Monday, November 10, 2008

So Many Monsters, So Little Time



You know how this blog works by now: if I say I'm going to write about something, that invariably means I'm not actually going to write about whatever that thing is. So, almost two weeks ago I said I was going to write about my favorite horror movie, after I spent a great deal of time talking about one of my least favorite horror movies, Last House on the Left. The idea was to get it posted by Halloween. Well, surprise! Happy Thanksgiving!

Anyway, we're still alive, so let's get to it.

I still wake up in the middle of the night with cold sweats from Hellraiser. It's been twenty-one years since the movie's initial release - twenty-two since the publication of The Hellbound Heart - and it's still the gold standard by which I judge all subsequent horror films. I don't have a lot of patience for slasher films, and must admit to having seen almost none of the recent crop of "torture porn" movies: supernatural (or sci-fi) horror is my preference, although I admit that a well done terrestrial horror film like the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre or William Lustig's sublimely weird Maniac gets my respect. But for the most part I don't see the appeal of horror based in these kind of (relatively!) realistic milieus - for my money, reading a book about someone like Albert Fish is far more horrifying than watching a movie about a fake Albert Fish. (For the record, I don't recommend actually reading a whole book about Fish - I did, once, and I will regret it for the rest of my life. There's horror, and then there's horror.)

This is why I like H.P. Lovecraft so much. The horror at the heart of Lovecraft is less physical fear than existential dread, the logical extension of 19th century American gothic literature by folks like Poe, Melville and Hawthorne. The fear is not really the fear of death or pain, but the fear of displacement and insignificance - the idea that there is a much larger realm of reality just outside the boundaries of our own, in the context of which we are less than vermin. When this world comes into contact with our own, however briefly, the result is nothing less than transcendental, in the purest Kantian terms: the "real" universe, in its purest form, is unimaginably hostile to life, all life, and especially our life on Earth. More than a knife in the dark, that is primal fear: the fear that, in the final analysis, humans are absolutely superfluous, and that the all-consuming fear of the unknown which dominates human society since time immemorial is in fact the only healthy, rational response to an uncaring universe. It's not particularly pleasant. There is no gratifying reconciliation at the end of the story after the alien menace has been vanquished and the ethical status quo restored.

Speaking purely in terms of style, Clive Barker could not be more unlike Lovecraft. For one thing, Lovecraft had no time - literally, no time whatsoever - for sex. Sex, and physicality in general, is banished from his stories. The "action" in a Lovecraft story is usually entirely cerebral, with the realms of sensual experience confined solely in pejorative terms, usually in an explication of "primitive" ceremony and superstition (see "The Call of Cthulhu", with it’s portrait of a savage and unholy African “voodoo” ceremony, for a great example of early 20th century racism at its most virulent). Barker, however, is all about the sex. I haven't read everything of his, but of what I have read - the Books of Blood, Imajica, and of course, The Hellbound Heart - sex is foremost among Barker's preoccupations. Sex is magic, sex is power, sex is fear, sex is terror - sexual imagery surrounds us and confronts us on a daily basis. The body itself is a canvas in Barker, as in Melville. Physicality is not inviolate.

But in many ways Hellraiser (and The Hellbound Heart, but I'll refer mainly to the film adaptation from here on in) plays like a Lovecraft story, if Lovecraft decided to hang out in S&M clubs. Which is flip, obviously, but bear with me: the plot of Hellraiser is centered around the circumstances by which an unknown, inherently sinister and supremely powerful universe of unending cruelty and pain comes into brief contact with our own. The representatives of this universe - the sadistic Cenobites pictured above - are implacable, irresistible forces of inevitable evil. Once summoned, they cannot be dismissed until they take their rightful tithe (with the rare exception of a propitious bargain). Their purpose is largely unexplained. There is no way to "vanquish" them except by means of temporary abatement. As with Lovecraft's "Great Old Ones", the mute god Leviathan who sits in the middle of the infernal labyrinth is incommunicable. There is no consolation, no appeasement, no remorse. The Elder Gods communicate their unknowable desires through their emissary Nyarlathotep, just as the Cenobites follow the ominous will of their master.

But arguably the most important element of Hellraiser’s unique structure lies in the fact that although the Cenobites are certainly monsters, they are not actually villains. (At least, that is, in the first two films and the book – everything afterwards gets progressively more off-model.) The villains from the first film are the people trying to escape the Cenobites’ grasp – Frank Cotton and his lover Julia. Frank opened the puzzle box and was taken to Hell by Pinhead and Co. After Frank’s disappearance, Larry inherits his brother’s house, with his wife Julia (who, unknown to Larry, had conducted an affair with Julia on the eve of their marriage). Larry accidentally spills some blood in the house, opening up a tiny gateway through which Frank can return to Earth from Hell. Once there, he enlists Julia to aid in his escape – which means, he needs living blood and flesh in order to restore his desiccated body. This is supplied by Julia, who lures a string of hapless victims to Frank’s room.

It’s remarkable how many classic horror archetypes Barker manages to touch upon in the course of his story. Obviously, the plot hinges on a haunted house, occupied by a revenant spirit both figuratively and literally connected to the past sins of its occupants. Frank and Julia are both demons of a sexual nature – an incubus and a succubus, to be precise – and Frank’s appetites for life-nourishing blood make him a vampire. Towards the end of the film he even skins Larry and steals his face – becoming a chameleon, stealing his brother’s identity and usurping his family life. And, of course, the movie is driven by a series of Faustian bargains the main characters make – or attempt to make – with the hellish Cenobites who relentlessly pursue them.

It is also necessary to point out the context – perhaps blessedly distant at such a late date, but important nonetheless – that at the time of the movie’s release, Clive Barker was an openly gay writer working in the mid-80s. In particular, he was writing about sexual transgression, and the process by which people are remade and destroyed by their desires. It’s something of a canard that horror films are ruthlessly conservative in their sexual attitudes: young men and women – especially women – who transgress against cultural norms (by going out in the dark woods to make out with their boyfriend, for example) are routinely dispatched by sinister forces of reactionary propriety. The Cenobites, however, are not anti-sensualists: they are the ur-sensualists. The puzzle box is ostensibly a key to a universe of untrammeled sensual experience, pain and pleasure intertwined. The book makes the connection far more explicit: when Frank opens the box in The Hellbound Heart, he experiences the most intense, unbelievable orgasm he has ever experienced in his life. This is both prelude to and in conjunction with incredible, never-ending physical and emotional torture – for the Cenobites, the two sensations of pleasure and pain are inextricable. Their willingness to transcend all boundaries in order to experience the most extreme forms of sensual abandon is one shared, at least ostensibly, by the poor souls who open up the box and summon the monsters. You can’t make the argument that Frank didn’t know exactly what he was getting into when he opened the box: he wanted to push the conventional limitations of sensuality. That he couldn’t guess how far these explorations would take him is merely incidental to the Cenobites’ agenda. They are extremely enthusiastic sexual evangelists.

So, is Hellraiser another in a long line of AIDS metaphors? I think the Cenobites’ nature as unmistakably sexual creatures complicates rather than simplifies the question. Certainly, pursuing sexual gratification to its illogical conclusion leads to absolute degradation and physical abasement. But it’s not as strictly puritanical as that. There is a pro-safe-sex message nestled deep within the thorny heart of the film, wrapped in the fact that the Cenobites are creatures of extremity, alien to the concepts of moderation or restraint. Frank and Julia, the ghoulish lovers whose attempts to avoid the strict consequences of their transgression bring about their ultimate demise, are morally bankrupt. Julia, despite Frank’s obvious inhumanity, remains devoted to reclaiming their sexual freedom regardless of the cost. When Frank’s niece Kirsty opens the box out of morbid curiosity, on the other hand, there is no sensual element, merely infelicitous curiosity. What is needed is not to dismiss the sensual, but to moderate the sensual, to insert a judicious prophylactic between the natural impulse of sexual curiosity and the wretched consequences of imprudent impulse. The problem is not sex but the consequences of sex - a fine but important distinction.

Sex is dangerous and leads the viewer to strange places. The Cenobites are symbols of unbridled sexual energy turned dangerous and deadly – gleaming leather sewn into pale flesh, self-mutilation turning from expression into compulsion and from compulsion into ritual. Monsters should be repulsive and fascinating at the same time, grotesque and glamorous in equal measure. All the great movie monsters combine a strong visual with a distinctive personality: from the graceless exterior and childlike naiveté of James Whale’s original Frankenstein, through to the mute, silent hunter of Ridley Scott’s original Alien on through even to the (tasteless but certainly memorable) corny jokes of child-murderer Freddy Krueger. The Cenobites (especially Doug Bradley’s “Pinhead”) combine the appearance of physical abandon with the cruel implacability of aristocratic authority – authoritarian charm. They are every inch sexual beings, and as such they confront and threaten the most intimate, most carefully guarded caverns of human appetite and fear - not merely mortality, but something far more disturbing.

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Fuck You, California


Hey, let's all be happy Barack won, at least for a minute. It's nice. I'm officially not pissed at Ohio anymore, and I'm ready to forgive Virginia for that whole secession thing. Florida, however - you got us in this mess to begin with, you've still got a ways to go to get off my shit list.

But before we let the warm & fuzzies overwhelm us, let's focus our attention on California. Now, I think I've mentioned this before, but I grew up in California. Spent the first two decades of my life in California. My parents still live in California, my best friends too. Hell, I'd like to return to California again myself, hopefully sooner rather than later.

But maybe not quite so much now. There are a number of reasons I am ambivalent about living in Massachusetts, but one reason I am proud to live here is that we're not afraid to give equal marriage rights to all citizens. I would have thought before yesterday that California, being almost as progressive as Massachusetts in most respects, would follow suit. But no.

It's not like I need to tell gay people to keep fighting - obviously they're going to do that whether or not they receive my papal imprimatur. But I think it behooves everyone else to keep up the invective. A while ago I heard one of these pro-discrimination wingnuts on the radio, talking about Prop 8, saying that all of the setbacks to their reactionary "movement" came as a result of the fact that the opposition succeeded in defining the struggle as essentially a civil rights struggle, which necessarily painted the "defenders of traditional marriage" into the unenviable rhetorical inevitability of being bigots. I thought this was an incredibly perceptive comment from an ideological perspective not exactly known for incredibly perceptive leaps. It's 100% true, although not in the way the undoubtedly intended: they are bigots, pure and simple. Talking around the problem or being conciliatory or trying to hew a path to moderation won't work. Racism and sexism didn't become topics of serious national conversation until minority and feminist groups had successfully redefined the terms of struggle in such a way as it became obvious to a growing majority that opponents of equal rights and equal protection were bigots and chauvinists. Sure, the argument became shrill, the opposition was fierce, but progress was made.

So, I say: use every opportunity possible to loudly decry the results, and don't hesitate to use the most incendiary language possible. It's a question of bigotry, pure and simple, accompanied by its usual lackeys, hatred and fear. Monday was a setback, true, but not a permanent one - time and inevitability is on the right side. Let's hope the state of California gets sued by every one of the 18,000 couples married to date. I'm not a lawyer but I know that it's going to get ugly - and I for one hope it does. With the wind at our back it's time to wage our own culture war - a war for common sense, decency and equality.

Shame the bigots, and shame the children of the bigots. Because if you cast a vote in favor of Prop 2 in California, you are a bigot. There is no way around this, and we are going to keep screaming it in your face until you realize it.

Monday, November 03, 2008

Your Belated Halloween Post

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Taking a Shot at the Canon



Halloween, my least favorite holiday, is once again upon us. In the interest of getting linked to on someone's holiday-themed blogroll, I will consent to post about horror films for the remainder of the week. My resistance to Halloween might seem Grinchy to some, but it's just one of those inexplicable bits of Tim lore dating back as far back as anyone can remember: Halloween just pisses me off for strange and indeterminate reasons. I'd rather celebrate Arbor Day - at least I can get behind a tree.

Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah.

As much as I enjoy a good horror film, I've noticed something over the years - many of the movies considered to be "classic" examples of horror cinema are just not that good. For instance: going back to the original Wicker Man I was struck by how remarkably boring the movie was, and how - like many horror movies - it only really works if you consent to believe that the protagonists just aren't that bright and will always do whatever is necessary to pull them deeper into the machinations of the plot. The heavy thud of plot hammers in the distance can sap even the most promising material of its thrust.

Long-time readers - and I mean long-time, going back to the first six months or so, the pre-Cambrian age of the Comics Blogosphere - will remember endless controversies touching upon the concept of "suspension of disbelief". True, "suspension of disbelief" isn't a particularly useful concept in critical discourse, as it stands at a foreign remove from the more interesting features of a narrative - theme, subtext, style, context. It has nothing to do with how, ideally, a viewer or reader should engage a given text. No one asks whether or not Ulysses or Midnight's Children successfully suspend their readers' disbelief.

That said, to all the academics in the audience who may engage with genre work on a critical level, I say: phooey. I've been reading and watching genre entertainment for decades of my life. My parents love sci-fi and fantasy, and they raised me to do so as well. (Not so much the horror, however, but there was some of that as well, mostly of the non-slasher kind. To this day I don't think you could pay my mother enough to sit through any type of slasher film.) My reactions to horror films are the same as any sci-fi or fantasy film: I can't engage with it on any level unless it reaches at least some modicum of competence. I've seen too much in the way of crap to waste my time explicating bad movies.

At least, when I riff on bad comics there's a tacit understanding (or at least I hope there is!) between you - my audience - and myself, that we're all basically stuck with these metric shit-tons of bad comic book trivia in our brains, we might as well have some fun wallowing in the filth of, I dunno, Nightstalkers or something. But for the vast majority of this crap, no attempt is made to engage with it on any other level than atavistic nostalgia or unrepentant snark. It would be the height of dishonesty on my part, and just plain foolish, to try and find something deeper in the vast majority of this crap. You’d have to be, in other words, deeply, deeply invested in an extremely blinkered aesthetic to be able to find any kind of thematic weight in even something as relatively "good" as, say, Busiek & Perez's Avengers. There's just no "there" there, and it says a lot more about the people making these projections than the work itself.

All of which is to say, reading some of the critical statements that have cropped up around Wes Craven's 1972 debut, Last House on the Left, is a bit like accidentally clicking onto one of those message board threads where people spend a lot of time defending Moench and Gulacy's Master of Kung-Fu as the great unsung pinnacle of 70s graphic fiction. (I know that's one hell of a straw-man, but I don't feel like pissing off anyone specific.) It's just a poor movie, and I can't see why anyone would have the patience to spend enough time on it to find a deeper appreciation. Wes Craven would go on to do many, many better films. His Swamp Thing was a very good film, effectively creepy and campy in just the right proportions. I haven't seen The Serpent and the Rainbow in a long time but I remember it being straight-up terrifying. People Under the Stairs is an odd little movie that many people have probably never seen at this late date but which presented a good twist on some fairly conventional horror themes. (But, he also directed Vampire in Brooklyn, so there's that).

Last House on the Left has some good ideas, inasmuch as they're the same ideas Ingmar Bergman had when he directed The Virgin Spring. But even if the spirit is willing, the proverbial flesh is weak. I guess if I had to pinpoint the movie's singular failure, it's probably one of ambition. The movie's main trick is juxtaposition - juxtaposition between the grisly murders on display and a deceptively placid early 70s light rock soundtrack, interjections of comedic relief in the form of a bumbling sheriff and deputy straight out of Smokey and the Bandit. The problem is that whereas a more confident director might have been able to pull of these kind of tricks while still maintaining a cohesive mood, the result here is simply a mess. The sad-action / happy-music trick wears out its welcome real quick, making the transition from interesting to bizarre to funny in about the time it takes the girl to get up from being raped and walk to her death to what (for the life of me) sounds like Harry Chapin.

It just doesn’t hang together, and even a few effectively creepy performances on the part of the murderers (who strangely look just like Michael Imperioli, it's uncanny.) can't salvage what is, ultimately, simply a badly directed film - a good effort for an absolute beginner, but of little interest outside of its historical significance. (Incidentally, you could say the same thing about Deep Throat, and at least you might get turned on by the latter.) To see it rate so high on so many horror fans' lists, and to see otherwise intelligent people like Roger Ebert rank it so highly, well . . . it makes me happy to realize that the inbred world of superhero comics isn't the only fan culture with drastically lowered expectations, the Stockholm Syndrome for nerds held hostage by bad media for so long they can't recognize the difference between crap and quality.

Next: Assuming I can actually post something before Halloween, I'll write about my favorite horror movie of all time. If you're a long-time reader, you might remember what I'm referring to.