Feature - The Death of Horror? - Part 5

Part 5

Just a quick one this time as we look at the curse of:

Mobile Phones

In the past, it was so much easier. If your victim was in a house, cut the phone line. If they were outside, in a wood perhaps, then no worries (unless there was a phone box knocking about, which can be dealt with easily).

Both solutions to old world phone problems are pleasantly visual: the villain, wearing murdering gloves obviously, snips at a wire to cut off his victim from the rest of humanity (both literally and symbolically), or the smashed, vandalised phone box that was all too common in the seventies and eighties. Dead easy.

Now, with the advent of these new fangled mobile phones, things are a bit trickier for the screenwriter. Maybe the battery has run out, or there isn't a signal, or maybe the foolish victim drops their phone down a toilet. Sadly, most of the solutions consist of technobabble that wouldn't be out of place in Star Trek, with a severe lack of visual stimulation. (Granted, the toilet solution is visual but how many times can it be used in films? Plus, it's stupid.)

It's something else that makes me groan in modern horrors. The moment of mobile phone exposition always brings me straight out of a film and I'm glad when it's gone. The House of the Devil had a good solution, set the film in the past. Although it is good for a few films, I don't want every horror I watch to be set in a time that is pre-mobile.

What we should do is have a horror film convention that mobile phones don't exist. All horror films are set in an alternative reality where the pesky devices were never invented. Problem solved. Okay, sometimes the writer might want to include a mobile as a plot point. Well, as soon as a mobile is shown that would mean that the film is set in our reality. Fine.

Over the coming months, as I watch a few more horror films than usual, I will document the reasons given for why the machete fodder's phones don't work. Hopefully, there will be some crackers.

evlkeith

Related Reading:
Intermission - Retro Phones

Feature - The Death of Horror? - Part 4

Part 4

This time we'll look at something that is not a problem in itself, but it has certainly caused some major problems in recent times:

Budget

Film-making technology is now affordable to pretty much anyone. A DSLR and relatively cheap (£200) editing software like Final Cut Pro are all you need to get started. This is great stuff as it mean that anyone can put their vision up on the big screen. On the flip side, it's bad because anyone can put their vision up on the big screen.

There have been some great low-budget horror films over the years. In fact, many of the very best have had small budgets. The Evil Dead and Bad Taste were full of creativity, Halloween had great music and a relentless villain and Zombie Flesh Eaters had a filmic look that is way beyond many of today's horrors. I often think that these films had to be creative because of their smaller budgets, they couldn't just throw money at a problem.

In recent times we've had The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity, both effective, which have led to a plethora of found footage films. With mixed success. Rec is a pretty good zombie chiller, and... erm... can't really think of many more. As for bad examples, I could go on and on. In general, I don't read the back covers of DVDs because I want to be surprised by the contents of the film. This has its downfalls. Every time it turns out to be a found footage film, I audibly groan. Please, no more.

Examples of other low budget films that fall into the shocking category are Dead Genesis, Laid to Rest and Scarce. These are three films that I thought that I'd give a try and yet I didn't even make it past the ten minute mark when I tried to watch them. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have been made, just that they shouldn't have been released. The film distributors should exercise some quality control.

In the days of VHS I was always disappointed by the size of the horror sections in shops. But it didn't stop me from poring through their offerings and maybe even purchasing one or two. Now I walk into HMV and they've got a stupendously massive horror selection, something that I would have coveted like my neighbour's ox in ye olde days. But I quickly walk past without a glance and head into the anime, sci-fi and world sections. All of the films look so rubbish. They give them a glossy photoshopped cover and expect that to be enough. There may be some gems in there but I can't be bothered to sift through them. I've been disappointed too many times. We're back to the quality control issue again.

Modern low-budget zombie films? Serious quality control issue, yet again.

This isn't to say that films should have a more sizeable budget either. Look at The Conjuring, Sinister and World War Z: all completely terrible. You would think that film-makers with a larger budget would spend more time and money at the script stage getting it right before they even start filming anything. The evidence doesn't support this.

But when a larger budget is used well it can produce some rather special work. I watched The Colony recently which was set in a frozen landscape. That looked really cheap. Compare that with how great The Thing (1982) looks. It feels like a serious, quality film. The Colony feels more like a cut-scene from a PS3 game.

So really the budget doesn't matter. It's the talent of the film-makers that's important and how they use the budget available to them. If they made good films regardless of the budget - and from the examples above it is possible - then I would be very happy and watch more horror films. As it is, if they keep flooding the market with substandard products, only because someone has bothered to make them, I'll continue to lose interest and for me horror will indeed be dead.

evlkeith

Related Reading:
Review - The Evil Dead
Review - Halloween
Review - Zombie Flesh Eaters
Review - Rec

Feature - The Death of Horror? - Part 3

Part 3

Here we go then with the third instalment of our horror feature and this time we'll have a look at:

The Nastiness Factor

This isn't about whether a film was on the most prestigious Nasties list which elevated films to a must-see status (some rightly so, others, well... maybe not, Zombie Creeping Flesh anyone?). No, this third part of our Death of Horror feature is all about films that, when the credits roll, leave a nasty taste in the mouth.

I was rewatching Big Bad Wolves last night and it struck me how light-hearted a film about torturing a potential paedophile can be. The tone is spot on throughout and despite numerous scenes of rough torture it is always balanced by very dark touches of humour. Because it is not clear until the end whether the poor fellow is a paedophile or not, the viewer is never put in a position where there are being asked to enjoy the torture. For the majority of the film I was asking the question, but what if he's not guilty? It's a great example of a possibly nasty film ending up as an enjoyable slice of horror.

Other films that walk the fine line between nastiness and entertaining are Martyrs (some may say it falls on the nasty side but I think that it manages not to... just), I Spit on your Grave (2010) and The Woman (although the guy in the clip below may disagree). So there are fine examples of modern films that get the fact that horror films should be entertaining and leave the viewer satisfied, even if it's in a bleak, devastated way (The Mist, we're looking at you).

I seem to have watched quite a few horrors over recent years that fall foul of the nastiness factor. The Hills Have Eyes (2006) was gruesome and upsetting but was entirely watchable. The sequel meanwhile was generally unpleasant and completely got the tone wrong, especially towards the end. It's a grubby little film that I'd like to forget. 

As with the above example it's the bad treatment of women (or animals) that can lead to this nastiness. (I know, the three films mentioned earlier as shining examples all contain the mistreatment of women, but they all are constructed to get the viewer firmly on the side of the women, hence the reason why they're shining examples.) Big Tits Zombie (do I need to say any more?) is a cynical and dirty grubby little film that revels in its portrayal of women as sex objects. Surprisingly it has made it into the top ten posts on this very blog. I don't know why I bother writing all this stuff, maybe I should just post pictures of semi-clad ladies being worried by badly made-up zombies and have done with it.

There are other examples such as Snowtown, the dire Saw, Donkey Punch (possibly more of a thriller than a horror but nasty nonetheless) and Bare Behind Bars, but the worst surely has to be Zombie 108. The role of the female actors is to walk around in hot pants and be abused. Their lack of character means that the viewer isn't being asked by the film-makers to be empathetic. In fact, it feels more as if the director wants you to enjoy it. Filthy sweaty dirty grubby unsanitary little film.

So why do they make films like this. I think that it's a combination of lack of budget, imagination and talent. It's hard to make a well crafted horror film that covers all of the bases I'm writing about in these features, so I think that some film-makers substitute quality horror for being as nasty as they can with a cynical eye on the money making potential of these products. Also, you have to wonder about what sort of person would make a film like Zombie 108. A filthy sweaty dirty grubby unsanitary little person, possibly?

Film-makers, I want to enjoy your films, I really do. I want to see film after film that entertain me, make me laugh, or maybe even horrify me. Just don't send me away wanting to scrub my mind with some industrial strength vintage Jif.

evlkeith

Related Reading:Review - Zombie Creeping Flesh
Review - Big Bad Wolves
Review - Martyrs (Doccortex review)
Review - Martyrs (My review)
Review - I Spit on your Grave
Review - The Woman
Review - The Mist
Review - Big Tits Zombie
Review - Snowtown
Review - Donkey Punch
Review - Bare Behind Bars
Review - Zombie 108

Feature - The Death of Horror? - Part 2

Part 2

In the last feature we looked at why atmosphere is so important in horror films, yet is sadly lacking in many modern horrors. This time I'm going to focus on another area that I feel is essential in any great genre film:

Likeable Characters

In Robert McKee's screenwriting book, 'Story', he argues that characters don't need to be likeable but as an audience we have to be able to empathise with them. I'd go with that in many genres but with horror films, I think the characters have to be likeable. It makes it so much more distressing when they are put in horrific situations. 

Let's for a moment consider The Beyond. The plot is fairly non-existent and the script doesn't give any of the actors a lot to work with. But in the casting of Catriona MacColl and David Warbeck, Fulci manages to bring that much needed likeability factor into the film. Both of them bring such warmth to their characters that the ending is pretty hard to bear. (It has been known to bring a tear to my eye. Or maybe that's just my over-tight Jockey y-fronts.) Without them the film wouldn't be anywhere near as good. It's a similar story with Fulci's other classic zombie films too.

Another film that benefits from great characters is The Mist. The final act is really harsh and bleak (just what I like) because the characters have been developed throughout to be realistic and likeable. The script and the casting gel to create a situation where the viewer really feels for the characters. Drayton's pain is palpable. The final twist puts the top hat on it. (It always makes me chuckle.)

Martyrs is a film where the main character didn't strike me as particularly likeable. Not that she's unlikeable but she hasn't got the warm quality of the two actors above, a little nondescript to might say. Nevertheless I could empathise with her and so what she has to go through is hard to watch indeed. Imagine the impact the film would have had if she had been really likeable. Painful in the extreme. And a better experience for it. (In horror terms anyway.)

Now let's have a look at a recent horror film that was supposedly a game changer: You're Next. All of the characters were irritating in their own way and as a consequence I couldn't care less what happened to them. The lead was a strong female character (commendable), who was strong at the start and strong at the end. Mmm, not much character development there. The film has a very beige look and my feelings about the lead are the same: she's beige. Ripley is a way more interesting heroine and hence Alien is in a completely different class in terms of its characters, and this is from a film where the characters are not exactly fleshed out. Many modern horror films seem to be going down the route of having really irritating characters and for me, this makes me lose interest instantly.

Tucker & Dale vs. Evil plays with this common horror failing and has a group of really irritating teens driving into mountain man territory moaning about their lack of alcohol. But in this case, the hillbillies are the characters that we grow to love. I won't say any more but the script has a lot of fun with the familiar horror cliches. This ploy can only work once though before it also becomes dull. Great characters are still needed in new horror films.

There has to be an exception and here it is: The Wicker Man. Let's face facts, if you wanted someone to have a pint and a laugh with, then Lord Summerisle's your man. Sgt. Howie is more of a 'tea and cake at a local church fair' kind of guy. The  apple eating scene where they discuss the islanders' way of life is brilliant because I always have a good laugh at Howie with Lord Summerisle. He's so pompous and uptight that his reaction to the sight of the naked girls is priceless. The whole film for me is spent like this, taking the proverbial out of Howie. And then the ending comes... It's so horrific that it doesn't matter what kind of bloke Howie is. The viewer is right there with him feeling his pain and feeling slightly guilty at laughing at him throughout the film. It is a rare film that manages this feat and The Wicker Man is certainly one of a kind.

It's all well and good watching a slasher film solely to see the death scenes, the characters are of virtually no importance (apart from their ability to bleed copiously). But these experiences are the popcorn of the horror world: switch off brain, watch murders, laugh a bit, forget it. Great horror films, that stay with us, need great characters that we care about. If not we veer into the slasher film mentality at best. At worst we turn off, knowing that there's no point spending our precious time with lots of gormless irritants. A bit like Big Brother really.

So come on filmmakers, give us some horror films with characters that we truly care about, who we want to do well in life, and maybe retire to a little caravan on a beach in Malibu like Rockford. That way, when your baddie is threatening their middles with a chainsaw we might actually care.

evlkeith

Related Reading:
Review - The Beyond
Review - The Mist
Review - Martyrs (Doccortex review)
Review - Martyrs ( My review)
Feature - You're Next vs. The Innkeepers
Review - Tucker & Dale vs. Evil

Feature - The Death of Horror?

I have had a love of horror films since being very young. I was given a book about horror films (mainly Hammer films as I remember) containing lots of lurid images for one of my early birthdays. (One of my favourites images was the sewn up autopsy bloke from The Living Dead at Manchester Morgue.) The photos of headless corpses were the most worrying for a young little fellow like me. Yet I kept going back to the book and taking another sneaky peek. It was like an addiction. 

But what is it about horror that makes me love it so much? Why do I want to watch things that occasionally make me feel uncomfortable and slightly disturbed? And why has my interest in horror plummeted recently? Is horror dead? I sincerely hope not.

If Asmodexia is anything to go by, then yes, horror is dead.

In this feature (split into multiple posts), I'm going to pull together some ideas that I've written about in these very pages before, along with some new stuff to explain this phenomenon. Let's start with what I think is the most important component of a good horror film:

Atmosphere

Where would horror films be without a great atmosphere? Probably in the bargain bin at Poundland. Here's the definition for 'atmosphere': "the dominant mood or emotional tone of a work of art". Sounds easy enough, but a great atmosphere is something that only a select few horror films have.

So many aspects of filmmaking work together to create the atmosphere, from pre-production all the way through to post, that it must be tricky to deliver a coherent and consistent atmosphere. The script, direction, acting, setting, effects, sound design and possibly most importantly, the music all go towards making that oh-so-elusive atmosphere. There is one more aspect that contributes but I'll come back to it later.

Some films have managed this tricky balancing act brilliantly: The Beyond, Deep Red, The Thing, The Mist, Quatermass and the Pit and the King of Atmosphere, The Wicker Man. 

Let's take The Wicker Man as an example. If the atmosphere was magically stripped out would this film still be revered now? Probably not. Even changing one element, the music, would have a massive effect on the impact of the film. Imagine The Wicker Man set to the music from Beverley Hills Cop and you get the idea. The tone of sheer dread pulls the viewer through the film to the inevitable climax; it really couldn't end any other way. (Some people involved in the production, mentioning no names, wanted to change the ending to a more positive one. Completely clueless.) 

Atmosphere is so important, that it can turn an otherwise average film into a great one. And vice versa. Occasionally I will watch a film that I think is okay, no great shakes, but not bad. Then weeks later it will creep back into my head and I have to watch it one more time. This happens again and again. I tell myself that it's not that great yet I can't help myself. The Pack is a great example of a film that has stuck with me. The atmosphere makes it an experience that I just want to spend time with. Compare this with a film like Peacock that has many good qualities, and I was pleased to have watched it, but it doesn't have what it takes to bring me back time after time.

So what is the mystery ingredient? Well it's something that is distinctly lacking in modern horrors: the film stock used. There's something about the look of older films - from the seventies especially - that is stunningly gorgeous and incredibly cinematic. This is probably why no-one wants a remake of Suspiria. It would look way too shiny and antiseptic, whereas the original is rich, lush, saturated and very atmospheric. The Fulci zombie films are other fine examples. I would possibly argue that the recent blu-ray of The Beyond, while still a delight to behold, still misses a bit of grain. They should transfer a copy from VHS, or a dodgy old print as an extra just to bring back that forbidden feeling of the video nasty. I'd watch it. Modern film stocks are just too good. They are perfect for glossy science fiction epics and the Marvel superhero films, but completely lack any atmosphere for horrors. At the other end of the scale, low budget horrors shot in a digital format feel completely soulless. So modern horrors have got that hurdle to overcome before they even start.

Music, as a major contributor to the overall atmosphere, is another area where modern horrors are found wanting. Can you think of a great soundtrack to a new horror film? I can't. Going back to The Beyond, I would argue that without the haunting score it would get a lot lower rating than with the usual death metal type score that have been desperately overused in low budget zombie films now. (And indeed some big budget zombie films - the remake of Dawn of the Dead perhaps?) It would go from 10/10 to probably 5/10. The music is that important to me. In the same way that modern production techniques and film stocks spoil horror films, modern music production techniques also work against them. Great for techno type stuff, that should be cutting edge shiny, but useless for creating any kind of disturbing feelings in the audience. Horror benefits greatly from analogue media.

Over the coming year I'm going to watch a fair few horror films, both old and new, and try to find one that I love. Just one and I'd be happy. If anyone out there knows of a horror film (recent or otherwise) with a great atmosphere, let me know and I'll give it a try. I'm desperate to find one but I seem to be struggling. 

Next time we'll have a look at another aspect of horror films that used to be great but is now a bit duff. See you then.

evlkeith

Related Reading:
Review - The Living Dead at Manchester Morgue
Review - The Beyond
Review - Deep Red
Review - The Mist
Review - Quatermass and the Pit
Review - The Pack (Doccortex review)
Review - The Pack (evlkeith review)
Review - Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Feature - Celluloid Screams 2014

Mini-Review - Stalker (1979 - Dir. Andrei Tarkovsky)

If you appreciate and get this film (as many people seem to) then that's all well and good. For me it was two and a half hours of people wandering around in fields, stopping for a long chat about existential type stuff that for me was virtually indecipherable, and then having another little wander around. And then another little chat.

Some beautiful visuals made it watchable, but despite the massive presence of fog it was strangely lacking in atmosphere. This is my first Tarkovsky film and I'm not that keen. When I'm after my slow ponderous film fix I think I'll stick with a bit of Werner Herzog.

4/10

evlkeith