Pagan Fear

Leave a comment

We still fear pagans.  Religion and horror are often tied up together, but when it comes to monsters we trust Catholics and fear pagans.  Of course, when Startefacts recommended The Ritual it was in the context of five pagan horror movies you should see.  I’d seen three of the others, so The Ritual seemed the next logical step.  Four friends are hiking through Sweden to honor the wishes of a fifth friend killed during a robbery.  When one of the them injures his knee, they decide to take a shortcut through the forest where a combination of the Blair Witch Project and Midsommar and Antlers takes place.  After finding a freshly gutted elk in a tree, they take shelter in an abandoned cabin surrounded by runic signs on the trees.  Soon they’re being hunted by a huge creature they can’t see clearly.

The final two are captured by a pagan group that worships one of the Jötnar—the monster that’s been hunting them.  The final boy escapes by getting out of the forest, where the Jötunn can’t go.  The choice of a Germanic monster is a bit different, and the creature design is fascinating.  Jötnar apparently straddle the line between gods and monsters, being a kind of frost giant.  The pagan group sees it as a deity that keeps them safe in return for sacrifices.  Given the number of bodies in the trees, other hikers had decided the shortcut was worth taking in the past.  But still, the pagans are cast as the bad guys.  This is in spite of the fact that the friend whose death started the whole thing was killed in England.

The religious convictions of the English robbers aren’t made clear, but they were raised in a Christian context and are every bit as brutal as the pagans.  In fact, the pagans, although they sacrifice strangers, do try to talk kindly to them (at least if they have the mark of the Jötunn on them).  Not just the pagans are savages.  At least they have a moral reason for what they’re doing, in their own minds.  The criminals are in it only for themselves.  We still fear those of other religions, although they’ve come to their beliefs in a way similar to how we’ve come to ours.  Whether born into it or converted, believers generally come to their conclusions honestly.  In the world of the film, this Jötunn is real.  And, until the end, it protects those who worship it.  So yes, this is a pagan horror film, but it makes the viewer wonder whence the horror really comes.

Whither Wicker?

Leave a comment

The process of producing a book is a lengthy one.  Even as an author you’re not really ever quite sure when it’s out in the world.  My author copies of The Wicker Man have arrived.  The release date is set for August and the publication date is September 1.  Still, it’s out there somewhere in the world at the moment.  The release date of the book is generally the date that stock arrives in the warehouse.  The book is technically available on the release date, but the publication date isn’t until two-to-four weeks later.  The publication date is when a book is fully stocked at the warehouse and is available in all channels (Barnes and Noble, Amazon, Bookshop, and your independent local bookstore).  Chances are you won’t find this book, being a university press book, in your local, but it can be ordered now.  Even in July.

This is a short book, so I don’t want to write too much about the contents here—then you might have no reason to buy a copy!  In brief, though, I can say that it explores The Wicker Man through the lens of holiday horror.  Not a lot has been published on the sub-genre of holiday horror.  In general publishers tend to be reluctant about holiday books—the perception is that they sell only seasonally (if my buying patterns are taken into account, that’s clearly not true).  Movies, however, can be watched at any time.  The Wicker Man is about May Day but it was filmed largely in November and was released in the UK in December of 1973 (fifty years ago), and in the United States in August of 1974.  People see it when it’s offered.  (Of course, video releases have changed all that.)

The movie has grown in stature over the years.  It appears in many pop culture references and even those who aren’t fans of horror have often heard of it.  There’s been quite a bit of buzz about John Walsh’s book on the movie, to be released in October.  (Of course, it is distributed by Penguin Random House.  I’m learning about the importance of distribution the more I delve into the publishing realm.)  My book has a more modest release and a slightly smaller sticker price (unless you go for the hardcover, then I’m right up there with university press prices).  I thought readers might like to know it now exists.  This writer, in any case, is glad to hold a copy and see the fruits of a few years’ labor, whenever it might come.

Not Seeing

Leave a comment

There must be ways to learn about new movies on a regular basis, but now that streaming services also produce films you’ve really got your hands full.  I’ve always had trouble keeping up and one can only afford so many streaming platforms.  In any case, I finally turned my eyes toward Bird Box.  There’s got to be a name for the phenomenon where a movie conditions a certain response that lingers after it’s over.  Fear of the phone ringing, for example, after watching When a Stranger Calls, or of making any noise after watching A Quiet Place.  Ironically for a movie, it’s a fear of opening your eyes (while outside, in any case) for Bird Box.  In fact, I was reluctant to take the garbage out, although it needed to be done.

Unlike many of the films I’ve recently watched, Bird Box had a healthy budget.  Production values were high and the acting was great.  In case you’re even slower than me, the story runs like this: there is a creature that roams outside, hunting people.  When anyone sees it, they immediately die by suicide.  In some ways there’s a similarity to M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening, but this is much more action oriented.  A group of survivors figure out that they have to remain inside with windows covered, but this presents problems when they run out of food.  Also, a new threat arises—when the criminally insane see the creature they survive and experience a kind of religious mania and they try to make others look.

After being immersed in this world for a couple of hours, you feel like staying inside with the shades drawn.  Of course, during the summer that’s a reality much of the time when things get too hot outside.  The monster and its origin are never really explained, but clearly the effect it has on people is a psychological one.  When you stop to think about it, monsters are all about psychology.  Our fears may not all be in our heads, but most of them clearly are.  Watching such movies can build resilience.  As Tom tells Malorie, “Surviving is not living. Life is more than just what is. It’s what could be. What you could make it.”  That’s a fairly common theme when everything goes haywire, as in a movie like this.  If we embrace monsters they become less scary, at least sometimes.  There’s almost a spirituality to it.  In any case, Bird Box keeps your attention throughout, but maybe don’t watch it before the day’s outdoor chores are done.

Animate Magnetism

Leave a comment

The Magnetic Monster is listed as sci-fi and horror on industry websites.  It falls into that period when horror had shifted to Hammer Studios in the UK and the US had entered that white-shirt, button-down period known as the fifties.  There were still monsters out there but they generally had to do with radiation.  In this case, it’s magnetism and its relationship to electricity.  The movie came out in 1953 and introduces what may have been the forerunner of the X-Files, namely the Office of Scientific Investigation, the OSI.  This team of A-men (yes, this was the fifties) study anomalies in order to keep America safe.  There were a total of three OSI films, of which this is the first.  The eponymous magnetic monster is alive only in a philosophical sense—it’s actually an irradiated element gone wild.

An unrestrained scientist had subjected a radioactive isotope to alpha particles for several days and this started a chain reaction.  He takes the substance onto a commercial airline—in his carry-on, no less (it was the fifties)—but the plane is diverted so the A-men can intercept it.  Every eleven hours this isotope divides and doubles, eating all the energy around itself to do so.  This creates an immense magnetic field.  So immense, in fact, that in a mere matter of days it will throw off the earth’s core and our planet will spin helplessly off into space!  Don’t panic, dear reader, the A-men are on the job.  They find a scientific means of overfeeding this monster and destroying it, which is why we’re all still here.

Interestingly, this is one of the more highly rated movies of the era, perhaps because of its scientific optimism.  Scientists can solve all our problems.  And yet you’ll find them without fail in church on Sunday morning.  The fifties were developing a kind of split personality for this country that was trying to hold two conflicting impulses together in an attempted fusion.  The problem is, overthinking either (or both) of them would demonstrate that they really have separate paths to take.  They may well be compatible, but in ways that relegating religion to Sunday morning simply doesn’t work.  Even today many scientists—generally not the outspoken kind—still hold religion and science in tension.  There is something to this impulse we call religion, but it always seems to have to wait while we use science to destroy the monsters we create ourselves. 

Earth Colors

2 Comments

Bad movies can be therapeutic.  While trying to find hope it sometimes helps to see that others are even worse off.  This isn’t exactly Schadenfreude, but rather an awareness that your own efforts  at self-righting aren’t so bad.  Then there’s the hopeful monster theory, but that’s something different.  Already the title of Die, Monster, Die! warns the viewer that this won’t be Oscar-worthy material.  And despite his fame by 1965 Boris Karloff was still landing sub-par roles in such movies as this.  Both the directing and editing are noticeably lacking, evident even to an amateur.  A step backward may help; this movie is based one of my favorite H. P. Lovecraft stories, “The Colour out of Space.”  This is, to me, his most Poe-like tale and could well serve as the basis for a film.  Too much is changed here, however, to make it work.

Arkham is transplanted from its native New England to the old one.  The love theme manages to interrupt the mood of dread Lovecraft used in his story.  Nahum Witley’s use of the meteorite runs counter to the family’s reaction in the original.  The screenwriting doesn’t build much confidence either.  On the positive side, it feels like a fine little haunted house film from time to time, when the plodding plot doesn’t get in the way.  For a scientifically aware visitor, Stephen Reinhart has no concerns about lingering, unprotected, around a major source of radiation.  Although a few of the jump-startles work, the whole ends up feeling just a bit silly.  Of course, I was watching to escape, for a moment, what life throws at you.

Like reading poorly written books, watching bad movies can teach you mistakes not to make.  Movies can be an education rather than simply entertainment.  Cinema is one of the great myth-making vehicles for modern culture and, unfortunately, big budgets are often (but not always) necessary to make them believable.  Here is the hidden element of optimism, perhaps.  H. P. Lovecraft stories can sell films.  They also attach those who may be excluded from studio A-lists because, let’s face it, Lovecraft appeals only to a specific demographic.  The title of this particular film buries the lede, however.  No Lovecraft keywords (Dagon, Dunwich, Arkham, Cthulhu, or any of a host of others) clue readers in to what they might expect.  Learning the film business from Roger Corman might’ve steered director Daniel Haller is this direction, I suppose.  Whether he intended to or not, he produced a therapeutic result.

Ghosts and Spines

Leave a comment

Guillermo del Toro’s early movies are thought-provoking and somewhat depressing.  The Devil’s Backbone, like Pan’s Labyrinth, puts children in the way of adult political unrest and war.  I suspect that sensitive people watching such movies can easily imagine that they could have been put in such circumstances, were things different.  Having said that, The Devil’s Backbone works as a sad, gothic horror movie.  Set during the Spanish Civil War, the film focuses on orphans not quite out of reach of the conflict.  There’s a ghost at the orphanage that, until near the end, we think that the bully among the kids had killed.  The point of view is that of Carlos, a new kid at the orphanage who encounters the ghost and eventually decides to find out what happened to him.  The movie’s nearly a quarter century old, but there will be spoilers below.  Maybe there have already been some—sorry!

As the children, war orphans, try to navigate how to become adults, they have limited male role models—the doctor, who is good, and the groundskeeper, who is not.  Jacinto, the groundskeeper, was raised in the orphanage and although he had a professional-level family, grew up alone and wanting better.  His response was to turn cruel.  We’re not given much of the doctor’s backstory, but due to his position at the orphanage, we have to assume there’s a sadness there as well.  A number of subplots are interlaced with this, one of which involves the title of the movie.  Originally set in Mexico rather than Spain, the Devil’s Backbone was named after a mountain range.  That has to be transferred to victims of spina bifida in the local village.  This medical name has to be explained to the audience and it adds to the gothic atmosphere.

This is an example of a bright, sunny location nevertheless being a fraught place.  The boys (there are no girls at the orphanage) make their own society—not quite on a Lord of the Flies level—because the adults are at their wits’ end due to the encroaching war.  In the end all the adults end up dead.  The future of the boys is uncertain, but they show themselves able to distinguish between good and evil.  Adults, meanwhile, perpetuate a war in which, in real life, half-a-million people were killed.  There’s a lesson here for those willing and able to learn it.  Horror often has a moral, and when the boys are carrying an old crucifix to the courtyard and one remarks that he’s “pretty heavy for a dead guy,” adults should be paying attention.

What You Can’t Show

Leave a comment

As I spend my life trying to figure out why I do what I do, I take book and movie recommendations.  I really should note who recommends what because it often drives me crazy trying to figure that out after the fact.  A friend recommended Censor, and since this friend told me where it was streaming for free I’m sure I got the right one.  Like several one-word title movies, there are several with the same sobriquet.  This was the 2021 movie and it’s a British horror film which raises the question of why we watch horror.  It does this through the eyes of the eponymous censor (Enid) who’s particularly tough on movies.  Set during the “video nasty” scare of eighties Britain, the question is whether such movies motivate real violence but with the twist that the censor is the one who turns violent.

Enid is haunted by her missing sister and she finds a video nasty star who looks like her sibling and becomes convinced that it’s her.  Enid gets to the set where her movie’s being shot (a remote cabin in the woods) and ends up killing the star and director (after accidentally killing the producer earlier, in self-defense).  She kidnaps her “sister,” and in her imagination—rainbows are everywhere—takes her home.  That’s where the real social commentary comes in because during this imaginary drive the radio announcer says these kinds of movies have stopped, and all crime and violence have ceased, and social harmony has returned to Britain.  This is revealed, of course, as a delusion.

Left to my own devices, I probably wouldn’t have watched this movie.  I don’t like blood and gore—I’m more looking for gothic themes like haunted houses—but it turns out that this is a smart film.  That’s probably why it was recommended to me.  Intelligent but also with tongue in cheek at times.  Still, it’s a movie about reconciling with childhood trauma, which is something that speaks to me personally.  That’s a wound I don’t always like to have poked.  It’s one of those movies on which I’d like to see more analysis, maybe talk to Prano Bailey-Bond, the writer and director.  Horror with female directors is often thoughtful, and movies are really meant to be discussed (just like books are).  The question remains—why do we watch disturbing movies?  I know I’m not the only one who does.  And in this case I remember who recommended it, so perhaps I’ll be able to get some closure.

Small Hops

Leave a comment

It was about the cutest thing I’d seen in a month of Saturdays—a baby rabbit.  It was no bigger than my fist and it was looking lost on the sidewalk.  The front “lawn” of the next neighbor’s house is paved and there’s only a wide street in the opposite direction.  Our front lawn has a retaining wall well about the jumping height of the little guy.  I didn’t want it dashing into the street, so I circled around from that direction, but the poor thing couldn’t get high enough to reach our lawn.  It was young enough not to be certain something at least twenty-five times its size meant it harm.  It allowed me to get close enough to scoop it up and put it on our lawn.  It immediately leapt away and sheltered under a bush, before eventually disappearing down a hole that I hoped might be its home.

Besides being a hope-filled chance encounter with the wonder of nature, the incident also caused me to ponder what that leporine brain made of this learning experience.  For human brains, any sufficiently large animal is a monster, and anything even larger is a god.  While there are some bad folks out there, people don’t seem evil to me.  And although we’re certainly not gods, I wonder what that little rabbit thought.  What I was attempting was an act of kindness.  I’m sure it scared the timid tyke—I can imagine being lifted by an enormous creature that I can’t understand and it is a most frightening prospect.  But what if that monster were to set me down just where I needed to be?  Might not my assumptions about it change?

We don’t know what other animals think, yet it’s clear that they do.  Our yard has a fence and we have no dogs, so rabbits tend to like it here.  I often mutter softly and try to avoid direct eye contact and sometimes they let me get fairly close.  I like to think some of the larger ones recognize me, and maybe can tell that a vegan has nothing but their goodwill in mind.  We like to think this about God.  Larger, easily able to harm us, but that somehow being divine also conveys good will.  The bunny incident cast a pleasant glow over the rest of an otherwise anxious day.  It had calmed me and conveyed a sense of appreciation for just how helpful the world of nature can be.  I hope for some tiny rabbits in your life too.

Bad Movie Therapy

Leave a comment

I haven’t see Troll, but it doesn’t matter.  Troll 2 has nothing to do with it.  As a frequent contender for worst movie of all time, Troll 2 is an anti-vegetarian screed and campy horror film that’s impossible to take seriously.  It’s part of my bad movie therapy.  And it’s also an example of religion and horror.  But first, let’s set the scene.  The Waits family (Michael and Diana, and their kids Holly and Joshua) is doing a house exchange for a vacation.  Before they leave, however, Joshua’s dead grandfather appears to him to warn him about the goblins.  The goblins, who are vegetarians, make people eat/drink a special substance that turns them into plants so that they can eat them.  (Yes, it’s that bad.)  Ignoring Joshua’s concerns, the Waitses head for Nilbog (goblin backwards) and go ahead with the house exchange.

The locals (there are only 26 of them) can make themselves appear human and they try in vain to get the visitors to eat.  Joshua prevents his family from eating the plant food by peeing on it.  They go to bed hungry as the queen of the goblins plans her next move to get them floradated.  About midway through the film, we’re shown a church scene in which the minister preaches of the evil of the flesh.  Ironically, this is not far off from the teaching of some Christian denominations.   He tells the trolls what they already know—they have to get the visitors to eat so that they can eat them.  If nothing else, it will make you forget your troubles for ninety minutes, unless your trouble is that you’re being turned into a plant.

Any number of reasons have been offered for why the film is so bad.  While filmed in Utah, the crew was Italian, and most of them spoke no English.  The movie was low budget.  The acting is just plain bad.  All together, however, these features work symbiotically to grow a wonderfully therapeutic end result.  Some of the crew claimed that it was the intention all along to make this a funny film.  Comedy horror or horror comedy is a recognized genre, after all.  The only problem I have now, however, is where to go from here.  So how does the Waits family escape their peril?  I’ll need to offer a bit of a spoiler here.  The goblins are frightened away long enough by a double-decker bologna sandwich that the family can touch the magic stone and destroy the conspiracy.  What are you still doing here? Why aren’t you watching this already?

Hoppy Fourth

Leave a comment

Today is the one of the relatively rare summer holidays.  Modern industrialized nations tend to take a more relaxed view toward summers without having to give out too many prescribed company holidays.  This seems to follow on from school schedules because the kids are out in summer and adults need some flexibility when work demands collide with family needs.  The internet has made work-life balance a little tricker to achieve since work is always just a click away.  Some more generous employers gave yesterday as part of an extended four-day weekend, which is rejuvenating in a way that’s easily forgotten until you start to feel it.  The sense of obligation takes a couple of days to wind down, and then on Monday you realize “I’ve still got another day off!”  It’s a sublime feeling.  Why not watch holiday horror on it?

The Wicker Man is a holiday horror movie.  One of my arguments in the book is that holiday horror has to derive its energy from the holiday, and not just be set on it.  For example, I Know What You Did Last Summer and Return of the Living Dead are both set on or near Independence Day but the movies don’t really draw their horror from the holiday itself.  It falls into the same category.  Frogs?  Well, maybe.  Perhaps holiday horror, it’s definitely in bad movie territory.  A rich southern family is dominated by a Trump-like grandfather who controls the money and measures everyone by loyalty to him personally.  On his birthday, the fourth of July, nature revolts and his adult children and grandchildren (apart from one granddaughter), are killed by animals in this eco-revenge groaner.  But is it holiday horror?

One scene may suggest that perhaps it fits the category, but the real significance of that day is that grandpa won’t let it be celebrated any way other than by his prescribed plan.  Even as the estate is overrun by frogs (mostly), snakes, lizards, alligators,  tarantulas, and even some birds (thank you, Mr. Hitchcock), he insists that everyone do what they always do on the fourth of July/his birthday.  The only scene that suggests holiday horror is where the eponymous frogs hop onto a cake decorated like an American flag.  I normally like nature-revenge films, and this one starts out well but quickly goes downhill.  The environmental message is there, but underplayed.  There are some firecrackers and a number of dead rich folks, but otherwise the film seems to have no message at all.  It’s a bad movie.  Holiday horror?  Not really.  Something to watch for a day off work?  Definitely.

Private Therapy

Leave a comment

A friend recently introduced me to the YouTube channel, Cinema Therapy.  While I had some vague notions already that cinema therapy was “a thing,” I had never looked into it.  This was so, even while consciously knowing that I use movies that way.  Most of what I’ve seen on the YouTube channel has been about Disney/Pixar movies, especially those that tug at emotions.  These have never been my favorite movies since I have unresolved issues from childhood.  Still I learn a lot from watching their analyses.  It can still be difficult to watch these films, though.  As a family we recently rewatched Finding Nemo.  It struck me pretty hard how growing up without a father figure left me the anxious, quivering mess that I often am.  I prefer movies where I can find a father, no matter how odd the choices may be.

Photo by Denise Jans on Unsplash

In fact, in my own form of cinema therapy, I use horror films.  (Even the YouTube channel parses M. Night Shyamalan.)  Part of this is clearly because such movies take me back to my childhood.  I’m not sure why I found monsters so comforting, but I did.  We had no father and I latched onto the strong men—particularly if they didn’t smoke or drink—that dominated movies  (it was the sixties, after all).  Somehow I felt that this made the world seem alright.  Or a little less scary.   I didn’t understand the biology of parenthood, I just knew that I needed a man in the family.  One who would protect me and show me how to be a man.  Well, that never really happened.  My step-father was verbally abusive and I seemed to be his special target.  I watched horror and listened to Alice Cooper.

Sublimation, in psychology, is where you put difficult feelings aside, acting as if everything’s normal.  I did that for many, many years.  College, seminary, doctoral program, full-time professorate.  Then it all broke down.  After the tragedy at Nashotah House, I found myself watching horror movies again.  It took about a decade of doing that to realize that I could write books about the connection between religion and horror.  With three published (the third about to be, actually), I have a fourth nearly finished.  The writing is therapeutic as well.  I have to wonder, however, if these Pixar movies that are so painful for me to watch are really helping me.  I don’t always feel refreshed afterwards, as I do when I see a good horror movie.  (Bad films are their own kind of therapy.)  I’m an amateur psychologist (no license), with a most intractable client (myself).  My way of dealing with him is to watch horror and call it therapy.

Out of Season

Leave a comment

Scary Stories To Tell in the Dark, by Alvin Schwartz, has been a fixture since the early eighties.  I was a bit too old for Scholastic at the time, but my daughter had a copy that I read recently.  I heard about the 2019 film before it came out (and I’m having trouble believing it was all the way back before the pandemic).  It’s more of a Halloween movie and since it features young actors it had translated to a “kids’ movie” in my head.  I suppose the PG-13 rating contributed to that.  Sill, it turns out that it’s a proper horror film, but not too scary.  The story is partially by Guillermo del Toro, so I had some idea of what to expect.  I’m glad I watched it, even though the right season is still months away.  Therapy is welcome any time of year.

Anthology films often don’t work well, and this one manages to avoid that by constructing an overarching narrative.  The teens, visiting a haunted house on Halloween night, find a book by a hidden family member who’d hanged herself but who was rumored to tell stories to those who ask.  The book, written in blood, writes new stories featuring each of the kids, telling their bizarre deaths.  Since there are six main kids there are six main subplots and some of them are quite effective.  Scarecrows aren’t like the kind you find in Oz.  And two of the good kids end up missing while this is played off against the Vietnam War (it’s set in 1968).  One of the characters has been drafted and is being shipped off to the war as the film ends.  Since the final girls (there are two) are committed to finding the lost kids, a sequel seems inevitable.

The setting of fictional Mill Valley is a Pennsylvania town, and it’s nice to see my home state getting some attention outside M. Night Shyamalan movies.  I’ve always felt there was more creepy potential here than has been explored.  And autumn is generally beautiful in the commonwealth.  Although I watched the movie out of season (while it was free to do so on Amazon Prime), it has landed on my list of films to watch in October.  It manages to get that feel right and I know that come the autumn I’ll have a hankering for that sensation.  It’s not really that scary, but it manages to be worth an adult’s time and attention.  And it makes me want to read the book again.  And horror can work for therapy, even when it’s starting to get hot outside.

Release the Wicker

Leave a comment

One of the many fascinating things about The Wicker Man is that even its release date can cause confusion.  There should be nothing so simple as to look up when a movie first hit theaters, but especially in trans-Atlanic efforts the dates are often different between the UK and the US.  The Wicker Man had a limited UK release on June 21 (quite close to Midsummer, it turns out) of this year.  It’d been released before, of course.  The initial UK release date was December 6, 1973 (twenty days before the US release date of The Exorcist).  Making its way to the US, it was first released on May 15, 1974—not long after May Day.  One of the features of the curious history of the movie is that it lacked support from its own studio.  Not surprisingly, it performed better overseas, particularly in America.

Release dates can be important, and can make a difference in a film’s success.  Again, the quirkiness of The Wicker Man reveals this—although set in late April-early May, it was filmed in November.  Actors had to suck on ice chips to prevent their breath from being visible.  And who’s thinking about May Day when getting ready for Christmas?  All of these factors swirl around in a mythology that the movie has developed.  My book went to the printer yesterday.  It should be out in August-September, hopefully in time to catch the interest of those who’ve gone to see it in theaters again.  I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve seen it.  I’ve watched all three released versions.  It feels like an old friend.

From the beginning, the plan was to release my book this year, due to the fiftieth anniversary of the movie.  It’s funny how simply surviving half a century can make something interesting to people.  There are plenty of 1973 movies that aren’t getting any particular boost this year.  The thing about The Wicker Man is that it became a cult classic.  Although it was never a mainstream hit, it has sent out its tentacles far and wide.  I notice references to it is unexpected places.  If you’re attuned to this you say to yourself, “that movie really made an impact.”  And it did.  When I first pitched this book idea to the editor of Auteur, I told him I’d do whatever I could to make a 2023 release.  Of course, I started writing it before Nightmares with the Bible came out.  My next book after the Wicker Man doesn’t have an anniversary release in mind.  That’s good, because like a moon-shot it’s nerve-racking to aim for such a narrow target, years in advance.

Meeting Places

Leave a comment

It’s one of those quirky British television plays that’s its own movie.  It was part of the Play for Today series.  I turned to Penda’s Fen after receiving some very distressing news, as a means of self-healing.  (I may seem distracted for some time, please forgive me.)  Sometimes considered folk horror, it really isn’t a horror film although it may be treated as one.  The dialogue is heavily religious, involving a lot of theological discussion of Manichaeism, the “heretical” belief in the struggle between the powers of light and powers of darkness.  It plays out through the maturing of Stephen Franklin, son of the local vicar who is, unbeknownst to himself, adopted.  He also discovers his homosexuality as he begins to rebel against the strictures of his private school education.  Underlying all this is the fact that he lives in Pinvin, in reality Penda’s Fen.

The story deals with the past interrupting into the present as Penda’s pagan kingdom never really fell.   A local writer claims that there is an entire escape city beneath the British landscape to which those deemed “important” to the government are to be evacuated in case of emergency.  In reality, the kingdom beneath, and overlapping, Pinvin is that of Penda.  Penda was an actual Anglo-Saxon king and here he encourages Stephen to know himself—one of the mottos of the school.  That knowing involves coming to question the conservative, Christian belief system he has wholeheartedly embraced.  His adoptive father, the vicar, has broader beliefs, including the reality of other gods.  Stephen discovers this and learns of his adoption, making for some heartfelt religious dialogue.

My reason for watching, apart from the much-needed therapy, was that it had been recommended as a piece of religion and horror.  There are some horror moments, but generally it’s difficult to say whether they’re hallucinations of Stephen or they’re really happening.  One is presented outside his viewing, which suggests that they are meant to be real.  One involves a demon, but not the scary kind of The Exorcist, which had been released just a few months ahead of Penda’s Fen.  In all, it’s a thoughtful movie, the kind you might expect when based on a play.  Given the themes, I’m not sure it was the best therapy, but it did engage the religion and media dialogue.  I hope to come back to it some day under better circumstances.  The dialogue is worth engaging with more depth than I’ve been able to muster here right now and there’s much I still don’t understand.

A Tumble

Leave a comment

So beautifully shot, Fallen is a movie worth watching despite its disjointed plot.  Worth watching for horror fans, that is.  Apart from the night scenes, this is art house cinematography, and that may be because it’s an independent movie.  What’s it about?  That’s difficult to say, definitively.  The night scenes are so dark that you can’t tell what’s happening and the plot seems to have been intentionally obscure.  (That’s hard to substantiate because the 2022 film hasn’t generated too much discussion.)  This may have been another case of mistaken identity, like The Entity, because my notes only had the title down.  There are at least three movies with this title.  I’m learning my lesson to jot down the year when I add a movie to my “to see” list.  In any case, here goes…

A young priest (?) is warned by an older priest that it is time to take up violence because the darkness has started.  The younger priest is called “Father Abraham,” but he wears a tie in church services, and a small pectoral cross, making identification of the denomination difficult.  Since this is religion-based horror you’d think that that much, at least, ought to have been sorted out.  The heavily accented dialogue is often delivered so low that it’s difficult to follow.  In any case, this minister, after fighting “darkness” for many years, is in an isolated farmhouse with his disabled daughter.  He hunts and traps for their needs and a local boy delivers groceries, and is secretly in love with the daughter.  The minister, who seems to be presented as a tortured soul, isn’t really likable.  At night the house is attacked by physical demons.  There will be spoilers in the next paragraph.

It’s finally revealed that Fr. Fallen (apparently that’s his surname) had killed his wife for being a witch.  His daughter is also a witch, out for revenge for her mother’s death.  She summoned the demons and eventually kills her father and leaves the farm.  Religious imagery is everywhere in this film and begs for interpretation.  The lack of coherence, however, makes that very problematic.  The disabled daughter is the only survivor at the farmhouse, and is healed at the end.  By the demons?  Or because she’s a witch?  The influence of M. Night Shyamalan is evident, but his clean plotting is absent.  Online discussion is minimal, but there could be something of substance here.  If only it were better put together.  If only it were more discussed.