made, exciting, and incredibly enjoyable zombie movie. It’s a must-see for B-movie, horror film, and action film fans alike. And speaking of action...

SUBJECT: Some thoughts on Independent Filmmaking, Movie Criticism and Cinematic “Old” & “New” Media.

The advent of the global internet and the World Wide Web has changed the way people communicate and

made our world more interactive than ever before. This has had far-reaching implications on many facets of life, including the media, and in particular the entertainment industry. Traditional or “old” media, as it’s sometimes called, has historically been more or less a one-way communication street. This means there have always been a relatively small number of producers of media (content producers), and a larger number of consumers of media (everybody else). However because of the online world and new digital technologies these lines are becoming more and more blurred as individuals who were once strictly consumers begin to produce their own content in many different forms, including video, music, and of course written commentary, feedback and criticism, of all varieties. Because of this new level of unhampered interactive communication, movie criticism, among other things, has become more prevalent than ever these days.

With websites such as The Internet Movie Database (IMDb), blogs, online message boards and opinion columns (like this one), people are commenting on and publicly discussing movies like never before. Of course this isn’t to say that prior to the emergence of the online world movies weren’t regularly discussed. Traditional media has always given movies (and the entertainment industry in general for that matter) ample coverage.

Long before the first website appeared, local and national newspapers and magazines regularly ran reviews

of the latest Hollywood blockbusters, while television shows like Siskel & Ebert focused on each week’s new theatrical releases. These media outlets however generally didn’t reach much beyond product produced by Hollywood or their “indie” divisions when it came to covering film, and they certainly didn’t facilitate viewer feedback given the one-way nature of the mediums. Even today, traditional media continues to focus primarily on Hollywood output along with selected high-profile independent offerings. This is understandable of course, because despite the emergence of independent digital filmmaking, studio films continue to dominate the industry to a large degree. * However as I’ve discussed at length in previous TFTM columns, independent digital movie makers have begun making a mark, and the democratization of filmmaking is something no longer just imagined. This all has great implications for the art of movie criticism, feedback and commentary.

A good starting point for a detailed discussion of movie criticism (or any kind of criticism for that matter) is to first define what it is. I believe a good definition of movie criticism is commentary about movies based, at least

in part, on one’s own personal likes and dislikes, and/or opinion on what something should or should not be.

This definition is especially applicable because of the fact that filmmaking is an art form not easily quantified. For example, judges in film festivals and film competitions can give numerical scores on such aspects of a production as sound, lighting, pacing and the like, while a film as a whole is still very subjective in nature above and beyond these technical considerations. However technical aspects definitely do count, which begs the question of how much things like budgetary restraints and resources should factor into decisions and critical evaluations of films. This of course is especially relevant to the new independent digital filmmaking movement, which is often characterized by low to no-budgets and lots of hard work, dedication and creativity. I know from personal experience what goes into these types of productions, and how indie filmmakers are often just as dedicated to seeing their vision come to fruition as any Hollywood filmmaker. As mentioned previously, traditional media has generally not, until very recently, ventured much beyond Hollywood output in terms of coverage and criticism. However the advent of the online world has given rise to numerous specialty websites covering this new type of independent filmmaking. When it comes to horror films for example, there is currently a plethora of sites dedicated to the genre, many of which focus primarily on independent horror cinema. Another way to put this is that a new breed of critics has come forth to cover the emerging world of digital horror cinema. My DVD Horrors movie reviews appearing in this column often fall squarely in that category.

The online world truly has given more and more people the opportunity to have their voices heard. This is, in my opinion, an unequivocally positive development. However with such freedom comes responsibility. In focusing again on movie criticism, there is much to be taken into consideration. Traditional media movie criticism has generally not focused on lack of budgets and resources, or technical considerations, because Hollywood

doesn’t have such limitations. ** Conversely, some online movie critics who cover independent movie making have, to a degree, not focused on relative shortcomings in such areas, because this is often the realistic norm in many truly independent productions. This understanding by writers is good because it allows more focus to fall on the artistic side of cinema. However this is not to say that deficiencies in technical aspects should be

ignored; on the contrary, technical considerations are always an important responsibility of filmmakers working under any conditions and budgets. In other words good sound, lighting, picture quality etc., need to always be present no matter what the budget. Happily, this fact is not being lost on more and more independent filmmakers, as evidenced by the ever-increasing number of impressive and polished productions being made day after day. With those conditions met the focus in independent movie criticism can fall squarely on artistic merit.

Artistic merit is of course very subjective in nature and hard to define. It also becomes an ever more

complicated idea because of the always-increasing diversity and nature of films being produced by the studios and, more often by the new breed of independent digital filmmakers. For example in Hollywood a giant budget

is often the norm, and with these budgets come incredible visuals, star power and thrilling cinematic moments. However with this norm also comes a baseline standard which dictates commentary and criticism be directed

at things other than effects and flashy visuals. In other words, audiences and critics alike have come to accept these things as normal in studio films, and are often not impressed by them alone. Criticism can then fall on more important aspects such as plot, character and story, which is a good thing. At the same time this baseline standard can also create something of a mainstream mentality, which can be detrimental to lower-end studio movies, as well as indie films not having costly CGI (computer-generated imagery), star power and the like.

I’ve seen many reviews of lower-end studio films that focused attention on the fact that a production didn’t have recognizable names in it, and more often than not this was seen (by the reviewer) as a negative. Such a review is also more prone toward being a bashing piece, not really discussing the merits of the movie, but

rather heaping overly harsh or unjustified criticism on actors, premise or the like. This also has the unfortunate additional side effect of suggesting that audiences should only prefer studio films with gigantic budgets and major star power. Personally I believe a good story should come far ahead of such considerations, and lack of big celebrity names should not be a damning thing. *** For example I can remember reading a review of the movie Wes Craven’s New Nightmare in a major entertainment publication where the writer barely mentioned any specifics of the plot or story, but rather spent most of the review making sarcastic and/or negative commentary about such things as the “B-movie” actors in the picture and the fans who might be interested in watching them. I wondered if this writer even viewed the movie, or if perhaps he only skimmed through it, having decided in advance it wasn’t worth much. Such unfounded negativity is also true of some online reviews I’ve

read about independent digital horror films as well. Regardless of what type of production is being discussed however, this type of writing to me is really a wasted opportunity because it doesn’t focus on the merits of a movie, but rather merely on negativity. **** When I write film reviews I always attempt to take into consideration the positive aspects of every production (although with some films that’s difficult), even if I didn’t like the film as

a whole. It really bothers me when a movie is dismissed simply because of a lack of recognizable, or “A-list” names, and even more so when I sense a writer is simply eager to trash a film without any more justification than an “it sucks” attitude. Also, a lack of sophistication doesn’t necessarily have to be a negative factor as it often is in many movie reviews. I believe many filmgoers (myself included) enjoy some movies simply for, or in spite of, their relative simplicity. For example the Friday the 13th movies could be called lowest common denominator filmmaking because they focus primarily on gory death scenes, sex scenes and nudity, etc. above all else, which may be exactly what some fans like about them. I don’t believe every movie has to be intellectually stimulating and sophisticated every moment. If they did, then today’s popular gross-out comedies wouldn’t exist, and cinema would become overly serious drudgery to say the least. Films that are nothing more than fun and escapism definitely have a place alongside more serious pictures.

The ease of use of new media tools such as websites, blogs, online feedback forms, forums and the like has made it possible for anyone with a computer to become a critic. It has made possible alternative views to those of traditional critics, and as mentioned has initiated a new era of movie criticism, as well as many other types of media criticism. The challenge for writers is to use the new opportunities presented to improve the craft of feedback and criticism, and contribute to the overall betterment of cinema as a whole.

SUBJECT: The impact of New Media on our celebrity-obsessed culture.

I’ve written numerous columns on the impact new media - including the internet, the World Wide Web, DVD, high-end video/computer gaming, and especially independent digital filmmaking - is having on our entertainment landscape. In my April 2006 TFTM column I discussed how the popularity of DVD video (as well as other home entertainment options) is contributing to the decline of the theatrical movie market. Basically, because of the ever-increasing abundance, selection, and availability of new media (some of it now consumer-generated such as on YouTube and other video sharing sites), people are being offered more and more entertainment choices. Accordingly, this abundance of choices is putting growing numbers of new performers in front of large, often worldwide, audiences. Internet celebrities are emerging with increasing frequency. How then does this affect the popularity and impact of “traditional celebrities” like Hollywood movie stars and recording artists represented by music industry major labels? Those questions will be the major focus of this discussion.

The title of this column may seem a little extreme; however I believe the fact is we do indeed live in a celebrity-obsessed culture. Entertainment stories about well-known actors, singers, athletes, etc., have always been a part of both local and national newscasts, as well as the main focus of a plethora of entertainment television shows and print magazines. * Looking at the last couple months for example, hardly a day has gone by when there hasn’t been some story or commentary about movie and television stars Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton. Watching the news often makes me think that the public will always have an insatiable appetite for celebrity stories and gossip. Yet over the past few years I’ve also noticed that more and more television news coverage seems to be dedicated to technology, new media, and people involved with new media. This is, of course, a reflection of our continually developing information society and related societal trends. New media is being used to give the average person a voice on television. For example, major news networks like CNN now regularly include viewer feedback in the form of E-mail poll question responses as part of many news programs.

Average citizens are now also contributing even more directly to breaking news stories by providing (often dramatic) video footage captured on consumer camcorders. These contributors are even given on-air credit

and often referred to as “I-reporters”. ** Internet bloggers have also become a major force, and their discussions about various current topics and issues now often get taken into account on major newscasts as well. A very recent example where viewers took center stage was the CNN YouTube Debates, where viewer questions to presidential candidates were submitted using the YouTube video service, with a chosen number used on the broadcast. Generally speaking in fact, more and more user-generated videos are showing up on national newscasts and television as a whole, many of them purely entertainment-oriented.

Given such developments one can ask how this will affect the role of the traditional celebrity in our society.

From my observations the appeal of megastar actors, musicians, etc. hasn’t waned much, however it’s quite apparent that such established performers are now sharing the limelight more frequently with many new faces. Trends in broadcasting such as the popularity of so-called “reality shows” have focused attention on a new wave of individuals. Similarly, many reality shows focus on actors, singers and other entertainers who were once popular years ago, thereby giving them a resurgence of sorts and further altering the celebrity landscape. Additionally, with the ever-increasing focus on popular technology such as computers and online media, technology innovators like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have become celebrities in their own rights as well.

The online world and new digital technologies help to facilitate the possibility of everyone having a public voice. As I’ve often talked about, digital video equipment is giving aspiring filmmakers a voice, and new media in general is furthering our collective dialog about all topics large and small. I think this will only further fuel our discussion about, and fascination with, celebrities. With the increasing entertainment options both online and

off, I believe more and more people will have time in the limelight (their “fifteen minutes of fame” one might say), however often for a relatively short period of time. And while I believe there will always be megastars as long as Hollywood and the music industry exist, there will probably be less of them simply as a result of the overall increased competition for viewers and attention. Society will continue to be fascinated with, and consumers will continue to talk endlessly about, celebrities of all types. The question is who will we be talking about tomorrow?

SUBJECT: Movie Review - "Halloween (2007)" - A look at director Rob Zombie's new re-imagining of

a horror film classic.

Besides being a gifted musician, rocker Rob Zombie also has quite a talent for putting together some of the most amazing casts around. * In his previous films House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil’s Rejects he had some diverse talents on board including the likes of Bill Moseley, Priscilla Barnes and Geoffrey Lewis. In his

new remake of the 1978 John Carpenter masterpiece Halloween however, he has what I can only describe as a dream cast made up of some of the coolest horror and cult films stars working today. While sitting in a darkened movie theater watching the film on its opening weekend, I couldn’t help but constantly tap my buddy on the shoulder to point out the likes of Brad Dourif, Richard Lynch, Clint Howard, Danny Trejo, Dee Wallace, Ken Foree and Danielle Harris (who starred in Halloween 4 & 5). (It occurred to me during the film just how much of a horror film geek I am at heart, and as such I must also admit to completely missing Udo Kier until seeing his name in the end credits). Having these people together in one film should equal good results, or at least a good time. Unfortunately however, I found this remake to be neither, and quickly began wishing the director had chosen to produce another original creation instead of reworking a classic.

In Rob Zombie’s new re-imagining of Halloween, ten-year-old Michael Myers (Daeg Faerch) is seen growing up in a lower-class suburban household with his mean stepfather (William Forsythe), stripper mother (Sheri Moon Zombie), promiscuous older sister (Hanna Hall), and baby sister. His stepfather is abusive to everyone, especially Michael and his tough but good-hearted mother, and this only serves to further alienate an already withdrawn kid. At home Michael hides his face under a clown mask and begins killing small animals while avoiding his stepfather. School isn’t any better as he’s bullied by other kids and constantly dragged to the principal’s office, much to the irritation of his mother. He’s also asked to see psychiatrist Samuel Loomis (Malcolm McDowell), however this turns out to be too little too late when Michael suddenly turns on his

tormenters with deadly violence. After killing a school bully he systematically slaughters his stepfather, older sister and her boyfriend, before his mother returns from work and finds him sitting on the front porch in his Halloween mask cradling his baby sister in his arms. After this he spends the next fifteen years under the supervision of Dr. Loomis in the now familiar Halloween back-story, before escaping and returning to his hometown of Haddonfield, Illinois to kill again. Unlike in the original version however, his fifteen-year incarceration is played out on the screen in agonizing detail, rather than simply mentioned in dialog by the

good Dr. Loomis.

On the plus side, Daeg Faerch gives a good performance as tormented young Michael Myers, alternating between being eerily sympathetic and downright scary. The scenes where he almost nonchalantly kills the aforementioned family members are creepy and disturbing to watch, with the brutality and blood in this new version adding to the shock value. That having been said however, the fact that Michael’s childhood is played

out in full makes this story seem ordinary. In fact I kept thinking while watching that this could’ve been (or should’ve been) a film about some other serial killer. What made Michael Myers chilling to watch in the original version (and its sequels) was that it wasn’t spelled out what was driving him or how he came to be the way he was. Rather he was a blank slate with the cold eyes of a shark that moved in an inhuman, robotic way. Here it’s basically the simple math of A+B=C, or, put another way, a withdrawn kid plus a bad environment/tormentors equals a psychopath bent on revenge against everybody. I really feel that painting Michael’s back-story took away one crucial element that made the original Halloween great. It also unfortunately eats up a good deal of screen time (especially the scenes with Michael in the institution), and as a result the events of the 1978 version don’t start until well past a half-hour into the movie.

Another thing missing in the remake is the role Dr. Sam Loomis should’ve played in the story. I believe a second element that made John Carpenter’s film great was the importance of this character. Dr. Loomis’ mad pursuit

of Michael in the original version anchored the film and gave it depth. (Donald Pleasence’s unforgettable performance also added greatly to this factor). When I heard that Malcolm McDowell had been cast in the role

of the good doctor I had hope. Unfortunately in the new version Dr. Loomis is reduced to nothing more than another in a string of peripheral (and disposable) characters. This is not any reflection on McDowell though, who is a great actor and here does his best with an underwritten role. However because this film is focused almost exclusively on Michael, he’s just not given much to do and is consequently not really a central part of the proceedings despite spending a lot of screen time examining the young killer.

In the latter part of the movie we revisit more familiar proceedings as Michael returns to Haddonfield to pursue teenaged Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) and butcher her family, friends and anyone else he encounters along the way. Being that it’s a Rob Zombie film, it’s not surprising we get trash-talking teens, blood, nudity and sex, brutality and more blood. And while I have no problems with any of these exploitation elements (and am in fact a big slasher film fan), the film no longer bears any resemblance to Halloween, despite the character names and setting being the same, and numerous scenes from the original being reenacted in detail. Basically at this point it becomes an exercise in parading characters across the screen so they can then up the body count. ** Even more than this complaint however, is the fact that I didn’t identify with Laurie Strode like I did in the original, which also detracted from my enjoyment of the film. And while it would be very unfair to compare Scout Taylor-Compton to Jamie Lee Curtis, suffice it to say that watching the new Michael chase the new Laurie around was akin to watching any movie psychopath in a mask chase around any hapless victim. In other words there wasn’t much that was special about Laurie in this re-imagining. Even a scene where Michael suddenly and very unexpectedly dropped his weapon and sank to his knees in front of Laurie felt pointless because her

character just didn’t seem that important. This I believe was more a result of the writing as a whole than anything else.

As I said in my previous columns (about Rob Zombie’s earlier films), I greatly admire the man for always having his own unique vision, which he has thus far managed to keep intact and deliver to the big screen. He has his own style and it shows. He also is obviously passionate about the horror genre and can never be accused of putting out generic or derivative films. One look at the great Michael Myers mask he used in his film makes this apparent. In fact I’ll also go so far as to say that had the director named this movie something else and/or

not in any way associated it with Halloween I might have liked it a lot more. After all, it does have some good qualities such as being gritty and uncompromising, and is at times (as mentioned earlier), scary and disturbing. As a remake of Halloween however, it totally misses the mark and negates just about all that made the original John Carpenter film the unforgettable classic that it is.

SUBJECT: A look at the evolution of Underground Digital Cinema

A discussion of some of my experiences, insights and perspectives - Part 1.

This month’s TFTM column is the first in a planned continuing series on the expansive topic of Underground Digital Cinema. Since my particular specialty is horror films, I’ll focus on that genre quite a bit throughout the course of this discussion. As anyone familiar with my past columns knows, I’ve filled a lot of space writing about independent and underground digital video. I’ve talked about how once there was primarily only professional cinema (film), and how the average person who had ambitions about making a movie was pretty much out of luck - or at the very least relegated to the production quality of VHS or 8mm (analog) home video consumer-grade equipment. Of course that all changed in the mid 1990’s with the advent of low-cost, high-quality digital video equipment, which put real power into the hands of would-be filmmakers everywhere. (My own evolution as a filmmaker proceeded right along those lines, with a progression from VHS and 8mm video to DV - with HDV on the horizon). The evolution of this new form of digital cinema has continued to have a dramatic impact on my experiences as both a film lover and filmmaker. I was first a fan of Hollywood and mainstream cinema, and then when the home video revolution took hold in the 1980’s, I was gradually introduced to a wider array of viewing choices. As my interest in the horror film genre grew I eventually came to be exposed to many underground digital horror movies. Digital Cinema is what I produce as a filmmaker, and in this series of columns I’ll discuss the evolution of this genre using my own personal experiences and observations as both viewer and filmmaker as a backdrop and point of reference.

Before delving into my own introduction to Underground Digital Cinema, it might be a good idea to more thoroughly discuss my background as a film fan. Prior to the home video revolution in the 1980’s, I was what might be described as a mainstream film fan. That is to say I went to the movies and watched all the current Hollywood offerings. Even during my young teen years I had already developed a healthy appetite for cinema, and I can remember visiting the local multiplexes quite frequently. * In fact a friend and I would often go to see favorite films multiple times, due in part to the relatively low price for tickets during the glorious 1980’s (as compared to the staggering ticket prices of today). Around the mid 1980’s I acquired a VHS VCR, and soon after that my interest in horror films was aroused by watching director Wes Craven’s groundbreaking, and very extreme cinematic shocker A Nightmare on Elm Street. Aside from a viewing of Jaws as a child I hadn’t had much of an interest in horror films before then, however something about the compelling story in A Nightmare

on Elm Street grabbed me and the rest was history. ** Around the same time period I also discovered Fangoria magazine, which most genre film fans know is a publication that has long been dedicated to horror cinema, horror writers, horror-themed video games, and basically all things related to the horror genre. The publication initially grabbed my attention with a story on A Nightmare on Elm Street, and soon after that I began reading it on a regular basis as my interest in horror films continued to grow. In the summer of 1995, after being in awe for several years of eye-catching ads showing pictures of horror film celebrities, I finally decided to take my first real road trip and headed to New York City for The Fangoria Weekend of Horrors convention. It’s interesting to note that at the time I didn’t have any friends who were as much into the horror film genre as I was, and as a result couldn’t convince anyone to shell out the money needed for convention tickets, transportation

and room and board (for the overnight, weekend stay). So I actually scraped together some extra cash, invited

a friend to attend the show with me, and paid for his entire trip to the Big Apple! Looking back at it now is really humorous, and as it turns out this trip to the city turned out to be not only a memorable one, but also key to my introduction to the (then) upcoming new breed of underground digital horror movies.

SUBJECT: A look at the evolution of Underground Digital Cinema

A discussion of some of my experiences, insights and perspectives - Part 2.

(Note: See the October 2007 Thoughts For The Month for Part 1 of this continuing column.)

* Since my first film convention visit in 1995 I’ve now attended well over a dozen more shows. For several years

I went to The Fangoria Weekend of Horrors convention in New York City (usually in January), and then years later friends introduced me to the other big (rival) convention called The Chiller Theater Toy, Model & Film Expo (or Chiller Theater for short), which has traditionally been held in New Jersey. (New Jersey is actually,

from what I’ve observed, a key center for Underground Digital Horror Filmmaking - more on that later). And as

I mentioned in Part 1 of the column, the second big highlight of these shows (the first being the celebrity guests) is the vendor rooms. In these rooms sellers have almost everything horror film-related available for purchase, including video tapes and DVD’s, film soundtracks, horror film t-shirts, horror film trading cards, posters, magazines, and almost anything else film and horror film-related one can imagine. ** Much of this material consists of Hollywood movies and merchandise related to Hollywood movies, however there is also a good amount of indie film merchandise one can buy, and it is this that I will primarily focus on in my discussion.

I believe the first truly underground horror movie that I ever watched was the 1995 shot-on-video title Psycho Sisters. I bought a copy of Psycho Sisters after posing for a picture with the beautiful lead actresses of the movie in the vendor room at the aforementioned 1995 Fangoria Weekend of Horrors convention in New York City. (Filmmakers, producers and actors running their own sale tables and taking photos with fans was a phenomenon I hadn’t heard of until then.) Viewing this movie was what I’d call a shock to the system for me at that time, because even though I’d seen some extreme horror films, such as A Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th, I’d never before seen a gritty, home-made looking shot-on-video movie of this nature. And for this reason alone I think the production is worth a bit of discussion here.

*** The video version of Psycho Sisters was released in 1995, which was just before the whole digital video revolution (discussed in Part 1 of this column) began to swing into high gear. So I think it was unique in the fact that there weren’t that many underground indie films of this nature around yet, or at least not that many known to the general mainstream movie-going public. The plot of the movie is centered on three loving sisters living in a house in a rural-looking area. Soon after we meet the lovely ladies the movie turns grim as the doorbell rings

and in burst a gang of thugs who tie up and attempt to rape them. Dark-haired Janice Sicole (Tina Krause) puts up a fight and is strangled and killed, while her two blond-haired sisters - Jackie and Jane (Pamela Sutch and Christine Taylor) - manage to escape despite having been stripped down to their underwear and having had their hands tied behind their backs. Years after the tragic incident the girls are escorted out the doors of a psychiatric hospital - presumably cured of their emotional problems - by a caring doctor. Moments after he leaves them they turn toward the camera and their placid smiles disappear, indicating trouble is looming on the horizon. Throughout the rest of the movie the disturbed women proceed to go on a revenge killing spree against every male they encounter, hence the title of the film. Hapless male victims are lured to their deaths in many different scenarios, including an unfortunate jogger who is chloroformed, and a guy who delivers pizza to the ladies’ house by mistake. The climax of the movie comes at the very end, when the vengeful women once again come face to face with the male intruders who killed their sister Janice.

Psycho Sisters was made by W.A.V.E. Productions, a New Jersey-based company specializing in low-budget horror and exploitation movies. It was released by EI Cinema (now called POP Cinema), another New Jersey independent film company also producing exploitation movies. **** Ironically enough, this particular movie is what might be called a reverse exploitation film, in that (with the exception of the strangled sister at the beginning) it mainly consists of guys being captured, stripped and killed by women. ***** It might also be described as a rape-revenge movie in the tradition of such films as The Last House on the Left, I Spit on Your Grave, and the 1981 film Ms. 45. (These films all have some similar elements. In The Last House on

the Left and I Spit on Your Grave there are similar types of revenge-mutilation scenes, and Abel Ferrara’s

Ms. 45 features a woman who goes on a revenge killing spree against males in general). The movie also features many staples of underground indie horror filmmaking, including the use of simple, basic locations: mainly a few rooms in a house (including an exterior shot) and scenes out in the woods/fields, along with some driving shots and a scene at a local bar. It also includes other elements often found in underground horror movie productions including chloroforming, a plethora of strangulation scenes, and pounding heavy metal music (that sometimes drowns out the dialog), which for whatever reason tend to be commonplace in this subgenre.

The above elements are complimented by the acting performances, which enhance the impact of the violent scenes. As I said, the first time I watched Psycho Sisters it was quite a shock because the production was so unlike any movie I had seen previously. It was akin to watching a violent home video, and the performances by leads Pamela Sutch and Christine Taylor were akin to watching people in such a home video. ****** Actually, on

my first viewing of the movie all those years ago I initially couldn’t decide if I found the performances to be way too believable or campy and stilted. There seemed to be moments of each. On a recent repeat viewing I found the film more believable on this level, especially with Pamela Sutch’s character, as she goes back and forth between her sweet, caring sister of old (before Janice’s death) and cold-blooded killer. On the other hand some scenes, such as one where the women easily overpower and capture several guys at once, aren’t entirely believable. Along these lines it should be noted that the movie also has some humor sprinkled throughout,

such as a scene where the women are watching their doctor on television and he attributes the killings to a gay male, leading the ladies to be disgusted because the police are searching for some psycho guy instead of their sister’s killer (apparently not realizing the doctor is talking about their killings).

Regardless of how believable Psycho Sisters ultimately is, I suspect a majority of film fans have still today not seen this kind of raw, underground cinema. I also believe Psycho Sisters was sort of a prototype for a whole slew of underground horror films that have come out of New Jersey (as well as some other places) from a handful of companies since then - such as W.A.V.E. Productions and EI Cinema in particular. Also, some of the actresses in the film - particularly Tina Krause and Pamela Sutch - would go on to become key players in the whole New Jersey underground horror movie scene. It is these things... and more... which I’ll begin to discuss

in Part 3 of this continuing column.

* I’ve previously written quite a bit about The Fangoria Weekend of Horrors convention, and The Chiller

Theater Toy, Model & Film Expo (or Chiller Theater for short). See the February 2004 and October 2005 Thoughts For The Month columns for discussions of a couple of my Weekend of Horrors convention visits (for those years), and the March 2003 column for a general discussion about Fangoria magazine. See the May 2003 TFTM column for a discussion about The Chiller Theater Toy, Model & Film Expo, and the June 2006 column for a discussion of my visit to The Chiller Theater show that year.

** The term “indie” is often used interchangeably with the term "independent", referring to independent filmmaking, or the independent filmmaking scene.

*** I point out that I’m discussing the 1995 video version of Psycho Sisters because the movie was remade a few years later on film with different actors by the same director (Pete Jacelone).