2014-10-15

A JOURNAL OF FEAR

October is here, the month of Halloween! Why a month? To commemorate / celebrate / prepare for the end of life (Summer) and the coming of death (Winter). Each day this month I will be watching a horror film and writing about it here in A JOURNAL OF FEAR! The films will range from classic to obscure to silly, all as a way to explore what it is about the terrifying, the macabre, the dark that attracts me so. I hope you find what I have to say interesting and maybe enlightening as I reflect on these films. They were chosen in no particular order other than availability, interest, and the input of my fellow death enthusiasts!

HERE IT IS YOU MONSTERS, WEEK 2 OF A JOURNAL OF FEAR!! You can go read Week 1 and last year’s here!

So this week was a rough one. Just a busy week to try and get writing done, and a week in which I did not love all the movies I watched. That happens, that is part of the deal, that is fine. What bums me out is that there were a couple I was SO stoked on that ended up being duds. I got a little philosophical on a few of them, but for the most part there was not that much to think about. It all landed just a little flat. I am not complaining, I chose the movies so it is my fault. However, I fear that this week is not as thick with all the stuff I like to write about. Then again, maybe it is shorter and y’all might prefer it that way. This was also the first time I tried collaborating on a piece. The awesome Nick Spacek and I wrote about House of Usher together. I dig collaborating; it was cool making this process more of a conversation and less of me being a narcissist. If you would like to collabo with me on a movie, get at me. I would love that. Anyway, thanks again for reading. This week’s tentative schedule is:

10/12 The Battery

10/13 Innocent Blood

10/14 The Devils

10/15 Phenomena

10/16 Nightmare City

10/17 Boarding House

10/18 The Final Terror

10/19 The Exorcist III

10/20 Body Bags

I emphasize tentative cause I change my mind a lot. For example, I was supposed to do The Mutilator on 10/12 but I was not in the mood for it, as my copy is super lo-fi and crappy. So I did The Battery instead cause I wanted to watch it and had it on Blu thanks to Ed. So, I am sorry if you are trying to watch along and you watched The Mutilator instead of The Battery but OH WELL!! Thanks for reading, tell your friends, and stay spooky.

10/6 SEVERANCE



Severance is available from Amazon here!!

OFFICIAL PLOT SYNOPSIS

An international arms dealer rewards his six-member sales division of corporate execs with a weekend team-building retreat in the mountains of Eastern Europe, where they encounter a renegade band of war-crazed soldiers seeking revenge.

I saw Severance at the Philadelphia Film Fest a few years ago, maybe 2007, and it really stuck with me. For those of you who don’t know, I am a Philly guy, and, like many Philly film types, I have a love/hate relationship with the film fest. On one hand the folks who run it have made some of the dumbest mistakes I have ever seen made by any organizers of anything. They also have never, it seems to me, been consistent in their programming nor had much respect for film fans who do not also write huge checks. On the other hand, I, like many of my fellow film dorks, would not have seen some amazing movies if it were not for the fest. As much as I do not love the folks who run the fest or the Philadelphia Film Society, they are the only thing in town at that level. So, I have to say, Severance is for me one of their success stories. If I remember correctly, I saw this film on a whim. I had a slot open, I had the option of another ticket, and I really wanted to see a horror film. The late night section at PFF has historically been horror and extreme films, often from other countries. There is a long and storied history to the programming of this section of the fest, which was branded for a LONG time as Danger After Dark. I am not certain, but I believe the year Severance came out that series had ended. I cannot be sure. All I knew was that some of my favorite and some of the most disturbing films were shown in this time slot, and I wanted to catch something.

If you have seen the film, then you may be anticipating the setup here, but what I wanted was not what I got. Yes, Severance is a slasher film of a sort, and it does have some serious gore. However, it is more of a genre bending comedy than strictly horror film. While it uses many of the tropes of the slasher, specifically in some of the directing and camera work, the plot is not particularly standard slasher nor are the killers. The film is instead a mix of humor and gore filled action with just a hint of social commentary, but not enough to make you think it is taking itself too seriously. Yes, there are some unsettling moments, a few jump scares and reveals that really work, but in the end it is not really a standard horror film. It is, in fact, quite surprising in retrospect that I even liked the film. I wanted something else entirely, and yet the combo of interesting genre bending slasher and some really great comedy won me over. The film is by no means a laugh riot, but there are some really witty as well as particularly goofy moments that I love.

For whatever reason though, this film has not really caught on. In fact, on revisiting it, I had low expectations despite my initial affection for it. So many folks had told me that they found it boring, or had pacing issues, that I expected to come to it with fresh eyes and see something different. That was not what happened. It is true, I could see some of the concerns. There are some tonal shifts that, if one is not ready to buy into the film, could be jarring. The humor is important as well, so the film does not function sufficiently enough as horror to carry itself if you do not find it funny. However, it is not a straight comedy, so if you are not interested in the horror aspect you might also be unhappy. That is all true, but I still loved it. I found some of the acting a little overwrought, but I loved the story and the humor. I am not familiar with Christopher Smith’s other films besides Black Death, which I enjoyed. The film is perhaps slick in a way it does not need to be, but overall I liked the look of the film. James Moran has written one other movie that I have seen, Cockneys vs Zombies, which was seriously terrible. This script, though, works for me so I will forgive him that mess of a movie.



In my past entries I have explored how horror really creates a space for engaging things indirectly. What I mean by that is, within drama one can make a film about something or a film which is a metaphor for something. However, horror films can let you address anxieties in a unique way by making them indirectly real. By that I mean many slasher films or supernatural horror films allow filmmakers and audiences to explore experiences and ideas without directly addressing them. Which is not to say a horror film cannot have a message of some kind. It just doesn’t need to have a direct message in order to elicit thought on a topic. Severance though, while not being a message film, does seem to have a perspective, in this case on militarism and war. In the context of late Bush Era America when I, like so many, were weary of war and familiar with the industrial complex surrounding it, that aspect of the film still felt relevant and perhaps intelligent. Now it feels dated. Not because war is not still a part of our lives that it is. It is rather the way the film talks about and addresses it that no longer feels current. That does not take away from the experience, but it does mean Severance does not elicit much from me other than some laughs and at least one cringe.

10/7 SCHIZO



If you want it, you can grab Schizo here!

OFFICIAL PLOT SYNOPSIS

Samantha and Alan are getting married, but William Haskins isn’t pleased. He grabs a train south to London and begins shadowing Samantha as she tries to get on with married life. Haskins’ attempts to frighten her drive Samantha to desperation, but she’s having trouble convincing anyone that she’s being stalked. Even her psychiatrist dismisses her concerns as part of her neurosis. As bodies begin turning up, Samantha’s story becomes more believable, and her dark secret from the past begins to reveal itself.

Like many films about mental illness, Schizo fails exactly at the moments when it thinks it is being extremely clever. Not that the movie is so great at other times although there are some real shining moments here, interesting kills and some giallo style atmosphere. It is a ridiculous portrait of mental illness, but that is not much of a surprise. When classy thrillers have trouble getting this thing right, what can we expect from more low budget, exploitation fare? Schizo still has its charms, but those things which are lacking are noticeably lacking. The film is meant to be tense, building up the mystery of who the killer really is. There is nothing frightening about the movie, though, and it cannot balance out the tension it is trying to maintain with silliness. It feels as if the film wants to be both trashy and self aware, and this balance deflates any tension that might be building up. Schizo is predictable and mildly boring. There is an attempt to scandalize that does not pan out. Sure there is nudity and sex, as well as violence, but it all feels rather tame.

However, the real failure of the film is in the way it attempts to be clever. The film acts as if the big reveal of who the killer is has been mostly hidden the entire time. Instead, it has been painfully obvious, from almost the first 10 minutes. This makes the dramatic reveal almost humorous because surely anyone watching has been on board. Many of these mental illness killer films play off that way. We know someone is sick, we know who the most “shocking” option would be, and we know that much of what they are experiencing does not seem real. Granted, on paper the idea that the victim is ACTUALLY the killer sounds dramatic and intense. On screen, though, almost every film feels the need to give clues, I assume, to make their dramatic reveal feel more credible. It never works out; it is always clear what is going. I am sure there must be an exception to that rule, and if you have one put it in the comments. In this case, the identity of the killer was telegraphed so early that their various mental issues leading up to the reveal were simply tedious. Let’s not even discuss how often these kinds of mental breaks are associated with sex. Not sure what that is all about, but so be it.

What I always find strange about films like this is the way mental illness functions simply as an outside threat. The most frightening movies to deal with mental illness have usually figured out the real fear of crazy is that you may be crazy and not know it. Sure, finding out a loved one is insane and might kill you is frightening, but it is also a very straightforward story. It rarely carries the sort of deep and unsettling uncertainty that really messes with people. No, what really sets people off is the realization that mental illness can show how precarious our own grasp on reality is. Or, even worse, the realization that others might perceive us as insane and take away our freedom even as we know that we are seeing the world clearly. That, for me at least, is where the terror of mental illness lies.

10/8 LOVELY MOLLY

Lovely Molly can be yours here!!

OFFICIAL PLOT SYNOPSIS

Newlywed Molly moves into her deceased father’s house in the countryside, where painful memories soon begin to haunt her.

When it comes to A Journal of Fear, horror movies made in the last 14 years are like vegetables: sometimes I like ‘em, sometimes I don’t, but if I don’t make myself consume them I will feel guilty.

Lovely Molly falls somewhere between asparagus (delicious!) and brussels sprouts (made of yuck!).

Directed by Eduardo Sánchez, whom you may remember did The Blair Witch Project. Lovely Molly is not a found footage film, though it does use home video footage throughout as a way to add another perspective to the film. Instead, it works in that space between supernatural and mental illness films, where the audience is unsure if what they are experiencing is real or all part of a reality bending breakdown. Building on feelings of isolation, the film really revolves around the haunting performance by Gretchen Lodge who really takes what is mediocre material at best and attempts to elevate it to some real gripping cinema. She is surprisingly successful at selling this role, making us believe, at the very, least that she believes in this scenario.

Lovely Molly asks a lot of its audience; there are some seemingly out of nowhere revelations in the film. It deals with incest, infidelity, and haunting all rather haphazardly. It wants to be mysterious, but there is not enough information given to really draw us into a mystery where the audience has to decide for itself what is happening. The film instead feels as if it is missing large sections of the narrative, like important scenes ended up on the cutting room floor. That is not to say the film is wholly a waste of time. Lodge really sells even some of the worst scenes and adds a level of anxiety that I found compelling. Lovely Molly is the rare film in the genre that, while I did not like it very much, still managed to scare me at some key moments. I was anxious about her, I cared for Molly enough to be invested in what was happening. I think though that the ways that we see Molly are a bit over the top. There is a lot of her cowering, freaking out, talking to beings that may or may not be there, and nudity. It all leads to a climactic ending that is disturbing, but doesn’t feel much more than exploitative. It seems like the nudity and incest in the film, which we don’t really see but is a part of the back story, don’t serve much of a purpose beyond adding more things to feel upset about. They don’t explain much, and they certainly do not add to a feeling of fear or anxiety.

There is so much going on unexplained in the film, including subplots that do not seem to matter much until the end, and it just never drew me in. Sure, I believe in filmmaking that does not hold its audience’s hand and explain every little detail. I am excited about movies that trust their audience to put the pieces together. However, in this case it feels like there are just not enough pieces to add up to much. The few things we are given just feel ridiculous. The combination of psychotic woman theme with haunting/possession could be somewhere between The Entity and Possession if done well. This instead smacks of new low budget horror, all atmosphere and shocking moments and no real plot. Lovely Molly pushes a combination of sexual issues with supernatural and demonic themes but where it leaves mystery, that mystery does not invite the viewer in. The best part of a film that does not answer all its questions is the way it invites the audience to answer those questions. Lovely Molly instead feels like it simply does not have any good answers to share, so it leaves it to the audience think up an interesting explanation.

10/9 HOUSE OF USHER

Encounter House Of Usher HERE!

In case you didn’t read the intro above and are confused, I collaborated on this review with the man/myth/legend Nick Spacek and we posted this review both here and on his website Rock Star Journalist which rules and you should check it out. I also want to say, Nick was so much more prepared for this than I was, and reading over it I am a bit embarrassed by that now. He is great though, and our next collabo will be Nightmare City! I am also open to more collaborative writing so hit me up.

Liam: House Of Usher is exactly the kind of gothic melodrama I usually attempt to avoid in my horror film watching, and yet it somehow manages to engage effectively in its third act. In a rather ill advised attempt to add some emotional pathos to what is a rather detached tale, the film version of The Fall Of The House Of Usher adds a love angle to the classic Poe story, though otherwise it follows rather closely. The garish “period” dress and ridiculous score do nothing recreate the moody gothic anxiety that Poe’s tale of morose fascination and mental illness calls up. The only thing that carries the film through its first few acts is the brilliant and always interesting Vincent Price. That is not to claim that Vincent Price guarantees quality, far from it. However, in many roles which fall far beyond his abilities, Price manages to bring a certain creepy engaged manner that interests me despite myself. Price here is playing his more affected, dandy persona, but he is playing it well and it fits the Usher character perfectly. The film ends up on a seriously creepy note, but this is not due to any innovation of the filmmakers. It is more that the idea of a woman, buried alive, hands destroyed from digging herself out of her own coffin, rampaging in madness is just inherently disturbing. Even when played with such theatrical abandon as to border upon farce, the idea unsettles me. The bloodied coffin top alone gives me pause. Yet, despite the strength of the third act, this film is yet another reminder as to why I do not get modern/classic horror, especially film representations of gothic pieces. This is a bit broad of a statement with some obvious exceptions, however post-modern horror (generally after Night of the Living Dead) just gets under my skin so much more. It is partly the artistry of it, which is lacking. There is inevitably schlock, as if yelling or dramatic music will move the audience more; this fails with me. Yet it may also be what we are afraid of. House Of Usher is a film that seems to play, to a large extent, off of a fear of fate. Usher is moved by a terrible destiny, one that he cannot help but literally makes real himself. I have no fear of this, so that even if this film were done well by today’s standards, could I even care?

Nick: Vincent Price’s first Poe collaboration with director Roger Corman, House of Usher, is the most staid — and thus, the least interesting. For those such as myself, who’ve watched them out of any sort of chronological order, it’s kind of a shock to come from something like Tales of Terror or The Pit and the Pendulum to discover that, initially, Price and Corman were producing something more akin to Hammer horror than the usual AIP shockers to which we’ve grown accustomed. Granted, the third act is absolutely bananas — Madeline returning from the grave, the house burning and then sinking into the swamp — but the prior hour is stiflingly dull. It’s like watching a Merchant and Ivory costume drama: everything’s expository dialogue spoken by people in high collars. The sad part is that, for as little as you want to watch it, House of Usher looks amazing. The thing about all of Roger Corman’s AIP pictures, and particularly his Poe pictures with Price, is that they’re all a joy to simply look at. The Blu-ray of House of Usher absolutely pops visually, and while you might be otherwise be disinterested, be it due to plodding pace, poor plot, or hammy acting, you do get vibrant scenery with which to bathe your eyes. If you’re familiar with Poe’s story, then I heartily suggest you skip straight to the last thirty minutes or so, wherein Usher and Winthrop put Madeline in the crypt, then Winthrop goes mad trying to save her once he realizes she’s been entombed alive. It’s worth seeing, because it does a wonderful job of whetting one’s appetite for what will come next — namely, far-better combinations of Corman, Price, and Poe.

Liam: OK Nick, let me confess, this is the ONLY of these VP/Corman team-ups I have seen, and if you had asked where I thought this film came from, I would have pointed straight at Hammer. This has Hammer Horror written all over it, from the ridiculous music cues to the over the top outfits. Not that I hate Hammer films, a few are very effective and even some of the least scary are still charming. There is also the idea of a Poe film itself, a kind of gothic, atmospheric horror that seems very suited to the Hammer aesthetic. Yet I am curious about a few things: how does this stack up to the other three? Do they feel more like Roger Corman joints? Do you think they needed some time to get into their groove with these Poe films? Finally, why is the third act so interesting compared to the rest of the movie? I am not sure if it is a strength of the Poe story itself, or something Corman was able to pull off finally.

Nick: Insofar as the rest of the Corman/Price team-ups, I think this is my least favorite. I’d actually not seen this one before, leaping into The Pit and the Pendulum, The Masque of the Red Death, and others first. It’s probably telling that, while this is included in the first Vincent Price collection that Shout Factory put out, I’ve never seen it in the Walmart five-dollar DVD bin at Halloween like I have with the others. Those other films are far more Corman films — more blood, more ridiculousness, and Price getting to do far more of that emoting he does near the end. That’s why I think the end is so effective — it’s the part of the film that takes the Poe story and exaggerates it to slightly over-the-top proportions. Seeing how much that stands out in regards to the rest of the film, I can’t help but picture Corman seeing a screening of it somewhere and nodding his head, saying, “That’s where we go next.” Knowing that, does it make you want to seek out the possible more Corman-flavored pictures that would come later?

Liam: Yes, it certainly does. I am still amazed that Corman could turn out a picture that feels so, honestly, subdued compared to much of his other work. I do not wish to speak ill of the master, just surprised that so little of this film feels like him. Corman doing Poe is perhaps the sort of matchup that just might work, even if this film felt a bit restrained. I had assumed, prior to you filling me in on the other films, that I might find a similar kind of movie with those others. Poe does not write the kind of story that leads to the sort of deep terror that I often want from horror. Yet, with the right kind of over the top, Poe inspired exaggeration, I could see those stories becoming interesting fare. The stories lend themselves to adding a bit of exploitation like spice. Corman is, if anything, a filmmaker of big expression. He makes movies that may not always work, but are always huge and ambitious. It is one of the things I admire about him. Does he lend that same expansive, intense quality to those stories? I am familiar with The Pit and The Pendulum but I never read The Masque of the Red Death. How does his influence move those stories forward or expand them out? Am I being unfair to Poe when a film like House of Usher doesn’t surprise me? I expect Poe’s work to be — stuffy maybe? Certainly lacking in tension. I often find myself simply not caring about the internal worlds and deep anxieties of his characters. Should I be giving Poe-inspired horror films another shot?

Nick: Well, your points are absolutely spot-on. This film in particular is almost too reverent in terms of its adherence to Poe’s original work. The true problem is that Poe didn’t write novels: he wrote short stories, and when you take a 5-10 page story and stretch it into an hour and a half long film, it’s going to need some padding and rejiggering. In the case of House of Usher, Corman stuck pretty much to the original plot, which means an awful lot of sitting around and talking. When he gets to the later films, he takes the root concept and expands upon it, such as The Pit and the Pendulum, which has the actual plot of the story confined to a few moments, and augmented with an awful lot more in terms of torture devices. However, he also takes three stories and presents them almost verbatim, in the instance of Tales of Terror, and they work out almost perfectly as short-form pieces. Poe is rather stuffy, and the problem with the gothic in its purest form is that you’re already essentially working with something that is a formulaic parody of genre conventions in and of itself, so to play it straight — well, that way lies madness.

Liam: Well, despite some of the difficulty of this film, I am glad I caught it for two reasons. One is simply to find out from you that Corman Poe films are actually something worth watching. Corman and Price should likely have formed a convincing enough duo that I was on board, but alas I fear Poe set to the big screen and have stayed clear. The second reason is simply to catch another Vincent Price film. I love Price, but, oddly, I love this emotional dandy character of his even more than his more popular menacing creep. The menacing creep is often more dignified and perhaps lies closer to what I suspect Price might actually have been like, but this simply overwrought pathetic creature just always gets me, and I am glad to have caught it. In the end though, while I am stoked to see Corman’s take on more Poe material, will I ever truly love Gothic horror? I feel like this particular genre misses me, not simply because I am not as familiar with the conventions which it parodies, though I am sure that is part of it. I simply know modern horror far more than I do classic stuff, sure. I just also worry when I read Poe that he is bringing alive a real anxiety for people, something internal and unsettled. Poe seems afraid of interiors in a way that can only for me exist before we understood mental illness. Now, I fear a thing I DO have a name for, and perhaps I fear the cure that much more. What say you; was this worth your time? Should other take a chance on this particular Poe adventure?

Nick: I’m glad I finally saw this, if for no other reason than to see the well from which so much excellent material sprung. Will I watch it again? Likely not, and I’d really suggest that folks see this just to get an idea of what didn’t work, as well as what would eventually become the hallmarks of the Corman/Price/Poe triumvirate. It’s always worth knowing what came before, if for no other reason than to have some sense of perspective. That said, it’s not one worth owning, and I’d much rather see something outside the whole Poe series such as Dr. Phibes or House of Wax than ever tackle the snoozefest that is the first hour of this picture. It’s a very good example of how hard it is to effectively translate gothic literature to the screen, but I suppose that “how not to do something” isn’t really an effective marketing device. For quality gothic on-screen fun, there’s little to really recommend — The Others did it so well, it’s hard to think of anything else, really. I’m glad I watched it, and would recommend others do the same, but if you’re not a fan of The Turn of the Screw, you’re probably not going to get much out of it.

10/10 THE FUNHOUSE

The good folks at SCREAM FACTORY have released a beautiful Blu-ray of The Funhouse!

Why is The Funhouse so bad? I mean it is not terrible, it didn’t make me angry, but I remember the film so fondly that this rewatch really, really let me down. I just don’t get it. The premise is, for a horror film, a strong one. Rebellious teenagers go to a carnival, and, while there, they decide to stay overnight in the funhouse ride. The carnival is of course home to some eccentric characters, including the family who run the ride, a drunken and abusive father and his mutant son. The teenagers, generally scum bags except for the one innocent girl who is somewhat clairvoyant and is often topless in the film, witness a murder by the mutant freak and soon they are crawling for their lives around the Funhouse.

When I was a child, that mutant thing which stalks the children was everything. Crazy hair, wild eyes, fanged out teeth, and slobber everywhere. I was sure this was one of the most terrifying films in existence. I went through a brief period where, after having consistent nightmares about this freak thing, I stopped watching the movie, I mean even in its edited for TV form. I avoided it like the plague. I wanted nothing to do with it because it made me feel legitimately uncomfortable. I am convinced from this that there is SOMETHING to the film. It is not just some ridiculous horror film with a flimsy plot, though I kind of feel that way now.

Regardless of how frightening I once found the film, on rewatch it was mostly boring. I really enjoyed Elizabeth Berridge. She is compelling as a final girl, but she is also not interesting enough to carry the film. Hooper plays her as a the innocent girl, flirting with temptation, but she never really gets too far into an actual character. However, as someone screaming about a gross mutant she is pretty cool. The other performances are pretty flat save for Kevin Conway as not one, but all three carnival barkers, and also the murderous father who eventually unleashes his fury on the youth. He is pretty interesting, but there is just not much for him to work with. Hooper chooses to relinquish the tension of the usual slasher film, with the quick scares and built up fear, and instead seeks to create a largely atmospheric sense of fear. There are long sections that exist only to reinforce the other worldly, generally creepy atmosphere of the carnival, with the actual danger not coming until far into the film. None of this works. By the time anything like plot points happen, the film has set a slow and leisurely pace. This would work with something more inherently disturbing, but here it fails. I suspect, as a child, it was this very effect that worked on me. I was often very scared of exactly the kind of salt of the earth folks, especially white country folks, that run the carnival in the film. The idea that one would have a mutant son and be untrustworthy and dangerous would have just fit my stereotypes as a child. I have only gotten used to rural folks as an adult. It was long into my teens before I felt comfortable in those settings or around folks whose culture was a part of that environment. Now, I just saw a very basic story, and none of the set pieces or set up made me feel anything at all. Even the makeup work was a let down, and left me feeling bored.

This is all very difficult to think about after having so recently watched and written about The Texas Chain Saw Massacre for Two Cents. Is it a fluke? I do enjoy some other Hooper films, but none reach the ecstatic terror that is TCM. Is it possible that it was Hooper’s one hit? I know this is not really true because I love films like Lifeforce, Poltergeist, and Invaders from Mars. However, with movies like Eaten Alive and The Funhouse also on his resume, it is difficult not to think for just a moment that maybe Hooper is not that great. I defended him a lot in the past, but now I am inclined to go back and rewatch some of those maligned films I defended and see if perhaps the masses were right. In any case, The Funhouse was largely disappointing, a film that never built up toward anything, and was barely able to keep my interest. Sorry young me, you were dead wrong.

10/11 POLTERGEIST II: THE OTHER SIDE

Poltergeist II is available here for you to own.

OFFICIAL PLOT SYNOPSIS

The Freeling family move in with Diane’s mother in an effort to escape the trauma and aftermath of Carol Anne’s abduction by the Beast. But the Beast is not to be put off so easily and appears in a ghostly apparition as the Reverend Kane, a religious zealot responsible for the deaths of his many followers. His goal is simple – he wants the angelic Carol Anne; but the love of her family and the power of psychic Tangina once again unite, along with an elderly native American, to fight for her life.

After the last Tobe Hooper film, I could have gone with the entirely satisfying Tobe Hooper film Poltergeist. I could have. The reality though is that I have watched my Poltergeist Blu. It is my Poltergeist II Blu that was sitting unopened, demanding I watch it. When I first saw this film, again when I was very young, I think my response was similar to others. I wanted to punish this movie for not being Poltergeist. It really isn’t Poltergeist, and it is not nearly as good. Sure. However, on subsequent TV rewatches, I found myself getting into it in a very real way. This viewing, similarly, while I was very aware of the movies flaws, I was just absorbed by it and found it overall super interesting and entertaining. Why does it work? I suspect a lot of it hinges on the performances, and the rest upon some very creative compensating for lack of performances.

Watching it now I feel like it is a bit of a mess. It moves at an incredible pace, but not in an exciting way. Instead, it feels like the film is missing some key moments. I find myself puzzling at sudden changes in set or at Craig T. Nelson’s hair length. They never quite get to explaining where the older sister is, and while I am sure many knew why the actress was missing, it might still do to mention her character’s existence. The film ramps up to a climax that is at the very least awkward, and possibly a downer on the entire film. In fact, watching it, it felt more like a made for TV movie toward the end, and less like cinema. Yet, I still really love this movie. It grips me, and I forgive all the difficult aspects. They don’t even come to mind as much as the interesting parts that sell me on the narrative.

One reason I suspect is Julian Beck as Kane. He is just so haunting for the 20 or so minutes he is on screen. Beck infamously passed away during filming from stomach cancer, and perhaps knowing about that allows me to forgive the rushed ending. Without Beck the filmmakers had to get creative, and solicited some Giger designs in an attempt to finish the film without Beck. It may also be the case that it is the economy of usage that sells me on Kane as a character. Beck is on screen in such short but juicy bursts that he never gets a chance to go too far or to undersell his creepy apocalyptic minister. He electrifies, perhaps, because there is so little of him. I am not sure. He works though, and he consistently makes me feel uncomfortable. His singing “God is in His Temple” is a moment that I love now but hated as a kid because it really got to me.

The film also features Will Sampson of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest as Taylor. This is a mixed bag for me, and may be the only actual concern I have with the movie. Taylor is your stereotypical mystical Indian character, noble and spiritual. He speaks in a reserved tone; he has non-sequitur wisdoms to share; and he engages in lots of nondescript “Indian Stuff” without ever specifically naming the Native American traditions he is supposedly drawing from. I would write the character off completely but I really LOVE Sampson in the role. He owns it, and I suspect is attempting to add some quirky dignity to what might otherwise have been simply a caricature of a figure. I can’t say for sure, but, despite my fairly milksop liberal concerns, Taylor really moves the film forward. I should perhaps be more concerned that Zelda Rubinstein’s character in this movie is reduced to some info dump and really boring scenes. I have always found Tangina so annoying as a character though, despite my love for the first film, that I can’t care. I dunno if I could deal with too much more of her accent yelling “Caaarrrrrooollllll-AAAAAANNE” – gross and awful.

It is interesting to me how the anxiety shifts from the first film to this second film. Poltergeist is a film about the supernatural in a nondescript way. There is something more there, to the physical world, something behind the material, and I am afraid of it. The film lampoons skepticism, while also portraying it sympathetically. Of course the family does not believe at first, but their lack of belief does not change the reality of the situation. While the movie plays with those themes it is much more about belief and how dangerous belief is. Kane and his followers are believers, fanatical believers, and their belief continues to cause them pain long after death. Steve must fight their obsession, their intense belief in his daughter, to free them from their obsession. Notice that his strength is in his family, which is an immanent intangible, a term which likely has no philosophical meaning. I mean his family is an abstract concept, in that it is an ideal, but it has a reality he can touch and make real. The love his family shares does not literally/materially exist. Yet it is the kind of everyday intangible value which more readily can be made apparent. It is a value that seems to me to speak to immanence in this world, rather than transcendence, some sort of world beyond. He is made strong both literally and figuratively by them, and while his “family” is also an ideal, he must connect with them literally to live out that ideal. Contrast that with Kane, a man whose metaphysical beliefs, when proven false, are made true through suffering. For Kane’s followers, at least it was the end of the world, their world, and even their next world. The film does not affirm metaphysics even as it operates within it. Instead, it suggests that we need to focus on our love here, and thus avoid the dangers of anything beyond. It is an interesting turn, unintentional perhaps, but worth thinking about.

Show more