Finding Horror (October Horror #1)

[The author is watching a bunch of horror movies and doing a lot of horror-related things during the month of October. This thread takes you along with him on the journey. Enjoy, but keep looking behind you, there could be spoilers … or at least monsters]

So you want to be a Norwegian Trollhunter, do you?

So you want to be a Norwegian Trollhunter, do you?

One of the ‘new’ genres of horror movies is that of the “Found Footage” horror movie. In this sub genre, someone, usually a group of amateur moviemakers who get in over their heads, or a news team that finds more than they counted on, or homeowners documenting the weird experiences they’ve been having, or some similar conceit, grab a camera or ten and start filming. Strangeness and horror — and often death — ensue. Later, this movie footage is ‘discovered’ by the producers (or someone) and published as a sort of public service, marketed as a documentary. The best ones make you wonder if what you’re seeing, or even if part of what you’re seeing, might be real.

From what the internet tells me (motto: “Horrifying you with links to porn sites since 1991”), the first Found Footage movie was probably “Cannibal Holocaust” (Italian, 1980). I haven’t seen that one, mostly because it looks absolutely horrible, and not in the absolutely-horrible-but-in-a-fun-good-like-“Flash-Gordon”-kind-of-way. Also, it isn’t available for streaming on Netflix.

The idea there was that a documentary crew heads off into the jungle and gets eaten. Later, a team sent in to look for them finds their footage, thus allowing us to see what happened to the poor documentarians. The movie was banned in several countries because the animal cruelty depicted in it is actual animal cruelty, even if the cannibalism wasn’t (the director had to defend himself against this latter charge in court).

But you probably haven’t heard of that one. The most famous Found Footage movie is “The Blair Witch Project” (1999). This one took over the internet. I’d guess it wasn’t the first movie meme to spread virally across the World Wide Web, but it was perhaps the first to be so darned effective. The marketing materials surrounding the movie were extensive. There were internet clips, a Sci-Fi Channel special, and fake web sites detailing the fake people and fake places in the movie. At the time though, although there might have been some suspicions, no one in the general public knew whether or not the “Blair Witch Project” was for real.

Reception to the movie itself was mixed. Some moviegoers complained that the shaky hand-held camera style made them motion sick. Others were thrown off by the fact that the film didn’t make use of many of the staples of horror movies, most notably, a soundtrack (I’ll cover music and horror movies in a later entry in this thread). Still others thought that the first 90% of the movie was too slow. They wanted more scares.

I often hear this last argument from people who saw “Blair Witch” at home rather than in the theater. But if you don’t do it right, watching this movie at home loses its impact. You can’t hit pause and go to the bathroom, or pop some popcorn, or answer the phone. You have to sit there and watch it from the opening scenes of happy-happy faux documentarians all the way to the nerve-sizzling final moments. The slow burn buildup is what makes the ending work and what makes “Blair Witch Project” one of the scariest movies I’ve ever seen, and the only one that I’ve seen as an adult that gave me nightmares.

Following the “Blair Witch Project’s” success, came a number of other Found Footage horror movies. There’s “REC” (Spanish, 2007) and George Romero’s (of “Night of the Living Dead” fame — he who gave us the zombiepocalypse without ever calling his shambling dead folk ‘zombies’) “Diary of the Dead” (2007). Both of these were zombie-centric, and “REC” is the more “Found Footage” of the two, since everyone knew that Romero’s movie wasn’t ‘real.’

“Cloverfield” is like the “Diary of the Dead” in that regard, too. Pretty sure we would have noticed if a giant alien tentacle-thing had fallen on New York. So for some movies, the Found Footage motif is used for stylistic reasons rather than in an attempt to convince us that what we’re seeing is real. Thusly, I won’t cover any more of those here.

But a quiet little movie that did want to convince us that what we were seeing had actually happened was “The Last Exorcism.” In it, a sham exorcist has changed his exorcising-demonically-possessed-folk-for-money ways and wants to expose the ‘profession’ of sham exorcism by going out on one last gig, with a film crew, and showing how he’d fooled people all those years. What he finds is more real than he, or we the audience, were expecting. This is another case of the slow-build, which is a staple of the Found Footage sub-genre. But the payoff is a surprise — if not a pleasant one, then at least a satisfying one.

Much less quiet, in theaters, at least, was “Paranormal Activity” (2007). Telling the story of a couple of young upwardly mobiles who are trying to figure out what all that spooky stuff going on in their house is all about, it spawned a couple of sequels (so far) and several knock-offs. As with “Blair Witch Project,” opinion on “Paranormal Activity” is mixed. Most of the slow burn for this movie is composed of sounds heard off-camera, and genuinely spooky scenes of the girl part of the couple standing beside their shared bed, staring blankly at the guy-part for hours on end (time-lapse speeded up, of course, in the film, ’cause otherwise that would be boring rather than spooky). As much as I complain about trailers giving away the major points of movies — I think it was in “Quarantine,” an English-version of “REC” where the trailer shows us the very, very, very final scene — for “Paranormal Activity” this actually works in the movie’s favor, as I was on edge every time we switched over to night view in the boyfriend’s camera, waiting for what I knew was coming, but not sure when it would be coming.

However, for horror, shock, and disturbing spookiness, I have to declare the winner to be a “Paranormal Activity” knock-off called “Paranormal Entity” (2009). It was produced by The Asylum, who make it their business to rush-film similarly-named “mockbusters” of popular films. Their “Sherlock Holmes” (2009) for instance, capitalized on the popularity of the Robert Downey Jr blockbuster of the same name, but the Asylum’s Holmes had to fight a giant octopus, killer robots, and, erm, a t-rex.

Yes, a t-rex.

However, “Paranormal Entity” doesn’t rely on as slow a burn as “Paranormal Activity” and the viewer is rewarded with a movie that is, well, all of those things I said a few sentences ago. Also, there’s nudity. Bonus.

To finish off our discussion of Found Footage movies, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the one that I just watched a couple of days ago: “Trollhunter” (Norwegian, 2010). In this, a group of young Norwegian documentarians go looking for a bear poacher, but instead find Hans, Norwegian Trollhunter! Hans leads the kids into the dangerous world of troll hunting and the amateur film work is set off beautifully by the trolls we get to see — much like “Cloverfield’s” shaky handheld camera gives more umph to the monsters the survivors encounter.

“Trollhunter” has a sly sense of humor that underlies the movie, too. Trolls, apparently, can “smell the blood of a Christian man.” So at one point one of the filmmakers is asking the new team member if she’s Christian. Finding out she’s Moslim, he says to Hans, “Moslem, that’s okay, right?” to which Hans responds, perfectly deadpan, “I don’t know. We’ll see what happens.”

I so want to be Hans, Norwegian Trollhunter, for Halloween, but my girlfriend won’t let me. It might be the part about where he insists on going around covered with “troll stench.” Apparently, troll stench doesn’t smell great.

Oh well, I’ll just have to grab a camera and go to Halloween costume parties as a fervent-but-naive filmmaker, looking for something extraordinary to put on film.

Maybe later, someone will find that footage and show it to you.

[Update: Here’s a short Found Footage vampire movie called “Night of the Vampire” that you can watch right here on the intertubespiderwebs]

Posted in October Horror Thread, Reviews and Rants, Themed Threads | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Into the Cloud

Steve Jobs: dead at 56

Steve Jobs: Rest in iPeace

I’m writing this on a MacBook Pro that I’ve had for more than two years — longer than any Windows laptop I’ve owned (and I’ve had several: about one every eight to fifteen months). I just checked my e-mail, Groupons, and FB on my iPhone, which I consult obsessively every ten minutes; and I lust after an iPad so that I can get my magazines digitally and read my blog subscriptions without squinting.

Feel free to be a Mac or a PC (which is almost as silly as being Team Jacob or Team Edward), but both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have fundamentally changed the world we live in: the ways we communicate, acquire knowledge, and are entertained. How many people can say that?

Thanks, Mr. Jobs. You’ll be missed.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What is Best in Life, Conan?

The original Conan movie poster

Conan, the version where he only lifts the sword up in the sky like that for the movie poster.

I haven’t checked to see how well the new “Conan the Barbarian” movie did or didn’t do in the theaters. However, it didn’t last nearly as long at the local multiplex as, say, “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” has, so I don’t expect it did all that well, which is a shame, because it’s an above-average fantasy film.

Of course, this just means that it’s better than “The Scorpion King,” “Dungeons and Dragons: The Movie,” “Legend,” and “Krull” and that it’s about on the same level as “The Sword and the Sorcerer” and “Reign of Fire” (although the latter may not classify since it’s more post-apocalyptic and should really fall into the tanks-and-dragons sub-genre of fantasy — that there actually could be a ‘tanks-and-dragons’ sub-genre of fantasy is kinda scary). Anyway, the new “Conan” doesn’t come close to the best sword-and-sorcery movies available, which would be “The Lord of the Rings.” Very little can.

How does its muscles stack up against the original “Conan” movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger, however?

Meh.

Don’t get me wrong, the Arnohld “Conan” wasn’t exactly on par with a production of “Hamlet” (though it was better than Mel GIbson’s), but it had a style and a tone — a darkness, a comedy, a joy-of-swinging-a-swordness — that many fantasy movies have striven for and fallen short of in subsequent years.

Still, both movies suffered from Origin Syndrome. We see this with superheroes these days: the first of the series (almost always a trilogy anymore) must tell us where this guy or gal came from, what motivates them, what drives them to be more than the average Billy Zane on the street? Oh, and how did they get their superpowers? What is Conan but a superhero with a sword: unnaturally fast, able to withstand massive amounts of pain, incredibly strong?

It seems that we cinema-goers of the 21st Century can’t bear to have someone just there, being heroic. Where are our Dirty Harry’s? Our Shaft’s? Our Man With No Name’s? Even our Sherlock Holmes’s? Okay, so we have a new Sherlock Holmes that doesn’t feel the need to track about in Holmes’ childhood to show how he decided to become a genius investigator of near-unsolvable puzzles. Buuuut, where’s the rest of ’em?

The problem for writers and directors who want to work with the works and worlds of Robert E. Howard and Conan is that Howard never gave us an origin story for Conan. No, Conan comes out of the Cimmerian wastes and goes on about his business of Barbarian-ian-ing. Or whatever. He’s a thief, he’s a pirate, he’s a lover, he’s mostly a very efficient drinker and swordsman (or axeman, or spearman, or whatever-kind-of-weapon-happens-to-be-lying-around man).

This was because Howard was writing for the Pulps. In those heady days of the 30s and 40s and 50s (the 30s, for Howard), the pulp magazines (so called because of the cheap paper they were printed on) published adventure stories, mystery stories, action stories — stories that got right to it, and although some might be serialized, the writers didn’t spend a lot of time on background. Doc Savage was a wealthy guy who used his money and his Bowflex(tm) to fight crime along with his crew of fellow adventurers. Dashiell Hammett’s Sam Spade was a gumshoe ensconced in a ratty office in a ratty office building, but still managed to get in trouble because of the dames and managed to get out of it with his two-fisted way of diplomacy.

They were born whole cloth from the pens and typewriters of their creators, with very few exceptions. Even for those exceptions, such as Tarzan — raised, as most of us know, by apes and/or zebras in the wilds of Africa — we find out their background as a paragraph or two of exposition, rather than an entire story devoted to their origins. No, the action was AFTER the characters had already become the hero (or anti-hero) they would become.

So, those who chose to deal with Conan were faced with two options: 1). Stick to the episodic nature of the pulps and possibly lose the audience because there’s only the ‘monster-of-the-week’ (a term that I think started with “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”) and no binding, cohesifying narrative, or 2). Make something up.

In both versions of the cinematic “Conan”, the powers-that-be chose Option 2. Arnold’s Conan was sold into slavery by the guy who killed his parents and destroyed his village and thus he spends his life looking for Darth Vader (er, the Lion King? er, wait, no, Thulsa Doom) to wreak his vengeance. Mind you, once he gets it, then he can go on to the monster-of-the-week in “Conan the Destroyer,” just like Peter Parker can focus on Doctor Octopus in “Spiderman 2.” Even so, Conan is given a cohesive narrative that shapes his life. Never mind that in Howard’s version, it was never some outside force that shaped Conan; it was always Conan’s choice of what adventure he sought or stayed clear of (and he very rarely stayed clear of any).

In this new “Conan,” Jason Momoa’s Conan is given … exactly the same motivation: a warlord/sorcerer raids his village, kills his dad, and Conan spends the rest of his (movie) life seeking vengeance, with, I’ll give credit, some exposition about he had also been a thief, a pirate, and had raided the Elephant Tower, which are all references to Howard stories.

I suppose my argument here is not that the current movie didn’t use its opportunity to remain faithful to the books — to do away with the origin story and tell the stories, on film, that Howard had told, although that would have been sweet, but rather that they don’t strive for originality in themselves. At least the tropes of Shwarzenegger’s “Conan” created the benchmark for all the movies that would follow: no one saved the girl better than him; no one could lop the head off a serpent god as cleanly or with as much gusto.

The new “Conan” doesn’t do that. It uses the tropes of fantasy — family slain, vengeance sought, girl in danger (even girl is a spunky fighter, but still is in danger), an artifact must be reassembled to achieve ultimate power, there’s a prophecy in here somewhere, there’s a lot of bared breasts — but it doesn’t make them its own. Mind you, I’m all for exploring and even exploiting the tropes (especially that last one), but it has to be done with care, with appreciation for the form, and with elan. The new “Conan the Barbarian” feels like the filmmakers are just going through the motions, counting on the special effects and the sword fights to carry the movie. After all, it’s just fantasy, right? Not like it’ll be up for an Oscar.

But wait, the “Lord of the Rings” got some Oscars, if I remember correctly. And although maybe “Krull” was never meant to be that kind of fantasy movie (the guy’s primary weapon is, after all, essentially a throwing starfish), “Conan,” an iconic figure from our shared cultural mythos, should be.

Even so, I’ll probably get a copy of the new one when it comes out on DVD. After all, it is still above average for the genre.

The author knows he’s supposed to be writing reviews of the horror movies he’s been watching, and he swears he’ll do that (probably in a bi-weekly round-up), but he just saw “Conan the Barbarian” at the second-run theater and had to write this review. So there.

Posted in Reviews and Rants | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment