Stone Children

Leave a comment

I’m indebted to a friend for pointing out the folk horror nature of the 1977 UK children’s television series Children of the Stones, broadcast on ITV.  Folk horror is firmly tied to place and often involves ancient religions clashing with modern ones.  The term was coined to describe three horror movies of the late sixties and early seventies: Witchfinder General, The Blood on Satan’s Claw, and The Wicker Man.  Most discussions don’t go as far as to include children’s programming, but they should.  Children of the Stones consists of seven half-hour episodes which can be, thankfully, found freely on the internet.  Set in the fictional Milbury, but filmed in the actual Avebury, the story revolves around the famous stone circle located there.  Astrophysics Professor Adam Blake and his teenage son Matthew travel to Milbury for research but soon find themselves in a disturbing scenario.

Nearly all of the villagers are incapable of experiencing negative emotions.  What’s more, they can never leave the stone circle.  The stones possess a great energy and Matthew is psychometric—he can sense accurate knowledge of a place or time by touching an object associated with a person at that place and time.  His father, naturally, is skeptical, but when Matthew and his new friend Sandra realize their friend Kevin has changed—he is one of the Happy Ones and suddenly very good at higher mathematics—they piece together a cosmic mystery that involves the stone circle, an ancient religion, and astronomical events from long ago.  There are many horror elements along the way.  People are turned to stone.  Villagers are brainwashed.  Nobody can leave.  The soundtrack was deliberately disturbing as well.  The solution ends up involving time loops as well, so this is heady stuff.

Since the series clocks in at three-and-a-half hours, it really doesn’t fit movie length.  At least not comfortably.  And it contains fairly disturbing themes for children.  Then again, children tend to like scary things; parents are the ones to object to it.  Building on the mythology of the druids and the megalithic structures in and around Avebury, the series maintains a fascination for adults, even if the action is set at kid level.  I was able to get it watched in a week since the episodes allowed for natural breaks in the story.  If my friend hadn’t pointed it out to me, I’d probably never have discovered it on my own.  It’s a pity it isn’t discussed more by those who analyze folk horror.  It is, after all, fun for kids of all ages.

Jurassic Horror

Leave a comment

We recently decided to watch Jurassic Park again.  When I was younger, I often wondered why Stephen Spielberg was passed over for academy awards.  His movies always seem to be popular and they’re well made.  I think now that I’m starting to get a better sense of the subtleties that award juries use.  In any case, Jurassic Park still holds up remarkably well.  The reason I raise it here, however, is that I was wondering if it could be considered a horror movie.  Casting about for weekend viewing, I see that various streaming services list the available Jurassic franchise films as horror.  And there are certainly horror elements to the original.  Dinosaurs in a modern setting have been used as a horror formula before, and a PG rating isn’t sufficient to disqualify a film as horror.  Is Jurassic Park horror?

It certainly has the Frankensteinian mad scientist element.  The decision to clone dinosaurs without sufficient consideration of how they might interact with/destroy modern humans and ecosystems has horror undertones.  More directly, a t-rex, and in the movie, velociraptors, are portrayed as monsters.  Don’t dinosaurs qualify as monsters, almost by definition?  The scenes of them stalking and pursuing kids, as well as adults, and the fear reaction shots suggest we’re going for the horror aspect of movies.  The film includes dismemberment, dark corners, and screams.  Typically it’s considered an adventure film, or science fiction.  The science in it, however, isn’t too far advanced from where things stood in the nineties.  Horror is a genre with indistinct borders.  Even as an adult who’s seen it several times, Jurassic Park still scares me.

The point of horror need not be to scare, of course.  I keep coming back to Edgar Allan Poe’s idea of effect.  It’s mood that makes horror, in my opinion.  One of those moods may be fear, but it isn’t necessarily the main, or even primary effect sought.  Believability is another of the moods.  I’m sure we’ve all seen movies that we simply can’t accept and that makes them less of whatever genre they happen to be.  Jurassic Park, apart from the usual leaps in any speculative story, is believable.  People do try to game the system.  As both the internet and AI teach us, people do release untested inventions on the public, sometimes with tragic results.  And while cloning remains controversial, is it difficult to believe that there might be scientists somewhere who wouldn’t love to clone dinosaurs, if they could actually get viable DNA?  To me this all says horror.

Failed Horror

Leave a comment

In general I’m not one for stopping a movie, even if it makes me uncomfortable.  I have what is perhaps a bad habit of not reading about movies before watching them, and occasionally that leads to problems.  Combined with my interest in watching films that I don’t have to pay for (i.e. they stream on services I use, or commercial sites like Tubi) this sometimes leads to bad choices.  I started watching Maniac (2012—more than one movie has this title), but stopped about halfway through.  It wasn’t because I was too scared, but rather what I was watching simply wasn’t what I watch horror for.  I’ve long preferred supernatural themes to mere slashers.  Some slashers with that supernatural element (the biggies: Halloween, Friday the 13th, and Nightmare on Elm Street) still have an appeal, but for the most part more recent bloodbaths don’t really do much for me.

A few weeks after I attempted Maniac, I tried to watch Freaks.  This is an early film that I’d read about many times and didn’t really want to watch, but it was “free.”  In this case, part of a collection of movies I’d purchased on DVD some years back.  It turned out that the disc was damaged and got stuck in my player.  Now, weekends are a precious commodity.  I hate wasting time.  My wife was still asleep so I tried watching High Tension (2003).  I stopped about halfway.  One of the more extreme slashers, it also is a home invasion story, which I dislike.  It was predictable up to the point where I left off.  Then I decided to read a synopsis and learned it has a twist ending that may have made it worth finishing.  I’m no fan of torture porn, however.

By this point it was too late to start yet another movie.  It was light already and we had to go get groceries soon.  Finding time to watch horror movies, even on weekends, has been really tricky.  And I’m getting to the point where I may have to start reading about films before I invest time in starting them.  The problem is I prefer for movies to reveal themselves.  It doesn’t take a genius to know that “free” movies are often free for a reason.  Perhaps it’s time to start specifying “monster movies” for what I want to see.  Horror has wrongly been associated with mainly slashers for many years now.  Some of us prefer monsters, and preferably ones that won’t cost us an arm and a leg.

Photo by Stefano Pollio on Unsplash

Still Early

Leave a comment

I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the history of horror movies of late.  Although they began being labelled “horror” in the early 1930s, the idea had been around for some time.  When I learned that the problematic director D. W. Griffith presented an early horror film based on Edgar Allan Poe in 1914, I had to see it.  Fortunately it’s easily found.  Long in the public domain, this silent film can be watched in its entirety on YouTube.  The Avenging Conscience is an adaptation of “The Tell-Tale Heart.”  The set-up is quite different, and it has a happy ending.  The characters aren’t named, apart from the sweetheart, who is called Annabel.  She’s taken from Poe’s poem “Annabel Lee,” which is also used in the film.  A young man owes his good fortune to his uncle, who raised him as an orphan.  When he falls in love with Annabel, the uncle objects.  The lad owes him loyalty.

The young couple decide to break up, so as not to upset the uncle.  The young man has been reading “The Tell-Tale Heart,” and thinks about killing his uncle.  He falls asleep in a chair and when he awakes decides to do the murder.  He is witnessed, however, by a passer-by.  He has to pay him off, but he is now free to pursue his love.  He walls the body up next to the fireplace.  A detective, alerted by the uncle’s friend, interviews the young man and the tapping of his pencil reminds the nephew of a beating heart.  He begins to see the ghost of his uncle.  His guilt eventually comes out and he begins a shoot-out with the detectives.  When he can’t win, he hangs himself, which causes Annabel to leap off a cliff in despair.  Then he wakes up.  The uncle is still alive, and has had a change of heart about the young lovers.  The couple marries and a weird coda involving Pan and some strangely dressed children, apparently a book the nephew wrote, winds things up.

The ghosts, insanity, and the murder mark this as early horror.  Although the actual deaths, except the uncle’s, take place off screen, they are still horror territory.  And, of course, horror properly didn’t quite exist.  Although The Avenging Conscience can’t really take credit as the first horror film, it is certainly an early one.  And it is based on Poe.  Silent, black-and-white, and not really scary at all, this movie has a place in the history of what we now recognize as horror. Watching it is to watch a bit of history.

Early Horror

Leave a comment

The origins of the horror film are hazy.  Although solidified as a genre name in the early 1930s, the ideas that eventually led to horror movies probably began with the 1896 George Méliès offering “The House of the Devil” (“Le Manoir du diable”).  This trick film features many of the macabre elements that would later become horror.  The Devil enters an old castle in the form of a bat.  We see him conjuring all kinds of magic—an Igor-like assistant, a cauldron, a skeleton, ghosts, and witches.  So much of what would feature as the genre developed is here already.  Others have pointed out that Méliès didn’t produce this film with the intention to scare.  It was a three-minute set of trick photography with typical exaggerated gestures and stage-magician tricks.  Still, there’s something there for horror fans.  Especially those of us pressed for time. 

Image credit: George Méliès, public domain via Wikimedia Commons

The film itself is easily and freely found on the internet.  It is sometimes mistaken with “The Haunted Castle,” which was a remake lasting only 45 seconds, that came out the next year.  George Méliès was a visionary in many ways and his techniques in this film would pave the way for both independent producers and Hollywood studios as the early forms of the genre appeared.  “House of the Devil” also shows several tropes that will become standard vampire fare.  The Devil transforms from a bat,  he wears a cape, and is frightened off by a cross held aloft.  This was a year before Bram Stoker’s Dracula was published.  The idea of making films scary in their own right would be a later development, but these early pieces of cinema contain many of the elements we would later associate with horror.

It’s difficult to imagine these days, but in the 1920s the Disney short “Skeleton Dance” was considered too macabre for children.  (I discuss this in my book, Sleepy Hollow as American Myth.)  There was furor after the release of Dracula in 1931 with some critics finding no redeeming value in it.  Horror films had a difficult road to acceptance, which is still true today.  They weren’t regularly called horror films until the early thirties, although they existed before that.  Some are for lighter entertainment, like Méliès’ work.  Comedy horrors are a popular sub-genre.  Even today they continue to be made and are more funny than scary.  Think Scary Movie,  Shaun of the Dead, Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter.  And many, many others.  George Méliès showed what film could do.  And he inadvertently created the first horror movie.

Lights On

Leave a comment

Poltergeist horror movies are a touch difficult to make convincingly.  Part of that, I suppose, is because the actual phenomenon is already scary and dramatizing it often ameliorates rather than increases the fear factor.  When the Lights Went Out is a “based on a true story” movie about a poltergeist in Yorkshire in the 1970s.  One of the problems is that none of the adults are really sympathetic enough to care about, with the exceptions of Rita and Mr. Price, the teacher.  All of the other “grown ups” are so mired in their own problems that you just can’t empathize.  Part of that is probably an attempt to show the life of the poor—it isn’t easy, I know from experience—but there are a lot of good people of humble means.  Not all of them are mean, self-centered, and unsympathetic.

In any case, an elaborate backstory is built to set up the plot.  A monk, from before Henry VIII’s dissolution of the monasteries, rapes and nearly murders a young girl.  He cuts out her tongue so she can’t tell what he did.  She is educated enough to write, however, and the monastery collectively hangs the monk to preserve the honor of the church.  We’ve got religion and horror here, obviously, but a very poorly understood Catholicism.  In the nineteen-seventies the Maynards move into a council house haunted by both the girl and the monk.  The poltergeist activity begins but nobody will believe Sally, the young daughter.  Instead they blame her.  Until the activity happens to her parents as well.  They try to get a Catholic priest to help, but he’s too busy banging his cleaning woman (and besides, he needs the bishop’s permission for an exorcism).  The Maynards call in a medium who is, predictably, attacked.  The priest is blackmailed into an anticlimactic exorcism.

But the evil monk isn’t gone.  After life returns to normal, he attacks again but is driven off by the girl he murdered, or almost murdered.  In real life, apparently, the poltergeist was much more low key.  The dramatization makes it very much like other horror films we’ve all seen.  I do find the lack of research on how the church operates of interest.  Unfortunately, sexual abuse of the young is, and has been a problem with enforced celibacy from pretty much the beginning.  The priest from the seventies is much more concerned with his reputation than plight of the family.  The movie does do a good job of isolating poor Sally, and you can’t help but to feel sorry for her and her friend Lucy, who just don’t fit in.  That’s where the real horror lies.

Stay

Leave a comment

One of the string of low-budget, but well-made horror films of recent years, Good Boy is most memorable for the performance of Indy.  If you somehow missed the hype, Indy is a dog who can see ghosts while the humans around him (very few for most of the film) cannot.  Indy, by the way, has his own Wikipedia page as an actor—that’s how impressive his performance is.  No doubt, he is a photogenic dog.  Credit has to go to the photographers as well, for catching the Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever displaying love, anger, sadness, concern, and, most impressively, fear.  The dog received a Best Performance in Horror award normally reserved for humans.  What makes this especially impressive is that, if you think about it, Indy wasn’t aware that he was acting.  He was being a dog and has no idea what human fiction is.  Impressive.

Spoilers follow.  The story itself is a little thin: Indy’s owner, Todd, has an incurable lung disease.  He decides to move to his grandfather’s house in the woods, alone with Indy.  His grandfather died in the house of a similar disease, living there alone with his dog.  Indy begins to sense the ghosts as they drive onto the property.  Todd, whose health is failing, doesn’t notice them and begins to start shoving Indy away, even chaining him outside in the rainy autumnal weather.  Indy, ever loyal, breaks free and returns after having close encounters with the ghost.  Todd is glad to see his pet but finds his own dead body in the bed before the ghost catches up with him.  Todd’s sister finally visits and finds her dead brother and the dog abandoned in the basement.  (Since I saw this on a streaming service that cuts off credits in its eagerness to get you to watch the next film, I missed the cheering scenes of Indy with his head out the window of the sister’s car.)

Throughout the movie the human actor’s faces are never shown clearly.  This keeps the focus squarely on Indy.  It’s astounding how the dog’s range of emotional expression is slotted into the story, which is probably one reason that it’s a little thin.  You can’t explain to the star, “Now you’re seeing a ghost that your owner can’t and react like this…”.  Like The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity, this low budget film performed well at the box office and has become a cultural touch stone among the horror community.  At least among those of us who can’t resist cute pets.

Walking Sleep

Leave a comment

It has been suggested to me that I might try screenwriting.  I’ve always resisted this, even though some of my fiction may be movie-worthy (one editor told me it was, but then I have a huge stack of rejections from others).  In any case, I had high hopes for Sleepwalkers.  I’d never heard of it before, but I saw that it was Stephen King’s screenwriting debut.  Not all novelists can, or should be screenwriters.  I like King’s novels.  The only one that really didn’t wow me was The Tommyknockers, and even it was well written.  This movie struggles.  Part of the reason is, undoubtedly, that directors depart from the script sometimes.  And the budget doesn’t seem to pay off its estimated 15 million.  For one thing, it’s set in Indiana but the scenery is clearly, clearly California.  They didn’t even try to make this look like the Midwest.  And the acting isn’t great.  The little jokes fall flat.  Something’s wrong in Kansas.

The story seems promising enough.  Sleepwalkers are shapeshifting cat people.  They’re also psychic vampires, drawing their energy from virginal girls.  So far so good.  Then it gets weird.  They transfer energy to each other through incest.  And they can turn invisible.  And turn cars invisible, even at a distance.  They’re super strong and can survive gunshots.  You can kill one by poking its eyes out, however.  And cats are their natural enemies, setting them on fire if they scratch them.  Slow down—there’s too much going on!  And there’s a quasi-comedic tone that prevents this movie from ever really feeling like a Stephen King novel.

A couple of things: those of us who write horror often find humor in our stories.  Sometimes we just can’t avoid it.  And the other thing is writers are often typecast.  For example, we think of Edgar Allan Poe as a horror writer because his best known stories are the scary ones.  Poe wrote funny, however.  And what we’d call, for lack of a better word, literary fiction.  Writers write.  Other people categorize.  In the case of Sleepwalkers, however, it does seem that it was intended as (it was certainly advertised as) horror.  And it has horror moments.  It also has quite a bit of sympathy for the monsters, which isn’t a bad thing.  Predators have to feed—that’s the way of nature.  The sleepwalkers are, to all outward appearances, human.  And they have human emotions.  Stephen King’s first screenplay wasn’t his best work, but we all have to start somewhere.

Simple Gifts

Leave a comment

During my many years of studying religion I learned about the Shakers.  It was many years ago and my knowledge isn’t extensive.  I was caught off guard when my wife suggested we see The Testament of Ann Lee.  I hadn’t heard of it and knew nothing about it, but she had me at “Shakers.”  This is a most unusual and engaging movie.  I didn’t realize it was a musical until after it was over.  (It had been a long day and I did, a time or two, think, “hey, this is like a musical, the way characters break into song.”)  The thing is the songs are all diegetic; they fit into the plot and the Shakers were known for their music as well as for their furniture.  The movie follows, in broad outlines, the life of Mother Ann Lee, the founder of the sect.  It made me curious to learn more.  

The Shakers emerged during that period of intense religious foment in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.  They settled in upstate New York where numerous other sects came into the world, such as the Mormons and the Millerites.  The Shakers had their origins among the Quakers, but it is unclear if Ann Lee’s family were members of the latter denomination.  In the movie an encounter with George Whitefield awakens Lee’s spiritual curiosity.  Historically, Whitefield was one of the first trans-Atlantic superstars, drawing rock-concert-sized crowds to hear his outdoor preaching.  In my head much of this was muddled during the film—it had been a long and disappointing day and I was totally unprepared for it.  I’m glad to have watched it, however; it rekindled my interest in American sects.

I have on my shelf an unread history of the Shakers.  It has consequently been moved to my “to read” pile.  I read, a few years ago, a history of the Oneida community in Upstate, and also a biography of William Miller.  The Oneida community practiced open marriage and eventually became known as the producers of flatware—Oneida silverware is still easily found.  Shakers, on the other hand, believed in celibacy, meaning that they could only grow through conversion.  The many Shaker communities founded by Mother Ann Lee dwindled and now appear to be down to three members.  The movie, which is quite good, is unlikely to lead to a resurgence of celibacy and revival of the Shakers.  They did have an outsized influence, not only for their furniture (think Oneida) but also for their music.  Add to that now, a musical.

Ghoulish

Leave a comment

Frankenstein made Boris Karloff a wanted man.  In horror, that is.  In need of a fix without spending anything, I took Amazon Prime’s offer of The Ghoul.  (You had to pay for Sleepaway Camp III.)  A 1933 black-and-white horror film, it followed two years after Karloff’s signature role.  I hadn’t heard of The Ghoul before, and, it turns out, there’s nothing supernatural about it.  Still, it’s creepy and it has the right atmosphere.  And instead of the mummy Karloff played the year before, he’s now a dying Egyptologist.  Just before he dies, he purchases, with nearly his entire fortune, “the eternal light,” a jewel that will bring him into an Egyptian afterlife.  An Egyptian Sheikh, however, wants the jewel back because he believes in Egyptian religion, just as Karloff’s Professor Morlant does.  An unscrupulous servant steals the jewel once Morlant dies, although the professor warned him that if he tried anything, he (the professor) would rise from his grave and kill him.  The heirs find out that their uncle has died and his shifty lawyer, who wants the jewel for himself, races to the house before they can arrive.  Add in a vicar who believes paganism in Britain is disgraceful, and you have a full house on the night Morlant rises from the dead.

The servant, now believing that his master has indeed arisen, confesses to where he put the jewel, which leads to Morlant stalking the party in the house until he finds it.  The heirs dismiss the vicar, who keeps saying the clash of religions is important.  The Sheikh tries to find Morlant, aware that he has recaptured the jewel.  The heirs go to the tomb to sort out what is going on, and Morlant, cutting an ankh into his chest with a knife, offers the jewel to a statue of Anubis, who takes it.  It turns out “Anubis” is really the “vicar” who was really a thief who’d planned the heist some time before.  The police, whom the heirs called, arrive before the Sheikh, who took the jewel and locked the rest of them in the tomb, can get away.  A bit complicated, I know.

The movie makes heavy use of religion and dialogue about religion for an early horror film.  It ends sadly for Morlant, who dies believing he is entering the eternal light, but, as a scene of the doctor makes clear, Morlant was buried alive because of catalepsy; he never arose from the dead in the first place.  The Sheikh, subdued, England is Christian again, and all is well.  Except for Morlant, the duped professor who believed what he’d studied was true.  The ghoul (the term before zombie caught on) wasn’t real after all.

I’m glad to have happened upon this one.  If I ever get around to writing my book on how horror and religion interact, The Ghoul will surely be among the early films that must be discussed.

May’s Cool Start

Leave a comment

Beltane always makes me think of The Wicker Man, for some reason.  I recently got a royalty notice telling me sixteen copies had sold since the last statement.  (I never received that actual statement, but Worldcat shows that 419 libraries have a copy, making it my second best-selling book (maybe the best-selling; most royalty statements don’t include the total number sold, as much as authors would like to know that).  In any case, today is Beltane so I tip my hat to Sergeant Howie of the West Highland Constabulary and confess that I have two more books on the movie that have come out since I wrote mine that I haven’t read yet.  The reason is that I’m currently researching for a new book and Sleepy Hollow intervened.  But back to Summerisle.

The Wicker Man was a movie before its time.  The last of the three famous British films that spawned the sub-genre “folk horror,” it helped launch a new interest in ancient religions.  A friend pointed me to Children of the Stones (there will be a post on it in coming days), which was a British children’s television series with distinct folk horror undertones.  Maybe overtones.  It made me think of Wicker Man again.  And the way that folk horror has taken off in the past decade or two.  I’ve lost track of how many folk horror movies I’ve watched.  While discussing Christopher Lee with a friend lately, I was reminded how he once said that of the many movies he was in, The Wicker Man was the best.  It’s certainly a literate film.  Folk horror often tends to be.  Delving deep into what people (the folk) really believe can dredge up some very interesting possibilities.  I try to use them in my own horror writing.

Just because my book doesn’t explore the folk horror angle doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s not there.  (Sorry for the four-negative disclaimer.)  Devils Advocates at the time was looking for an approach that didn’t foreground folk horror.  Scholars tend to typecast Wicker Man.  I was working on a larger holiday horror project at the time—I may come back to it some day—and was surprised that nobody had approached the film from that angle.  The genre “horror” itself is a bit of a misnomer, and many of the sub-genres aren’t clearly defined.  For many people “horror” equates to “slasher,” but there’s a great deal more out there than that.  The Wicker Man stands witness to that on this somewhat cool May Day decades later.

Demonic Plot

Leave a comment

The problem with pithy titles is that many of them apply to more than one movie.  That’s true of The Accursed, so I’ll specify that I mean the 2022 film, directed by Kevin Lewis.  Other than attempting too much—it’s a bit too complex for the needs of the story—it’s not a bad movie.  The production values are pretty good and there’s none of the goofiness that sometimes slips into lower budget efforts.  There were a few moments when it was obvious that anyone else would’ve fled the scene—of course, that would’ve changed the outcome.  And it is a film that I could’ve included in both Holy Horror and Nightmares with the Bible.  Obviously, there’s demons involved.  So what’s it all about?

Well, there’s this woman who summons demons, for a price.  If you can’t pay then the demon accepts your child in lieu of cash.  The film starts with Mary Lynn, a local, attempting to kill the old woman, but a demon inhabits the medium and Mary Lynn knows she’ll have to come back to finish the job later.  Meanwhile, Elly, a nurse whose mother recently died by suicide, is offered a job watching a comatose elderly woman at her home until she can be transferred to the hospital.  The old woman, we soon learn, is the medium from the opening scenes.  She’s not in a coma, a demon is in her.  It becomes obvious that the demon is after Elly, but she’s devoted to her duty as a nurse.  Cut off from neighbors, except Mary Lynn, she has no way of knowing what’s going on until she discovers a grimoire, the Key of Solomon, in the basement.  By the time it’s over just about everyone except Elly, Mary Lynn, and her daughter has been killed.

A complicated plot underlies the story, but it is a good example of religion and horror.  It quotes from the Bible.  And makes use of apples as symbols of being fallen.  A bit of the horror is over the top and ceases to be scary, but overall it’s a good effort.  It could also have been about ten minutes shorter.  Some of the scenes go on just a bit too long, like when Elly is trying to warn a police officer that he’s facing a demon rather than an old lady.  The fear takes its fuel from religion gone wrong.  It does mistake the word “crucifix” for “cross” but it nevertheless gets a B for effort.  Not bad for a freebie on a streaming service.

Horror History

Leave a comment

The problem with writing about the history of anything is that time keeps unspooling.  Published in 1967, Carlos Clarens’ An Illustrated History of the Horror Film has a certain innocence about it.  As a genre, horror had not been discussed much in book form yet at the time, thus part of the innocence.  Another part, however, derives from the fact that the very next year, 1968, is often considered the year horror “grew up.”  The reason for that is that both Night of the Living Dead and Rosemary’s Baby were released that year, forever changing the direction horror might go.  This book is a rare glimpse into what film critics thought of horror before it really came into its own.  There are many gems of horror history here and quite a lot of insight comes through.  On the very first page Clarens notes that horror meets some of the same needs as religion does.  At one point he states that horror avoids religious themes.  Then Rosemary’s Baby happened.

Another early insight in this book is that “horror” is a faulty title for the genre.  I’ve been suggesting this, quite independently, for years.  One of the alternatives Clarens mentions is “chiller,” which was common before “horror” took over in the 1930s.  Even today “thriller” and “horror” aren’t easily parsed.  Clarens tends to consider horror as involving the supernatural in some way.  He does discuss Peeping Tom, however, but not Psycho.  Hitchcock makes an entrance in the very last chapter where The Birds is discussed.  Turning back to the supernatural, this has largely been the draw to horror for me.  Something beyond the expected, whether it be vampires in the night or unnaturally enlarged animals that rise from the use of nuclear weapons.  I’ve never really been a fan of slashers; I’ve stopped watching one or two because they don’t really appeal.  Slashers, unless you count Psycho and Peeping Tom, were in the future when Clarens wrote.

This book does a good job with early precursors to horror, going back to George Méliès, and spending long, lingering moments over silent movies.  The chapter on Universal and its role in the development of horror is quite good.  The slipperiness of the label, however, comes with science fiction.  As is well known, America’s interest in the fantastic in cinema tended to slip toward sci-fi in the fifties.  Some of this was also horror, and crossovers are still common.  But at the end of this book, Clarens ends up discussing mostly sci-fi.  There was a big horror revival coming the next year, however, but books of history are caught up in history themselves.

Still Sleepy

Leave a comment

Being outside in the cold for several hours makes it difficult to think clearly.  That’s my official excuse for watching Sleepaway Camp 2: Unhappy Campers.  I’d just come home from the Lehigh Valley Book Festival and was having trouble warming up.  I threw on the blankets and figured I’d watch a horror movie—I’d just been talking to people about horror films for a few hours, and I don’t want to be untrue to my calling.  When I opened my streaming app the first movie suggested was the sequel to the truly bad Sleepaway Camp.  My mind was too muddled to make a critical decision, so I clicked play.  Now, not all sequels are created equal.  This one has a different director, different actors, and a different direction.  And also, Bruce Springsteen’s younger sister Pamela is the lead.  Okay, so time to sleep away again.

The plot is pretty straightforward.  Angela, the killer from the first movie, has been rehabilitated and has changed her name.  She’s a camp counselor again.  And she has a fervor for high moral standards.  She’s also insane.  By the way, this straight-to-video, low-budget release was shot as a comedy without really trying to be scary.  It is still very campy, but it is handled more ably than the first film.  Angela, who kills only bad kids, at least at first, is a kind of “angel of death,” according to lore that has grown about her since the first film.  Her methods for killing are both derivative and somewhat inventive.  Just the kind of film to watch when your brain is frozen from being outside in unseasonably cold weather all day.

It did make me wonder about a few things.  Those who make movies like this earn, presumably, at least some money off of them.  At this stage in my life, anyway, the opposite has been true of the books I write.  Maybe I’ve found my tribe—those who put their creative efforts out there without big corporate backing, hoping someone will understand what they’re trying to do.  Some of us do.  I can’t recall how I first learned about this franchise (maybe my head hasn’t thawed out enough yet to remember; we’re having yet another unseasonably cold Saturday) but it did step in as an easy choice when I needed one.  This isn’t a scary movie, but if you’ve ever been a camp counselor (I was for three of my college summers) it may bring some nostalgia with it.  And it’s no Friday the 13th part two.

Not Crystal Lake

Leave a comment

I’d heard just enough about Sleepaway Camp to wonder if it was so bad it was good.  I really knew nothing else going into it.  I won’t spoil the ending, but you might not thank me for that.  Two kids and their father are involved in a boating accident that leaves two of them dead.  Years later, an eccentric woman doctor is getting her son and his “cousin” ready for the summer at Camp Arawak.  Friday the 13th vibes begin immediately, but the tone and acting are way off.  This is camp in every sense of the word.  The cousins, Ricky and Angela, arrive, but Angela doesn’t talk and doesn’t join in any camp activities.  The other kids tease her, naturally.  Ricky defends her whenever he can, but some of the other girls are the worst tormenters.  Then the murders start.  A drowning that could be accidental.  Bees in a bathroom stall with a guy who’s allergic.  Is this accidental?

Then a stabbing in the shower, definitely not an accident.  Meanwhile clueless adults can’t seem to find any connections.  They’re concerned with adult matters like keeping the camp open (it’s a business, after all.)  They don’t pay much attention to the campers.  Nor do they seem to notice when all the guys sneak out to go skinny-dipping at night.  Or that the tormenting that Angela is undergoing could be called out.  Finally, after the camp’s owner is killed—in the one impressive special effect—the police are called in and the killer is found.  The movie is known for its twist ending, and although the movie was excoriated originally, critics have come around to appreciate at least some aspects of it.  I was curious enough to give it a try, but the performances, perhaps except for Angela’s, make taking it at all seriously impossible.

That having been said, the movie is strangely effective.  Perhaps it’s because even people my age can remember what it felt like to be an adolescent, along with all the confusion and vulnerability of that age.  On a rainy weekend afternoon a little escapism can go a long way.  And formulas, just like in math class, tend to work.  There’s a reason movies like Friday the 13th spin into so many sequels.  Even Sleepaway Camp ended up with four.  Although this was a groaner, I can’t be sure that in a moment of weakness, if I don’t have to pay for it, I might be tempted to go back to sleep-away camp with a sequel.