Am I Evil?

Movies have provided us with some incredible villains. And not only have they provided us with great bad guys, they have given us bad guys we can actually be sympathetic towards. That is not an easy thing to pull off, but it is essential to have in order to have an effective villain. It's the difference between Alex from A Clockwork Orange and any of the villains from hundreds of action films. Darth Vader works. Otis from The Devil's Rejects works. Hannibal works (in The Silence of the Lambs at least). Magneto works. John Doe from Se7en works.

Villains work best when we can see ourselves in them, when we can recognize their humanity and the motivations of their actions. We can still find what they do to be repulsive (and the more repulsive we find it we find ourselves that much more attached ... if done properly). If you can't find sympathy in a villain, it will never connect on anything other than a surface level. Who remembers the villain from Lethal Weapon 2?

The effect of villains in a film was hammered home to me when I got into a discussion with a friend, who was trying to be a writer, about The Devil's Rejects. I had told him how I thought director Rob Zombie did it right because even though you hate what the Firefly family has done, you can't help but feel sympathy. He said there was no way he could feel sympathy, and no way he could see how anyone could. I countered with, "Then you'll never be a successful fiction writer because if you can't make even the most despicable character human it will never connect deeply enough with an audience to make a lasting impression."

He is not the only person who has said things like this to me, but he was so offended by my assertion that Zombie's film actually built sympathy for a pack of killers that he couldn't wrap his mind about what I was saying. I stick by it, though. The greatest villains are the ones you feel sympathy for, the ones you make you see things from their point of view.

My ex-wife and I once got into a great discussion about Kevin Spacey's character in Se7en. We were talking about characters in movies who were self-actualized. I argued that Spacey's killer was self-actualized as he could thoroughly justify his motives, he could explain them, and he acted upon his beliefs. She stated he was not because he killed people and a self-actualized person would not want to harm another. I shot back that a self-actualized person could kill if he thought it would better humanity, something Spacey's character obviously felt, because in the end it is all a matter of numbers and a self-actualized person would have to realize that. It's like the old time travel question: If you can go back through time do you kill Hitler? We never saw eye to eye on the issue of Spacey and self-actualization, and I'm not even sure there is a right answer, but the fact that his character could cause such a debate speaks volumes as to how well it was written (especially when one considers how little screen time he has). We never debated the villain from Event Horizon.

When a movie calls for a villain, I believe the villain has to be better written than the hero. After all, we can all understand the hero's motivations. Luke wants to save the galaxy. Jodie Foster wants to catch a cannibal. Both are tasks we are all familiar with. They really need no explanation. Cannibals wandering around eating people are bad. Floating space stations that blow up planets can really ruin you day. Therefore, the villains have to have extra dimensions to them. It's easy to say Darth Vader is just a guy who wants to help rule the galaxy, and if you only watch one movie you can actually come away with that. The reality is different. Darth Vader starts out as a young boy with much promise who is yanked from his home by strangers. He is trained to be a Jedi and then as a teenager is told he doesn't have the discipline required for his station. His mother dies. He falls in love. As he progresses through life the people he thought he could rely upon show how little they trust him, and that wears him down. He only wants to learn how to keep his loved ones alive forever, and he wants honesty. His switch to the Dark Side is not only believable but also understandable. Hannibal has just as much dimension in the first film (first in the series, not chronologically).

Hannibal Lecter is first and foremost an intellectual. He feels he is above most people, and his knowledge says he is. He is an excellent judge of character, but he is also a sociopath and cannibal. Throughout The Silence of the Lambs you realize that Hannibal is actually scarier behind bars than he is once free because he is so good he can still get you even when locked up. You also realize that if you met him in real life you would most likely be safe because he only seems to kill those dumb enough to fall into his trap, and you think you would never be that dumb. Most people actually think they are smarter than they are, however, and what makes Hannibal work is that he lets you know that. He can hit the flaws in anyone, but since it isn't you, you are safe in laughing at the idiocy of those who fall into his clutches. He kils not only because he wants to, but because he can. He kills those he views as his lessers, and who hasn't wanted to do that from time to time? Compare him to the cannibals in Frontier(s) and you can instantly see why one is a cultural icon and the others will be nothing more than a footnote in cinematic history (though the French horror film is incredible).

The visual imagery of Vader, whose image I opened ths posting with, evokes memories of samurai, Nazis, and ultimately pity. Anyone who has seen all the films knows that underneath that armor is a broken old man who could not survive outside his shell. It's very symbolic, and it works. He is probably the image many people think of first when they think of great movie villains. (And while I like him, he is pretty far down on my list of favorites). He not only symbolizes his own inner demons, but that of all movie villains. We see them on the screen, large than life, striding forth either in costume (Alex) or dressed in normal clothes (The Butcher from I Stand Alone, who is a villain who actually carries the film) while carrying themselves in such a way that the armor is purely mental. We see them and we understand that under all of that is a human just as fragile as us. (Otis cares about his family, Magneto wants his "family" to be left alone by outsiders.) Darth Vader tops movie villains lists not because he is a great villain but because he symbolizes all great villains.

I let a few people read my cannibal manuscript. I was worried that the main villain, a woman I named Momma Rose, wouldn't stand out enough to be memorable. I could live with her not being a villain of epic proportions, but I wanted the audience to have some kind of connection to her. Quite a few readers gave me positive feedback on her, but only one said those words I wanted to hear. "I liked her. She was doing whatever she could to protect her family and keep her heritage alive." That was what I was hoping that people would see in her. They might not agree with the actions I had the character do, but they could understand them.

Villains, the good ones, are memorable because we all think they same thing. There but for the grace of God ...

And if you just don't get it, I don't think you ever will, which is a real shame, too. If you can't see what makes them great, you're actually missing out. You're not getting the entire picture. It may not ruin your enjoyment of the film, but don't expect to win any debates any time soon.

Free Bird

The night I got back from my descent into Hell The Devil's Rejects was playing on cable. Anyone who knows me knows my love of this Rob Zombie film. It's one of the few films in life that I think is actually perfect. Near my bed I have one of the rare movie posters (the one with the arm). It's a film that restores my faith in American cinema and exploitation culture (which is just about dead in any meaningful way). It's a hell of a movie, and I think anyone who appreciates film would have to agree it is very well-made and effective.



I know the film isn't everyone's cup of tea. I try not to judge people on what kind of films, books and music they like, but let's face it: Your artistic and entertainment choices are a reflection of you in one way or another. When someone tells me their favorite movie is the new War of the Worlds, well, I have to question their character. If they tell me Zombie's film is too much for them to take, I can sort of understand that, but also have to think, "It's a movie."

I don't like easy films, films that require little in the way of thought or emotion. I like films that challenge me, bring up emotions, get a reaction. Films that aren't "safe." This film is what I needed to see upon my return. It made me feel whole again. There is something about it that just feels right.

While on vacation I was subjected to some piece of garbage called Secondhand Lions. I didn't watch the whole thing and barely paid attention to it in an effort to save my sanity. What I do know about it, though, is that it was considered a film for the entire family, a feel-good piece of cinema that got some decent praise. The premise? A young teen boy is abandoned by his mother and has to live with two uncles he doesn't know and they don't really seem to like him at first. Yeah, that's a great movie for the kids. Isn't every kid afraid of getting left behind by his parents? Why would this film be considered fine for the entire family? Because everything works out in the end? (That's an assumption.) Because no throats are slit or breasts bared? Because it sugarcoats issues like lying, trust and familial discontent? I'm not saying the film is harmful, but I am saying that what is often put across as family friendly is often just as scary to a kid as something like Zombie's masterpiece. Perhaps it got all kinds of praise because there was no murderous clown. I don't know...

I'm not going to dwell too much longer on the strange state of Hollywood. I think anyone who matters can tell what kind of a joke it is now, and doesn't need me pointing out how ridiculous it is at every step. Just the fact that there is a sequel to Transformers pretty much sums that up as neatly as anything I could write. I will say this, though. I look forward to the day when films as gripping as The Devil's Rejects are as commonplace as things like the latest teen comedy or television show re-imagining. I don't think that day will ever come, but if Hollywood is the land of dreams turned reality, I hope my dream's turn is about due.

A Must See

A friend lent me this DVD. I've wanted to see it for a while. Saw it. Loved it. If you liked the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre ...



Thank God for the French. That country is producing some of the best horror movies to be seen in years. Fuck the Saw series. Fuck endless remakes. Long live the French.

The WTO Is Doomed

I just watched the documentary The Yes Men, and I am impressed. It's not a great documentary, but the spirit of it cannot be denied. In a nutshell, two guys put up a satire website for GATT, and people from around the world contact them thinking they are the WTO. They, as any self-respecting citizen should, take full advantage of this and act as WTO representatives at various conventions and whatnot throughout the planet.

I'm a huge fan of pranks. Pranks change people's perspective on the world. They change people's lives. Pranks with a political/social subtext are even more impressive as they can really open people's eyes to the problems of the world. In that sense, this movie is incredible.

I had read about the Yes Men in various publications and books before, so I did not go into the film blind. To watch audiences' reactions to them was a treat, however, and that's not something you can adequately experience in a written piece. It's amazing how few people question what is going on around them.

I've been known to play a prank or two in my time. Some have been fairly large, but nothing on the scale these guys did. For that I am impressed. If I could pull off something that huge, I would. That fact that these guys did it in front of "the enemy" (in some cases) means even more.

If you can take any lesson from this movie, it is pull pranks whenever you can. Expose people for what they are, and have fun doing it. The people in control of us lose power when we laugh at them. In fact, it does more damage to laugh at them then to shoot them. It's our duty to cut them down to size, and if we can do it with a smile, we've won.

A Sign Of The Apocalypse

The Wayans brothers have a new film out. This shit is in the Bible. It's a sign of doom. I beg of you people, if you have any self-respect, do not see their movies.

Umm, thanks?

I made a mistake ... maybe. I recommended Cannibal Holocaust (see the trailer here) to a friend. I recommended it with Haute Tension. She rented both. She was not exactly thankful for my recommendations, though she liked the slasher more than the cannibals.

I felt bad about recommending Deodato's classic of Italian cinema. I feel real bad. I warned her about the real animal violence and the sexual violence, but still. When I told her it had run into legal problems and had been banned, she had to see why. Had I known she would be watching it alone, I would have recommended against it or told her to come over and watch it with me. It's not exactly a film you should view alone, as many of you who have seen it know. It's grisly. There's no better term. I tried to warn her...

In the end, all is good. She doesn't hate me all that much. I don't know if she'll take any of my recommendations to heart again, but that may be for the best. I hate to think I ruined someone's weekend.

As for the people I hate, you should all rent this feel-good flick for your after Thanksgiving viewing party. Your family will love it. Just make sure you have some buckets handy. You'll need something to catch the puke.

Screaming Baby

This baby from Eraserhead, one of David Lynch's films, creeps me out to know end. It's especially creepy when it gets sick. I don't know why it disturbs me so badly, but it may be because I keep thinking of it as a baby deer with no limbs. Good Lord, what is wrong with Lynch?

The first time I saw this movie I thought it was incomprehensible. After viewing it several more times, I still feel the same way. It's a Lynch film. If you've seen any of his movies you know they are less like narratives and more like dreamscapes. This film is no different. Endless shots of Jack Nance's staring eyes, game hens on plates that still move, a baby that won't stop screaming. Anyone who gives birth to that alien-looking thing should have dashed it on the rocks as soon as it took its first breath. It's the same thing that should have happened to G.W. Bush.
(Ahh, that was unfair. I'm sure he's a product of love.)

Thank you, Mr. Lynch for freaking me out, and still being able to do so to this day. I don't know how or why you did it, but you did it and did it well.

Creepy.

How Do You Do This?

A friend asked me to recommend a film this weekend. I told her I really liked The Devil's Rejects, but warned her it could be disturbing. (Turns out I did not have to worry about that as she sent me one of the most out-of-left-field texts I have ever received, and if I wonder if I should be the one disturbed.) She then asked for other recommendations, and I mentioned the film pictured here, Cannibal Holocaust.

I gave the usual warnings. Sexual violence. Real animal cruelty. I figured it was a safe recommendation after the text I got, but you never know. It seems like, however, whenever someone asks for my recommendations I have to throw in a caveat. When I write my reviews for Film Threat I often have to do the same thing. It comes from a time I just would recommend a film and then have someone flip out on me.

How do you recommend something like Cannibal Holocaust without seeming like a total maniac? I'm not sure you can ... at least not with most people.

The friend I recommended it to said she may work her way up to that one and asked if I had anything in between the two films. (She has since watched The Devil's Rejects again and liked it even more the second time. Should I be worried?)

I recommended I Stand Alone to a few friends. Most of them thought my warnings weren't stern enough, though they all agreed it was a good film. (It's actually a great film that ranks up there as one of the best of all time.) It seems like its a no-win situation. Hell, I've lost friends over film recommendations (Amateur Porn Star Killer comes to mind).
So how do you remedy that?

You don't.

I learned the hard way that no matter what you say about a film, no matter what warnings you give, the end reaction is on the shoulders of each individual viewer. As a critic and friend, you can only tell people what's in the movie, why you like it, and why they might like it. You'll either come off as a prick or a breath of fresh air. My experience, though, shows that you'll usually be the prick. But it all becomes worth it when you get a text like the one I received. You make someone's day and turn them onto a film you love. It doesn't get much better than that.

Happy Thanksgiving, Sickos!

The above trailer is Eli Roth, the man behind the Hostel franchise. It played between films during Grindhouse, a film that ultimately failed. It wasn't horrible, but it lacked spark. The trailers, however, were prime.

Fans of the film can order the Japanese version at Play-Asia. I don't think you'll be disappointed, but I have to admit that if it weren't for the trailers, I would have been even more disappointed. Roth's trailer shows why.

Roth's contribution, besides acting in Death Proof, is filled with bad taste and great imagination. I thought the thing was funny as hell. Others think it is mean spirited. (One of the people I saw the film for actually groaned when he saw the end of the trailer. Watch carefully.) To me it's like a Tom and Jerry cartoon only with vaginal skewering and borderline necrophiliac blow jobs. Yea!

Honestly, I'd love to see Roth's trailer as a feature-length film, along with a couple of the other ones that played. (Hear that, Mr. Zombie? I was lucky enough to talk to your co-star Sybil Danning at some L.A. function two years ago and she told me you had shot about a half hour of the movie and was thinking of doing Werewolf Women of the SS as a feature. What are you waiting for?) They'd be much better than the crap that is coming out this summer. An over played comic book movie? A sci-fi "re-imagining"? Another giant robots fighting film? God, why not just throw in another Apatow comedy to cap it off? Oh, wait ...

Roth and Zombie, hop to it. Horror/exploitation cinema needs you. I need you. Thanksgiving and Nazis need you. I'm begging you. Save cinema.

Maniac

If you like horror films of the slasher variety, chances are you've seen Maniac. It's a fairly nasty, sleazy, gritty slasher film -- the kind that gets feminists up in arms, and it's not exactly easy to defend against their accusations. Just look at the freakin' poster.

The movie is not great. Not even close. I'm not a huge slasher fan. I think most slasher films don't try hard enough. This film tries hard, and gets it right, but the film still doesn't quite do it for me. The killer is pretty realistic, but what really impresses me is how this film has taken on an almost legendary status, even going so far as to have homage in Haute Tension. (And no, it's not that opening decapitated head oral sex scene, which was quite a way to open a film.)

I've written about this film before on Film Threat, so my feelings on it are fairly well known. I'm writing about it again because I've read of remake rumors, and as with most remakes it is a bad idea.

Can this film be remade effectively? Of course not. It's a different culture, a different era. Hell, I don't even think they could do the poster today. Yet, like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, they will try and people will go to it. Hopefully those people will check out the original. They won't feel good after viewing it, but at least they can say they saw a film from a time period when filmmaking was still actually dangerous.

Monsters Vs. Marketing

I have a four-year-old daughter, which means I saw "Monsters Vs. Aliens" ... or at least part of it. I'll admit I thought there could be something I would enjoy in the film, but it just wasn't funny. In fact, my daughter, who loves movies of all sorts (she used to really love "Kill Bill Vol. 1"), asked to leave about a half hour or so before the movie ended. It was giving her a headache (we saw the 2D version), and she just didn't like it. I complied.

It seems this movie is yet another example of marketing vs entertainment/art.

Blame "Star Wars" for all the Happy Meal toys, cups, microwavable meals, backpacks, action figures, shampoo and so on. That movie started a machine that has not stopped rolling since. Not even an ailing economy can keep it down. But what are the pitfalls?

Obviously this is an issue when it comes to children's movies. The products, for the most part, are geared toward children and are directly linked to movies the studios want them to see. By releasing the products before the movie hits theatres, the studios create a sense of excitement for a film. It doesn't matter if the film is good or not, the kids want the toys/meals/accesories before they even plop their ass down in the dark theatre. It's a win-win for everyone on the money end. If the movie sucks, they all still got their money. The only losers in this are the children who end up disliking a movie and are now stuck with things they may no longer want.

Of course, no parent has to buy these things without seeing the movie first, but as anyone who has a kid knows, that isn't exactly fun or easy. (Can you imagine, however, what would happened if the latest animated film were marketed just right and kids all wanted the Dr. Fingerlord toy from Burger King and his character turned out to be a serial rapist in a movie that critics would call "far too adult for children"?) The smart course is to wait until the kids see the movie to see if they'll enjoy all the other stuff.

And then again, toys are toys and kids will often like them regardless of the movie's quality.

Story has taken a back seat to product, though, and since it's Hollywood nobody can be surprised. This will help teach astute children about advertising's pervasive techniques, and will hopefully open up discussion with their equally astute parents ... or not. Either way, the smart money is on this little rule of thumb: The more the movie is marketed, the less substantial it is.

An Explanation

The picture in my blog title is from "Irreversible," a film by one of my favorite directors, Gaspar Noe (I can't make that little accent mark over the "e" in his last name). It's a brutal, brilliant film that shows exactly what good cinema is capable of. It's not easy to watch (like his other equally incredible film "I Stand Alone"), but it is important. It's everything I actually love about movies. Cinematography that draws you in and puts you on edge. A soundtrack that upsets your stomach (done on purpose). A story that holds no punches. You watch it and you realize anything can happen at any time and you are not safe.

That's what I love in a film.

I started this blog as a way to continue what I originally started with my old weekly column, "Excess Hollywood" on Film Threat. I no longer do the column, but still review films there and do the occasional interview. I've been involved in film journalism over ten years now. I've seen a lot. Little of it good. This blog is going to cover film, and yes it is a love letter to cinema, as I believe film, even more than my first love (books) can reach people the way no other artform can.

Sit back and enjoy, but like "Irreversible," it won't always be pleasant.