Masters of Horror: Episode 18 Pro-Life

This is a good episode. It’s disappointing mainly because it’s John Carpenter’s second and final entry in this series, and it doesn’t even come close to re-capturing the glory of Cigarette Burns. Where that episode was a thoughtful deliberation on the nature of film, this episode’s pro-choice message has all the subtlety of a sack of bricks to the face.

As with many Masters of Horror episodes, this is an otherwise forgettable story, saved by great actors. Ron Perlman in particularly is always awesome. Bill Dow can also hold his own as a counter-force to Perlman, and the fact that he’s not a better known actor is sad. Looking over his IMDB page he’s guest starred on countless shows, but the highest episode count I could find for a single series was 8, so he's clearly far from a break-out star.

A girl named Angelique (Caitlin Wachs) shows up at an abortion clinic, with a late-term pregnancy, but claims she’s only been pregnant for a week. Her father Dwayne (Perlman), as it just so happens, is a pro-Life nut with a restraining order requiring him to remain 400 feet from the property. However, he demands to be given access to his daughter.

Angelique demands an abortion, even threatening to stab her own stomach with a scalpel, but she is underage. Her father, meanwhile, is hearing the “voice of God” ordering him to protect the child. The clinic workers become convinced that Angelique was raped by her father, and attempt to buy time. Before long he’s storming the building with his sons (Graeme McComb, Benjamin Rogers, and Chad Krowchuk), while the baby is reaching through its mother’s stomach to crush the scanner when they attempt an ultrasound.

This is yet another twist that you see coming. Just from my description of the episode, you probably already know that it’s the Devil’s child, and Dwayne is getting his messages from the other team. Quite frankly, this is an episode that should have laid its cards on the table upfront. The acting talent was clearly here to pull off something much more nuanced. Personally, I would love to see a pro-Life zealots confronted with the question of aborting the anti-Christ, rather than being deceived.

The episode also gets props for Dr Kiefer (Dow). He plays an abortion doctor who keeps a bullet-proof vest and gun at the ready for just such an occasion. His shift from dork to badass is awesome, and his eventual, and quite brutal, death at Dwayne’s hands is the most disturbing part of the episode. We're not explicitly given his back story, but it's strongly implied this is not the first time his life has been in danger from pro-lifers.

When Satan finally makes an appearance, it’s fairly generic. He looks like a Buffy-villain. I would have preferred he be kept off-screen. The baby, however, is a bit more creative, clearly drawing inspiration from Carpenter’s The Thing.

The episode is good, yes, but ultimately forgettable. It felt like someone was phoning it in the scripting stage, and with lower production values it might have been a Tales from the Crypt episode. I see it, and I think of what could have been.

Wednesday Editorial: Halloween Returns?

When I first started writing this blog, it was always my intention to use Wednesday both for reviews of recent horror movies, and for editorializing. I haven’t, however, had much to say on the editorial front. Today, however, that changes, because I do want to talk about my feelings on a subject: The new Halloween movie. More specifically, I want to talk about the obstacles I see for this movie to overcome.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit I’m excited about this. While I’m not always Jason Blum’s biggest fan, I do know that the guy is a businessman who effectively runs a factory. If he believes there’s a dime to be made with the Halloween name he will make sure that the movie happens. Any quality concerns Blum may bring to the project are washed away by Mike Flanagan in the director’s chair, and John Carpenter himself doing the score.

That said, my question for this production is this: So, what’s the story?

It’s kind of ironic that Halloween has somehow kept its roots firmly planted in the legacy of the first movie, while simultaneously having worse continuity than any other long-running Slasher series. Reviewing the ten films, only Halloween 2 and The Curse of Michael Myers followed up on the previous film without any major retcons. All the others were either alternate continuities, remakes, ignored some or all of the previous sequels, or just outright used an asspull to get out of whatever was established in the last movie (looking at you Halloween 5 and Resurrection). Let’s not even get into how Michael Myers can still see two decades after losing both eyes.

Furthermore, Curse only follows the ending of 5 because the makers of 5 knew that attempting to end the series, and attempting to plan ahead, were both equally pointless. So, 5 gave us a cliffhanger so absurdly vague that the next movie was free to do whatever it damned well pleased, and that’s exactly what Curse did. I’m sure we all remember how that turned out.

Getting off my tangent, however, in spite of all of this wild continuity, one constant has remained that’s almost unheard of in Slasher franchises: Every single film in the series (barring 3, of course) has featured at least one character from the original movie. For Halloween 2 we kept both Dr. Loomis and Laurie, in 4-6 Loomis kept coming back to hunt Michael, and just as Donald Pleasence passed away in real life, Jamie Lee Curtis decided it was time for Laurie Strode to make her return appearance. Then, with the remake and its sequel, both character returned with new actors.

Now, I’m sure lots of people are thinking “Laurie was barely in Resurrection.” That’s exactly right! And that’s why it’s Halloween: Resurrection! That was the one time in the series that the filmmakers tried to cut ties with the original Halloween, and it was an utter disaster.

I’m sure we can all list reasons why Resurrection sucked that are completely independent of Pleasence and Curtis. However, we do have to consider that Halloween is not a fresh franchise open to limitless experimentation. We’ve had decades to learn just what Halloween is, and it’s not a series like Nightmare on Elm Street or Friday the 13^th where you can just place the killer in a new environment and let the blood flow. Michael’s story is tied to that town, that house, and those people, who he killed on that night.

With that in mind, we can begin weeding out what stories can and cannot be told in Halloween at this point. To do so, let’s deal with what’s been done already:

-We’ve dealt with a direct follow-up to the events of the original movie, and seen Michael die (even if it didn’t stick).

-We’ve seen Michael return to attack the offspring of the protagonist of the first movie.

-We’ve explored Michael as a supernatural figure.

-We’ve gotten an explanation for Michael’s origin (and were suitably disappointed).

-We’ve seen the protagonist of the first film return to finish old business.

-We’ve seen Michael attacking people with no connection to the first movie.

-We’ve seen the first movie done again with more emphasis on backstory.

-And most recently, we’ve seen a long, bloody meditation on the significance of family to Michael.

That’s a lot of ideas that have already been used. I’m not going to act as if some of them couldn’t be done better, but if the writers choose to go back down a path they’ve already covered they risk redundancy. We’re currently living in the longest gap between Halloween movies since the series premiered. (The last one came out seven years ago. Previously, the longest gap was six.) Do any of us want to end that drought with a rehash of one of the previous movies, no matter how much better?

Getting (at last) to my point, I think there’s only one story left to be told. Since there’s ample precedent in the series to ignore past movies, they can easily ignore Curse, and bring back Danielle Harris to play Jamie Lloyd as an adult. As a horror geek, this is the best option I can think of. However, it doesn’t seem like the kind of risk Blumhouse is likely to take.

While it’s true Harris is now well-known for her horror roles, and was one of the redeeming features of her two films, Halloween 4 and 5 seem to have a reputation as “the ones that are on cable all October because the rights are cheap, and they’re better than Curse.” (Is that still true? I haven’t really watched television in years.) It seems like it would be too risky for studio execs to go back to a story written out of continuity four films ago.

That said, however, it also seems like the perfect set-up for a great Halloween story that hasn’t really been told yet. While it’s true H20 had Laurie facing her brother after many years, the fact remains that he had terrorized her as a near-adult. To Laurie Michael was a human, if a far from normal one. To Jamie, who faced Michael Myers before she faced puberty, Michael is and always will be the Boogieman.

Furthermore, the family aspect of the story is far more prominent with Jamie than Laurie, giving us ample room to explore the relationship between the two, regardless of whether it’s real or a product of Jamie’s imagination. Laurie found out Michael was her brother well over halfway through his initial rampage. The only film in which Laurie acknowledge a strong fraternal connection with Michael was the Zombie sequel, and even there it’s treated as more a part of her insanity than of her identity. Jamie grew up knowing “my Uncle is the Boogieman,” and in any further sequels would presumably be a functioning adult with many years to incorporate that into her understanding of the world. That’s a very different relationship, and Harris definitely has the chops to pull it off.

Will this happen? Sadly, probably not. However, in the absence of a return by Jamie Lloyd I’m drawing a blank on what new things Michael could get up to. Maybe Mike Flanagan and John Carpenter have better imaginations than me. I certainly hope so.

Masters of Horror: Episode 8 Cigarette Burns

When I realized I'd reached Cigarette Burns I leapt for joy...then I stared blankly, trying to figure out how I was going to talk about an episode dealing with such abstract concepts. While many of the other Master of Horror episodes are good, I would actually give this episode the distinction of being the single greatest work of John Carpenter's career.

This episode is clearly a follow-up to his Lovecraft-inspired Apocalypse Trilogy (The Thing, Prince of Darkness, and In the Mouth of Madness). Most obviously it deals with some of the same themes as Mouth of Madness. Where that film was about the hunt for an evil author, here our protagonist, Kirby Sweetman (Norman Reedus), is searching for an evil movie, Hans Backovic's Le Fin Absolue Du Monde (The Absolute End of the World).

The element that gives Cigarette Burns the edge over it's predecessor is that it doesn't make the film the point. In Mouth of Madness Carpenter attempted to show us reality being torn apart by simply having things happen that didn't make any sense. I'm not saying that didn't work, nor am I claiming that we don't get some freaky imagery here, but the primary focus is on the humans.

Kirby follows a fairly straight-forward series of leads, each of whom has been directly or indirectly exposed to the film in some way, and each having had a different reaction to it. When the film is eventually watched we're shown only a few brief glimpses of it, and what we see is creepy. But far scarier is the idea that these people experienced something that actually justifies their behavior. The most memorable of these is a film critic who wrote a review of the film. He felt that his original review was “a joke,” and has spent years locked in a cabin, typing his “new review” to explain the film to the world. His entire cabin is now full of stacks and stacks of paper, all composing a single review.

The story benefits from the fact that pretty much every line spoken about the film can be interpreted in multiple ways, and watching it three times I've come up with at least half a dozen versions of what Le Fin Absolue Du Monde actually is. The film appears to have been made, at least in part, by filming the desecration of an angelic being, but even the nature of that being is never made explicit. My personal favorite explanation is that God gave the Angel to the film's director, and the horror of the film is that God is evil and takes delight in torturing his creations.

Whatever the nature of the film, it's implied that most people are too frightened to seek it out, even if they claim to want it. In another story the events might seem unbelievably convenient. Kirby was able to talk to only a few sources before being told to go see Backovic's widow, who agrees to give him the film. But when Kirby arrives at the late Backovic's penthouse, he's told that no one else ever made it up the elevator. Any of the previous people to seek the film could have found it, if they really wanted to.

As he closes in on the film Kirby begins to see Cigarette Burns appear in his life. Whenever they happen, Kirby's life suddenly cuts away to something else. In their first appearance he experiences a flashback to his addict wife's suicide. Later, when Kirby's life is in danger the Cigarette Burns signal a skip in the action. This happens on two occasions, both resulting in Kirby miraculously coming out on top of the conflict off-screen, surviving what should have been his death.

Kirby himself is a perfect balance as a protagonist for this story. He has enough characterization to give his journey meaning, but not enough to distract from the film. While his back story is mostly implied, we can gather he's a cinephile with a reputation for finding rare prints. His life fell apart when he became addicted to heroin and married another addict. He got a loan from his father-in-law to open a theater, which makes very little money due to his obsession with obscure art-house fair. Then, his wife committed suicide, and his father-in-law demanded repayment, threatening to close his theater.

Kirby was hired by a man named Bellinger (Udo Kier), who is determined to see the film before he dies. Initially Kirby simply wants to clear his debt with his father-in-law, but becomes increasingly fascinated by the film. He's exactly the type of person who would be drawn into the film's web: a cinephile, an addictive personality, and a desire to know what happened to his wife's soul.

I don't recommend this as an episode of Masters of Horror, I recommend it as one of the finest pieces of horror ever filmed. It's probably the closest anyone has ever come to truly filming Lovecraft. I could probably write a volume just giving different ways of understanding it. Don't just read what I'm saying, watch this episode and make your own interpretation. Ironically, Cigarette Burns is probably the closest the real world will ever come to producing Le Fin Absolue Du Monde.

100 Scariest Movie Moments: #14 Halloween

This is probably the most intimidating analysis I could ever dream of doing. I don’t think there is a single aspect of Halloween that hasn’t been examined, re-examined, ranted on and generally picked apart. I honestly feel like its status as a classic almost compels other people over-analyze what’s fundamental to the story of a small child who went crazy, became catatonic, and years later, escaped from a mental institution and came back to his home to kill anyone in the general vicinity, mostly baby-sitting teenagers.

If I had to offer up my two cents, I would have to say that it popularized ‘The Other’ as the villain; something that was initially perfected by Black Christmas. (In fact, I would argue that Black Christmas did a better job of it.) It’s been said (I believe by John Carpenter himself) that there are only two horror stories: “the evil is out there,” and “the evil is in there.” Either evil is the ‘Other,’ the terrifying force that fights against us, or evil is our own savage human nature.

The slasher film is the epitome of the former, and I feel that is part of why it’s so looked down upon. I can understand why; viewing evil as something that comes purely from without could be seen as an incredibly simplistic way of looking at the world. However, such simplicity is far too often underrated for its ability to elicit terror.

Michael Myers (Nick Castle), before being retconned by the sequels into Laurie Strode’s (Jamie Lee Curtis’) long-lost brother, was pure ‘Other.’ The closest conceivable connection he had to any of the characters was that he happened to have been born in the same town as them. He was human in only the broadest sense of the word.

The movie is very different if its sequels are considered. While I enjoy the sequels, I think the movie is most frightening as a standalone piece. Later films make Laurie out to be some sort of rival for Michael, whereas in this film, her survival is due to a mixture of spunk and luck, and Michael has no interest in any connection or rivalry.

Of course, no review of this film is complete without a discussion of Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasence), the one person who knew what Michael was before his escape. As with Michael himself, Dr Loomis is a simple character, but effective in his simplicity. He sees Michael as a pure evil that must be destroyed, and is seen by everyone else as a raving madman. So knowing him to be correct, his fear becomes our own.

There’s endless debate about the ending of the movie. Whether Michael’s death at the end of Halloween II was the proper ending to the series, or if it was more horrifying to simply leave the ending open, knowing that he was still out there, and would return. For my money, while I appreciate most of the sequels for what they are, I prefer the ambiguity. Michael is a force of nature, the ending should have been left at that.

100 Scariest Movie Moments: #48 The Thing

John Carpenter is distinguished from almost every other great horror director in one respect: his rejection of the idea that ‘Nothing Is Scarier.’ He doesn’t seem to reject in principle the idea that the human imagination can create a horrifying monster through the power of suggestion, but he’s been very clear in interviews that he thinks it’s a technique that’s overused in Hollywood. He’s even said he believes Val Lewton, a man praised for pioneering this technique, is overrated. And The Thing was his conscious attempt to avert this by actually showing the audience something truly terrifying.

Because of this, it may seem bizarre that he drew inspiration from Lovecraft; a man known for writing stories in which the monsters were so indescribable that they’re left primarily to the reader’s imagination. However, this does make sense. At the Mountains of Madness, the story that was very obviously a major inspiration, was written later in Lovecraft’s career when he was shifting towards a more descriptive style, and does give the reader enough information to form a mental image of the horrors being described.

Furthermore, one thing that unites both Carpenter and Lovecraft is fear of the ‘Other.’ Neither of them is ever eager to make evil out to be the nature of humanity. Instead, evil is either a corruption or perversion of humanity, or even something entirely outside of the human world. Even in Halloween, a movie about a theoretically human killer, Carpenter emphasizes that he has “the blackest eyes, the Devil’s eyes,” to show us that Michael Myers is not a human in the sense that we recognize the term.

The premise of the movie is that an alien organism in the Antarctic, having destroyed a Norwegian research station, infiltrates an American station in the guise of a dog and begins infecting and assimilating the inhabitants. They become aware of the invader very quickly when they find a dog in the process of being assimilated. The effects should satisfy any lover of body horror. However, this still leaves them unable to tell who is or isn’t the enemy.

The movie does an extremely good job of mixing mystery with explanation. Certain rules are clearly established, such a when the Thing infects you, it replaces your cells with copies; identical under a microscope, but alien none-the-less. When you’re infected you will briefly take on an inhuman appearance, then return to your normal form unless it’s necessary to take on another form to defend yourself. And finally, we learn that each part can live and react independent of the original body.

At the same time, however, the Thing is a black box. John Carpenter has said that he had discussions on set of whether or not characters knew when they had become the Thing, only to realize there was no way of knowing. Every viewer can form their own opinion on whether the Thing is malicious or innocent, but ultimately there is no way to provide any real evidence either way on the thought process of a being which is so inherently alien.

If there’s ever been a movie which gave you a real sense of paranoia, then this is it. The characters all know that if they don’t maintain civility, then they’re doomed. But they also know that some of those among them are inhuman. So they each make their best guesses, along with the audience, regarding who is the Thing and hope for the best. However, it’s clear that they all know that the odds of them misidentifying at least one of their contemporaries as human or the Thing are high.

While pretty much the whole cast is good, the stars (and longest-survivors, of course) are clearly Mac (Kurt Russell) and Childs (Keith David). While both of them have strong, commanding personalities, they maintain a demeanor of exasperated professionalism throughout the film. These are people who were clearly on edge from being stuck in the Antarctic with the same people for months at a time, even before the infectious alien monster showed up. But they’re still people who you could see being given these jobs.

The effects are absolutely spectacular. As mentioned above, John Carpenter’s stated goal was to actually show you the monster for a change, and it worked. Whenever the Thing comes out we’re treated to a horrifying, amorphous organism, with just enough residual human appearance to draw us into the Uncanny Valley. It’s as if the human appearance is a costume, and the Thing simply forgot that it was wearing it.

The Thing is not simply a horror movie, it is one of the greatest cinematic experiences ever put on film. Watching it alone in the dark is likely to leave you curled up in a fetal position, sobbing. Or maybe you’ll just be smiling with a chill running down your spine. Or you could take to the internet to continue the ongoing debates about the exact moment when each individual character was turned.…The possibilities are endless.