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!
OK, here it is, THE FINAL WEEK OF A JOURNAL OF FEAR!
You can catch up on other weeks here!
So I have to be honest, this has been a hard project to finish. I think my exhaustion this year as compared to last year has started to show. That was not my intention. I planned ahead, I collaborated on some posts, and I tried to make this process easier on myself. Watching a horror movie every day is something I love to do as part of October. However, writing about them and writing about them well takes some work. Did I succeed? Not every movie, every week no. I may come back to some of these films some day to give them more thought. This format is fun for me, but it is not an easy thing to complete. Add to that moving and trips and the stress of looking for work, and this October has been less about anxieties reflected through art and really about actual anxiety. It was a tough month, but here we are, only 4 days later than I wanted to be. That being said, I am really proud of the selections and variety this year. I think I did a pretty good job of covering a LOT of bases, and really pushed myself to find movies I either had never seen or had not seen in quite awhile. This week was both a success story and a drop off regarding that. I managed to watch 2 movies that came out in the last 10 years, which I almost never do in a week. I also watched some very obvious movies, but I am glad to have seen them. I felt good about this week, no major disappointments, and some cool movies. As I said though, the entries are not as engaged as I would like them to me for the sake of simply running out of steam. I think though this is a good transition to the concept of the column continuing in a more limited form. I think Horror is a genre that deserves some serious engagement, and while my critical lens is a bit more personal than most, I think that fits. I plan to continue this series as a monthly effort with the goal of engaging deeply but also personally with these movies. Critical detachment? No, critical ATTACHMENT, engaging the medium with my full person. If you are interested in contributing or collaborating on this effort, hit me up. I would love some co-creators of this JOURNAL OF FEAR.
10/27 THE CANAL
The Canal is available from Amazon here!!
OFFICIAL PLOT SYNOPSIS
Film archivist David (Rupert Evans) has been having a rough time lately, as he suspects that his wife Alice (Hannah Hoekstra) has been cheating on him with Alex (Carl Shaaban), one of her work clients. This stress is compounded when David’s work partner Claire (Antonia Campbell-Hughes) gives him a reel of to-be-archived footage that shows that his house was the setting for a brutal murder in 1902. Becoming progressively more unsettled and unhinged, David begins to believe that a spectral presence is in his house and ends up following his wife to a nearby canal, where he discovers that she is indeed having an affair with Alex. When Alice goes missing shortly afterwards, David contacts the police- only to become the prime suspect in her disappearance.
One of the best parts of doing this project happens when people recommend something I would never have thought of watching myself, and I check it out, and it rules. This particular Irish horror gem would most certainly have escaped my notice. Why? The cover on the streaming website for this particular bit of terrifying, J horror inspired insanity was literally the worst Photoshopped piece of crap ever. This is actually the frustration I have with the current market of low budget horror shlock. You see, there was a time when the issue with either a poster or VHS box cover was the artistry. Anyone of a certain age knows this experience; the cover of the movie makes it look like the most intense and sick experience one could ever get out of a film. You get home, and what you wind up watching is some schlocky mess. Of course sometimes that experience was also pleasant, but this is not my point. Today, almost every horror film not put out by a major studio, and some which are, have the ugliest covers. The cover for this film looks like the worst kind of straight to DVD garbage. It doesn’t even really represent the movie at all, which would be fine, if it was MORE awesome. Instead, making a decision based upon the giant aesthetic failure of the cover art is simply impossible anymore. The Canal somehow manages to borrow liberally from films that came before it, but still carry an original spirit and idea. It is a truly scary movie, which only suffers from a disappointing ending.
The Canal is not the first movie from writer/director Ivan Kavanagh, but it is the first I have ever heard of or seen. The film is a haunting and possession story, but done less in the 70s or Blumhouse style, and with a much more obvious Japanese flavor. There are also some very visceral exploitation style murder sequences, but overall the influence of films like Ringu is quite obvious. However, this didn’t feel derivative or like an homage. The Canal is a film that is playing familiar notes, but its melody is unique. Rupert Evans is respectable, but I was surprised by Calum Heath. Granted, child actors can be so terrible, that one needn’t put on a transcendent performance to impress. That being said, Heath has some difficult lines for a young kid to pull off, and he very much works in the role. The rest of the cast is solid; I particularly enjoyed Antonia Campbell-Hughes as the co-worker who may or may not have other intentions. The film looks ok; it has a certain digital sheen to it which I do not love, but it was not awful either. The special effects were effective, and in only a few places were overly obvious.
The Canal does something interesting in that, at its heart, it combines a supernatural film with a psychological thriller. Clearly Evan’s character is experiencing something that, from his perspective, appears to be supernatural. The film walks a fine line between affirming or denying the reality of this experience. Yes, it is real to David. It is unclear, though, if it is in fact real to anyone else. This leaves the question open: Is David experiencing a supernatural reality which makes it look as if he is going insane, or is he in fact going insane? There are small events and large events which throw both perspectives into doubt. I do not want to reveal too much about the movie, but I actually loved the way the tension was resolved. It showed creativity without being unexpected. It was a way to resolve this question that felt obvious but not predictable. The only complaint I have is that, leading up to this event, the sort of climax of tensions feels essentially like a letdown. There are lots of possibilities, without breaking this balance of tension, to still ramp up the scares. Yet, while the entire film is filled with some creepy and disturbing imagery, there is no final payoff. The action feels as if it fizzles instead of climaxes. To be honest, it felt as if the filmmakers were not sure how to end the film, or where to go, and the finale suffers for it. I am not sure. I can only say that I wanted something more, something more impressive and basically more frightening, than what we got. There is a denouement that is particularly cruel, and I feel as if this tack on exists only to add to a lackluster ending. This little bit of savagery is not earned, I feel, as the character sacrificed seems to be operating rationally during the rest of the film. Regardless, while I was disappointed in the ending, it did not ruin the film for me. In the end, The Canal is one of the better horror movies I have seen this year.
10/28 FROM BEYOND
You can tempt those who live behind the veil with your own copy of From Beyond acquired here!
IMDB Synopsis
A group of scientists have developed the Resonator, a machine which allows whoever is within range to see beyond normal perceptible reality. But when the experiment succeeds, they are immediately attacked by terrible life forms.
This is another of those first time watches that I am a bit embarrassed about. Honestly, I have no excuse. I only saw Re-Animator a few years ago, so I guess I can argue total ignorance, but that would be unrealistic. If you are anything like me and never got a chance to see this gory Lovecraftian romp, let me heartily recommend it to you. From what I have seen, Stuart Gordon’s movies are just silly. They are, and there is no way around that. Yet, for whatever reason, they also work. His particularly insane mix of humor and horror always seems to make just the right mix so that his films feel fun even as they qualify as actual horror and not farce. However, they do miss out on some of the inherent dread in Lovecraft’s original stories. In this case, From Beyond the short story has a number of differences, unsurprisingly as it is only seven pages long. I am sure one obvious one would be all the sexuality. Lovecraft seemed mostly uninterested in sex as a subject (and possibly as an activity) so it is largely absent from his stories. In From Beyond the film, Barbara Crampton adds a heaping pile of sex appeal, which, granted, spills over from sexy into disturbing, but that makes sense. This team, of Gordon and Crampton and of course the ever creeptastic Combs was meant, from Gordon’s view, to comprise a sort of Lovecraftian group for subsequent films. His hope was to create a series of Lovecraft films with a steady cast, like a theatrical troupe, sort of like Corman did with his Poe films. It’s a shame his grand idea never quite came to be, because more films as strange and fun as From Beyond would be entirely awesome.
From Beyond certainly has its clunky bits. Unfortunately, one of those bits is the special effects. The practical effects mostly work, though the giant worm in the basement was a bit of a stretch. However, all of the other effects seem dated. The floating worms, the aftereffects, a lot of stuff just feels old and worn out. Combs is great, though he is definitely upstaged by Crampton, who is amazing. She is more subtle, but her performance gets at the insanity of the situation that much more. Her transformation from curious scientist to sex crazed explorer is somehow humorous, but not over the top. Her final decisions make sense and she really sells what could be a very campy film. I love, and I mean love, Ken Foree as I have said before, but he feels kind of wasted in this role. I feel like he could have brought a little more to it in either direction, but there is not much there. Ted Sorel really just has to be menacing and wear odd practical effects, so technically he doesn’t need to do much.
I think, if you are a huge Lovecraft fan, it is understandable if you do not love these movies. Both Re-Animator and From Beyond inject a sense of humor without falling into goofiness, into material which I think was never intended to be funny. To me, these films are an accomplishment in achieving this balance. They are funny films, especially Re-Animator. Yet, they never spill over into ridiculous. That is, the kind of ridiculousness that one might expect from, say, a Troma film. There are hilarious beats, and some real silly aspects, but nothing that pushes for me into bad territory. There is, I think, just a satirical spirit that is not willing to give up the bite, the actual grime of the horror film. From Beyond is in that sense a classic of 80s monster film, mixing sex and humor into material usually lacking in both.
10/29 THE LOVED ONES
Would you be The Loved Ones’ date to the dance? Grab your copy here!!
OFFICIAL PLOT SYNOPSIS
When Brent turns down his classmate Lola’s invitation to the prom, she concocts a wildly violent plan for revenge.
I went into this movie entirely cold, and I was pleasantly surprised by this mean little slice of cinema. This is a dark film of teenage murder, involving rebellious teens and a serial killer family. There are hints of incest, some fun musical moments, and cannibalism. The Loved Ones combines two story lines which intersect tangentially in that the characters know each other, but not directly. One is the abduction, torture, and survival of our main protagonist. The second is his friends attending a dance with the “bad girl” of the school, who is affected by the villains of the other story. The sub-plot of teenage rebellion really gives us a break from the more gruesome aspects of our main story, while expanding that story out as it is a little claustrophobic. The strange thing about The Loved Ones is that it is essentially a torture porn film, but somehow not terrible. I mean, I think that term is unfair in some ways, as the screwed up family dinner scene could be traced back at least to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. However, there is very little chasing or stalking in this film, let alone tension or jump scares.
The majority of the action of The Loved Ones boils down to the horrible things Lola does to Brent after he has been abducted, and his attempts to escape. Yet there seem to be a few essential differences between this film and what few of those torture movies I have bothered to see. One is that Brent, as portrayed by Xavier Samuel, is an actual character. The audience has sympathy for him; they know a bit about who he is and what makes him tick, and while there is not a huge arc, there is some movement. In other words, he is not just some jerk who we kind of want to see bad things happen to. He was for me very sympathetic, and I was immediately rooting for him. The second aspect is the messed up family, with the Beautiful Robin McLeavy as Lola and the gross John Brumptonas as her creepy “Daddy.” So many of those gross out torture films lack interesting and disturbing villains. The torturers seem ultimately totally boring in every way except for the horrible things they are subjecting our hero to. This film presents us with some really strange dynamics and messed up visuals. While the awful things they subject Brent to as well as what he must to do survive are definitely gross, they are not the point. There is a strong psychological aspect happening in concert with some very disgusting aspects as well. This allows what is usually my least favorite genre ever to be elevated to something tense and enjoyable. It also, for me, never spilled over into pure cruelty. Our hero has a chance, and I feel like I am vibing with the film when I root for him to somehow, impossibly, make it.
It seems like lately there has been an influx of interesting Australian films. These films consistently portray messed up back water families willing to commit all kinds of atrocities, so perhaps this is not such a great Australian international image. Still, I am intrigued by this new trend in Aussie film making returning to some of their more extreme roots. This film manages to feel very contemporary and relevant, while providing a flavor of something out of their exploitation past. There is also a certain sense of humor to the movie which really adds to the proceedings. It is a fun time, and while it lacked some depth, it was worth watching. The Loved Ones manages to inject a tired scenario with new life and a fun spirit, while never attempting to go deeper than they have a right to.
10/30 SCANNERS
You cannot deny the power of Scanners! Encounter the power of their mind HERE!
OFFICIAL PLOT SYNOPSIS
Darryl Revok is the most powerful of all the scanners, and is the head of the underground scanner movement for world domination. Scanners have great psychic power, strong enough to control minds; they can inflict enormous pain/damage on their victims. Doctor Paul Ruth finds a scanner that Revok hasn’t, and converts him to their cause – to destroy the underground movement.
Ok, this is a slight deviation from the format because I do not personally consider this a horror film and I doubt many would. That is not to say it can’t be thrilling. In fact, when I was young, the head explosion scene in this film legitimately freaked me out and led me to try and avoid the movie for a while. However, I still think it is more of a Sci-Fi thriller with spy movie aspects. Yet, I also realized that I had not watched any Sci-Fi horror films besides Hardware. I also realized that this was the only movie in my pile of possible films my wife was willing to watch with me. Hey man, 31 movies she has had to deal with; compromise is what keeps a marriage together.
This is certainly not a bad choice, as Cronenberg is such an important director in the horror genre, and this film deals with many of the same anxieties and fears of a horror film. Cronenberg has been really open about this being one of his most difficult shoots. Working with a tight timetable and low funds, Cronenberg went into shooting without a finished script. Add this to a notoriously tense set as two of his actors simply could not stand each other, and the director had a torturous time. The film is one of those rare movies which I find completely satisfying and yet see a lot of wasted potential. This world that Cronenberg spends a little bit of time building has a lot of potential, combining spy intrigue with psychic phenomena and a willingness to push buttons on gore. Many films like this would spend too much time explaining the science or shy away from showing us the worst case scenario of what could happen. Not Cronenberg. While this film lacks much of his usual body horror and sexual boundary transgression, there is still a mixing of elements here. This film is very much about shifting and unknown loyalties and objectives. Hence it is such a compelling mixture of ideas, a movie focused on telepaths and telekinetics in which no one can trust each other and no one knows what anyone really wants. Completely mixing these things is so thrilling.
In retrospect, the film has some rough edges. One is the special effects, which can be rather rudimentary in some places. Of course, not in the now notorious head explosion scene, so that is fine by me. The other weak link, which really stuck out to me on this viewing, is Stephen Lack as Cameron Vale. Whether he is exploring his new abilities or getting shot at by assassins with shotguns, Lack seems to only have one speed which is boring. The guy could not emote even if you killed his real life family in front of him. This is such a stark contract to the brilliantly menacing Michael Ironside as Darryk Revok that it is really painfully obvious. Then again, between Ironside and McGoohan, maybe the movie benefits from at least one subtle performance. This is also very much a Cronenberg film of this era, emotionally distant and largely uninterested in internal emotional worlds. Yet, that element works so well for this film. I also was very much aware on this viewing of the preponderance of shotguns. Every assassin in this movie has a pump shot gun. They come in groups with them, casually dressed, but all with the same shot gun. Why is that? I have no idea.
There is something inherently appealing for me about this setup. I have written about this before, but if we are going to have some sort of ESP spies or strange hauntings or any kind of of psychic related thing, I want it to be in the 70s. This whole film makes me think of multiple disturbing comic book plots of psychics and their uncontrollable powers; of giant corporations or shady covert agencies looking to control them; of bell bottoms and lumberjack jackets holding shot guns trying to kill some special person. Maybe this film formed that for me, with its fly by night filming in whatever locations they could find, and their turning of bad architecture into intimidating bureaucracy. Or maybe I just remember a certain zeitgeist, an orange and tan hell where all of our brains could be molded and changed until we no longer could control ourselves. Scanners may not be a horror film, but it reminds us of some real nightmares. It was a great watch.
10/31 NEAR DARK
You can grab a copy of Near Dark here.
IMDB Synopsis
A small-town farmer’s son reluctantly joins a traveling group of vampires after he is turned by a beautiful drifter.
I have somehow missed this movie for so long that, when I saw it and decided to give it a watch, I was not sure if I HAD seen it before or not. A country, almost hillbilly vampire movie where no one ever says vampire, with Bill Paxton, Lance Henrikson, and that dick head general from Agents of SHIELD? So sick. I gotta say, I love so much about this film, but it was also a bit of a disappointment. The story is a very interesting take on a genre that can seem a bit old and tired: vampire movies. I guess doing a dark western could also seem a bit old, but I would still at this point think of it as classic. This was the first big budget effort from Kathryn Bigelow, and I think her storytelling skill is evident. Though the film lacks something in depth, it has a lot of emotion, and is astoundingly shot. Just a beautiful film. The simple love story, a good boy in with a bad crowd, resonates even without the undead angle.
This is perhaps my problem however. The story is compelling, the performances impressive, but the film works just as well without the vampire angle. If this were a story simply about outlaws, or in fact any other kind of supernatural creatures or outcast group, it could work. That, I think, speaks to the universal nature of the themes. However, the fact that it IS a vampire film impacts the story very little. There are a few minor plot points and minor gross out gore aspects that would have to be altered, but overall the vampire genre feels tacked on because of the popularity of vampire films at the time, thanks to movies like The Lost Boys. Now, the vampire aspect works in the film. It is not a detriment. In fact, I should be clear, I kind of loved this movie. One thing that bothered me though was that there was not as much use of the fact that they were vampires as I felt like there could have been. I get that this is kind of distorting or bending the genre, and I like that. However, what they were seemed almost not relevant, and I wanted something more. I also didn’t appreciate the ending. For them to be turned from vampire to human by a simple blood transfusion just feels to me like a cop out. I did not like it at all. On the other hand, the giant showdown and the emotional beats all worked for me, so I am willing to forgive this one point.
Near Dark shows how fluid the horror genre is. It does not take much for a film to be Horror; it needn’t be the most terrifying or have damsels in peril or whatever else. Many different kinds of stories dealing with the dark, the frightening, those things we do not want to see, work as Horror. Near Dark is about how close we are to the edge, how easy it is for things to fall apart. It is about freedom and desperation and even about love. I wish it was MORE of a vampire film than it is, but it is still an impressive Horror film.
FINAL THOUGHTS:
Horror is a complicated film genre “in it’s lived reality.” That is, on one hand there is my ideal of the perfect horror film scenario. That is the kind of situation where horror is operating for me at its top capacity. By engaging with our fears, our anxieties, our imaginations, and our wonder all outside of an expectation of rationality, Horror has the capacity to engage deeply with dark and important material but indirectly. This indirect gaze, allowing for example a film to connect with deep childhood trauma while still being entertaining and engaging, is a powerful and unique gift. Then of course, there is the historical reality of these films. The fact is that for every visceral film that somehow manages to get at something amazing, there are 100 money grab films. This though is for me the wonderful scandal of the horror film. Some of the most cynical and debased money grab movies somehow, magically it seems, manage to tap into something awesome. That is to say, one can guess, with some accuracy, what you may find. Yet again and again this genre surprises me. The crap can be gold, and the gold can be awful. Sometimes a movie made for nothing and no one can be so special. Granted, I am sentimentalizing a genre where I want anything but sentimentality. I want often times brutality. I know though that something about the way you are trying to scare me can open up to something more, and for that I am forever grateful.