20 Questions for Me

Web directory, search engine and “knowledge exchange” site Mahalo.com is currently sponsoring a new series for prominent authors called “20 questions for ….“ and — yay! – I’m next up in the programming queue.

So, if you have any questions you’d like to ask me about writing reference books,  or specifically about Horror Films of the 1970s, Horror Films of the 1980s and Horror Films of the 1990s, this is the opportunity to pose them! 

I’ll actually get to answer all twenty questions on video, which should be extremely cool… assuming I don’t make a complete fool of myself in the process.

Anyway, follow this link to Reddit, and ask away! 

I’ll be recording the video Friday afternoon, and responding to all your questions then.  I’ll let you know when the video page is posted.

28 Years Ago This Weekend…

…John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982) was released in theaters nationwide (against Steven Spielberg’s E.T.) to a slew of negative reviews and even a backlash against its talented director.

It’s a funny turn of events: today, almost three decades later, the film is critically lauded and there’s even a prequel in production. But in 1982, the film was considered a bomb, and some people even feared Carpenter’s career was over. Hah!

Here’s a snippet from my review of The Thing:

In the waning days of the summer of 1982, my parents took me to an afternoon matinee, a double-feature at a second-run theater in Los Angeles. I couldn’t have guessed so beforehand, but this excursion to the movies was a life-changing event for me.

That description sounds like unwarranted hyperbole until you understand that the double-bill consisted of Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner and John Carpenter’s The Thing.

Imagine — just for a moment — seeing those particular films back-to-back, one after the other, on the big screen.

Then consider the impact these two genre films have on our pop culture had over time. It’s…staggering.

If you think about it, both productions share more in common than may appear obvious at first blush. Primarily, both Blade Runner and The Thing explore the existential angst of what it means to be human. Protagonists in each film combat creatures that mimic or imitate the human shape, but are indistinctly inhuman. In both films, the impostor is also an infiltrator…virtually unrecognizable — hidden — in a larger population. Both films also feature ambiguous endings: we’re not exactly certain if humanity is victorious. In far more grounded terms, both genre movies have outlived overwhelming mainstream critical disdain and poor box-office receipts.

Indeed, Blade Runner and The Thing have emerged as two of the most beloved (and forward-looking…) films of the Age of Reagan. They’ve defined the direction of their respective genres too.

Suffice it to say, I had much to think about in the days and weeks (and months and years…) following that double feature matinee. So today, in keeping with my recent John Carpenter theme here on the blog, I want to gaze at The Thing, the film that almost literally cost John Carpenter his career in Hollywood.

Why? Well, in the summer of Spielberg’s E.T. — in the days of the ascendant Moral Majority — a great many critics found Carpenter’s trailblazing horror film…questionable. On one notorious occasion, the auteur was actually termed a “pornographer of violence” for what was, in essence, a faithful visual recreation of a short story written in 1938 (“Who Goes There?” by John W. Campbell). The moral watch guards weren’t alone in their condemnation of The Thing; an older generation of horror fans raised on Howard Hawks’ original version of The Thing also seemed to reflexively dislike this remake. This dislike was in spite of many deliberate (and elaborate) Carpenter homages to that famous screen predecessor.

I summarized the poisonous critical reception to The Thing in my book, The Films of John Carpenter (McFarland; 2000), but for context and history, I wanted to provide at least a handful of quotes here and now, so you might accurately glean a sense of the absolute vitriol spewed at the film and its helmsman.

Newsweek called The Thing an example of “the New Aesthetic – atrocity for atrocity’s sake.” (David Ansen; Newsweek: “Frozen Slime,” June 28, 1982). Reviewing the film for Starlog, Alan Spencer wrote: “It’s my contention that John Carpenter was never meant to direct science fiction horror movies. Here’s some things he’d be better suited to direct: Traffic accidents, train wrecks and public floggings….” (Starlog # 64, November 1982, page 69.)

And that’s just the tip of the bloody iceberg, to adopt an appropriate metaphor.

Yet today – in 2009 – John Carpenter’s The Thing is widely acknowledged as a masterpiece. It resides in the top 250 movies of all-time on the IMDB (at #173), and I counted it as the best horror film of its decade in Horror Films of the 1980s (McFarland; 2007). Of The Thing, The Village Voice’s Scott Foundas wrote in 2008: “this spatial masterpiece of desolate Arctic vistas at odds with close-quarters claustrophobia has…been hailed as a high totem of modern horror-making. There remains something deeply unnerving about Carpenter’s ambiguity as to whether the movie’s shape-shifting alien is distorting its hosts’ personalities or merely revealing something of their primal selves.”

For me, The Thing stands the test of time as a great film for several reasons. It’s not only the film’s finely-honed sense of paranoia that makes it a remarkable achievement, but the glacial, icy feelings of personal “alienation” from society that the story and presentation seem to evoke so powerfully.

Furthermore, John Carpenter’s The Thing involves not just alienation from civilization. It also makes a very squeamish, very uneasy case for the frailty and fragility of the human form itself; call it alienation of the flesh.

Additionally, it’s difficult not to interpret the “invasion” by the shape-shifting thing as an early harbinger of AIDS, a malady whispered about at the time of the film’s genesis as a “wasting disease” or “The Gay Plague.” In much more general form, the film succeeds in raising hackles over the universal fear of contagion, of disease…of the body subverted, co-opted and deformed by an implacable and invisible intruder. If not AIDS, the invader could be cancer, another STD, even old age itself.

Finally, The Thing represents such a singular experience because of the titular monster. Never before in the history of the horror film had audiences witnessed such an elusive, transcendent entity: a life-form in constant evolution and motion, never pausing — never stopping — long enough for us to get a grasp of what it “was.” Although Scott’s Alien was undeniably brilliant and fascinating in its depiction of an alien life-cycle, that life-cycle still had, ultimately, a recognizable shape and a direction (egg, face hugger, chest burster, adult drone…). By contrast, Carpenter’s “Thing” was always…becoming.

The Thing serves as the first movement in John Carpenter’s self-named “Apocalypse Trilogy” (followed by 1987’s Prince of Darkness and 1994’s In The Mouth of Madness), and most genre fans are familiar with the general outline of the story, either from the remarkable Campbell literary work, or the 1950s Howard Hawks version, The Thing from Another World (1951).

In short, John Carpenter’s The Thing lands us in freezing Antarctica during the winter of 1982. A strange incident occurs at American Outpost 31, when a Norwegian helicopter breaks the peace and silence of snow.

The foreign chopper pilot and his cohort seem to be relentlessly (and madly…) pursuing a dog, a malamute. The pilot attempts to kill the canine, but in the ensuing scuffle the helicopter is destroyed and an armed Norwegian is shot dead by Outpost 31’s macho commander, Garry (Moffat).

Curious about what could have possibly driven the Norwegian scientists to such heights of apparent insanity, Outpost 31′s Doc Copper (Richard Dysart) and helicopter pilot R.J. MacReady (Kurt Russell) travel to the foreign camp and find it utterly ruined, destroyed. Record tapes reveal that the Norwegians unearthed a flying saucer – and an alien – frozen in the ice for 100,000 years. They used Thermite charges to bring both to the surface. MacReady and Copper bring back the tapes, and also the inhuman, half-burned corpse of…something.

Before long, the men of Outpost 31 must grapple with the fact that an alien life form is loose in their camp. It is a chameleon who can perfectly imitate human beings right down to the minutest memories and speech patterns. Dr. Blair (Wilford Brimley) calculates that after 27,000 hours from first contact with the civilized world, the entire planet Earth will be infected by the extra-terrestrial shape shifter. MacReady and the others must now determine — in short order — who is a “thing” and who is a man, and arrange for a blood serum test to help them identify the interloper (or interlopers) hiding in their midst.

Nobody Trusts Anybody Now: Alienation from the World At Large

The political and societal turbulence of the 1970s (from Vietnam to Watergate to the Energy Crisis to Three Mile Island) gave rise in some cases to a deepening sense of personal, community and spiritual dissatisfaction in America of the late 1970s and early 1980s.

One might term this mood the “spirit of the times,” but whatever we call it, many Americans began to feel deep misgivings about the status quo, about an increasingly untrustworthy, shallow, unjust, and material culture. The nation’s confidence – which had so memorably suffered a “crisis” in Carter’s America – had eroded.

Punk/thrash music gave voice to this sense of discontentment in popular music throughout the 1980s; and horror films such as George A. Romero’s Dawn of the Dead (1978) and The Amityville Horror (1979) pinpointed sources of anxiety in the consumer culture and such seemingly-sturdy American cultural pillars as home-ownership. In these visions, the faceless masses at the local shopping mall were actually slobbering zombies, and monthly mortgage payments could run you out of your too-expensive house faster than your average demonic possession….

There also begin to arise a sense in late 70s-early 80s America that the person next door – your very neighbor — could actually be a monster in disguise…a person that, despite all physical appearances to the contrary, could be harboring monstrous, murderous secrets (think David Lynch’s Blue Velvet [1986]).

In part, this uncertainty about the nature of “the next door neighbor” was a result of an unexpected reversal in population migration patterns. Whereas in earlier decades of the 20th century, people from small-towns had moved to the big cities (as part of industrialization…), in the early 1980s we saw “counter-urbanization:” a flight or escape from metropolitan population centers in favor of quieter, emptier areas, whether rural or suburban. This pattern was possible because of increased car production and affordability, and governmental incentives that made new home construction and home-ownership easier.

But the evils and eccentricities that some people (rightly or wrongly) associated with “big” cities also came home to roost in suburban America in this process of counter-urbanization. The Evils were named, in some cases, Ted Bundy, or John Wayne Gacy. On the surface: normal appearing. The truth: monsters in human shape.

As I’ve written before in regards to this epoch, the combination of inexpensive air transportation and the uniquely American tendency to put down roots far from one’s original home, assured that the neighbors within your average “Cuesta Verde” might be ethically or morally separate from the ideals of those living around them.

In a sense, this was true American integration: blacks and whites living peacably next door; Yankees and Confederates amicably perched across a drive-way; Christians and atheists on the same cul-de-sac; gays and straights sharing a common backyard, etc. Most of the time this was good — we learn from each other’s differences — but in isolated circumstances (if your neighbor happened to be Jeffrey Dahmner, for instance)…not so much. With a burgeoning tabloid media developing on young cable TV, it was the negative and sensational incidents which became widely known and disseminated.

The resulting ambiguity about what evil might dwell in “the house next door” created an age of uncertainty in which people didn’t really know — and therefore could not always trust — their neighbors. The result: deeper alienation, suspicion and even paranoia.

John Carpenter’s The Thing is very deliberately crafted in this world of estrangement and alienation. Consider that all the men at Outpost 31 have left behind their mother society (America), much as many disaffected youngsters in the early 1970s attempted to leave the American culture for “new” communal societies. An early version of Bill Lancaster’s script allegedly revealed MacReady’s specific sense of “displacement” after the Vietnam War, another expression of alienation from country…

You can read the rest of the piece here.

Every Town Has An Elm Street: The Tao of Freddy K.

In William Schoell and James Spencer’s superlative companion, The Nightmare Never Ends: The Official History of Freddy Krueger and the Nightmare on Elm Street Films (Citadel, 1992), director and horror icon Wes Craven briefly recounts the youthful experience that led him to create cinematic dream-killer Freddy Krueger.

Specifically, Craven reported that — as an eleven year-old – he awoke one night from slumber to the sound of strange, scuffling sounds outside his bedroom window.

Young Craven got up out of his bed, went to the window, and gazed down to the avenue below. There, a mysterious stranger stood. The man looked up at the window and met young Craven’s stare. A terrified Craven hid for several minutes.

When Craven returned to the window, the stranger was still standing there; still looking up at the window…in the exact same position. He hadn’t moved.

Then, the man entered Wes Craven’s building, slowly climbed the stairs to the family apartment — his footsteps audible — and neared the front door…

“As an adult, I can look back and say that that was one of the most profoundly frightening experiences I have ever had,” Craven told the authors of The Nightmare Never Ends. “That guy has never left my mind, nor has the feeling of how frightening an adult stranger can be. He was not only frightening, but he was amused by the fact that he was frightening and able to anticipate my inner thoughts…” (page 179).

Meet Freddy Krueger, the villain of Craven’s A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), and unarguably the most popular movie boogeyman of a generation.

This Friday the legend of Freddy K. is re-born with a big budget remake of the seminal Nightmare on Elm Street but — disappointingly — without Craven’s input, advice or participation.

Considering the imminent silver-screen re-birth of Krueger, this seemed like the ideal time to go back and remember those qualities that made Robert Englund’s Freddy such a powerful cultural influence in the mid-to-late 1980s.

1. When the Parents Are Away, Freddy Plays:

In Craven’s original film, Freddy’s teenage victims have literally no place to turn.

Tina’s Mom is more interested in shacking up with her boyfriend than in helping Tina (Amanda Wyss) deal with her night terrors. Nancy’s Mom (Ronee Blakeley) is a (mostly) useless drunk. Nancy’s Dad (John Saxon) is a police detective, and always “on the job.” Instead of listening to Nancy and helping her fight Freddy Krueger, he uses Nancy as bait to catch the wrong person (Rod). Glenn’s Dad, Mr. Lantz (Ed Call) hangs-up on Nancy when she calls to check up on Glenn (Johnny Depp). “You’ve got to be firm with these kids!” he barks. The price of that self-righteous telephone hang-up: Glenn gets torn up by Freddy in the blood-flood to end all blood floods.

The adult world depicted in A Nightmare on Elm Street is not one friendly to children. In fact, local children sing the famous jump rope song (“one, two, Freddy’s coming for you…”) from one generation to the next, to warn one another about Krueger and his monstrous actions. The parents themselves are too busy burying the past; too busy burying the “truth” in the hope that what they repress and deny will simply stay buried. Of course, it doesn’t.

Freddy visits the sins of the parents (murder) on the children, and because their parents aren’t honest with them, the children of Elm Street don’t even know why this is happening to them.

Writing for People in May of 1985, critic Ralph Novak wrote that “Craven is something of a generational turncoat. While he is 35, all of his adult characters have the intelligence and courage of cantaloupes.”

That’s exactly right…by design. Nightmare on Elm Street is about the younger generation learning to make it on its own; about recognizing the terrors of adulthood. And yes, there are some things worse than lying or obfuscating parents.

And that’s what Freddy is: the amused stranger from Craven’s childhood who enjoys terrorizing children because he can.

There’s something especially upsetting about this aspect of Freddy, the fact that he preys on children, on the young. The world can be a pretty frightening place even for adults (even without Krueger) in it, but just imagine being eighteen and finding out that this guy is after you. One of my favorite lines from the original film is Nancy’s (Heather Langenkamp) shocked realization that — without sleep — she “looks twenty.” That comment is so innocent, and yet so dead-pan. She means it. Not being forty years old like me for instance, she doesn’t see that it’s funny…that twenty years old is just a blip on the radar. Freddy is such a monster because he destroys such innocence. And he relishes the job.

2.) Freddy is the Man of Your Dreams:
Freddy is also incredibly frightening because, much like Michael Myers, he’s utterly inescapable.

The great white shark from Jaws can’t kill you if you don’t go into the ocean, for instance. However, everyone must sleep sooner or later. Everybody has to dream. And that’s the field where Freddy stalks his prey, on the dream plateau. Freddy can afford to be patient because he knows that he always has the home-field advantage. He lives in dreams, and we just visit that often-surreal place.

The dream sequences of a Nightmare on Elm Street – at least before some of the more outrageous rubber reality set-pieces of the sequels set-in — all play cannily on very basic human fears. That we’re being chased for instance, and that our feet get, essentially, stuck in mud. Or that there’s something hiding in the bubble bath unseen…where we’re vulnerable. Or that the monster chasing us can stretch beyond human proportions to grab us.

Freddy scares us because we’re all vulnerable to the irrationality of dreams. But again, Freddy thrives there. He uses that irrationality, that vulnerability against us. Our nightmare landscape is his playground.

3.) To Be Or Not To Be: That is the Question Freddy Poses:
I always say that Nancy Thompson is Hamlet for the horror set.

Consider that A Nightmare on Elm Street serves as a direct thematic counterpoint to John Carpenter’s Halloween (1978).

In Halloween, Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) sits in high school English class while an unseen adult teacher drones on about “fate” and “destiny.” In the midst of the class, Laurie sees Michael Myers’ car on the street: she thus glimpses her fate. As the teacher explains on the soundtrack that “you can’t escape fate,” we are led (through the visuals) to understand the connection: that Laurie cannot escape her impending connection to an escaped serial killer.

By contrast, A Nightmare on Elm Street finds Nancy Thomas in another high school English class as a teacher discusses the resourcefulness of the melancholy prince in Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The teacher notes that Hamlet “stamps out the lies” of his mother, something which Nancy will do in Elm Street as well, and that the prince “probes and digs” to find the truth. Again, that’s the very task Nancy undertakes: seeking information about the life and death of Freddy Krueger, and her parents’ role in his murder.

The Elm Street philosophy suggest that only by digging beneath the surface, by learning the truth of a thing, can one overcome the sins of one’s parents and survive. The key to beating Freddy is to know and understand him: to see that he thrives on the energy of your hate, and then rob him of that energy.

4.) Freddy is the 1980s Personified: Apocalypse, Armageddon, and Deficit Spending

I realize that my conservative friends and readers get exasperated with me for pointing out some, er, unpleasant facets of the Ronald Reagan years in America.

Like the fact that Reagan repeatedly expressed a belief that we were living in the Bilbical End Times.

Like the fact that he joked about bombing Russia on an open mic, or claimed, erroneously that nuclear missiles could be recalled after launch.

Or that his tax cuts for the utra-rich turned an 80 billion dollar deficit into a 200 billion deficit in just two years.

Or that 35 million more Americans lived below the poverty line in 1983 than did before he was inaugurated.

It was in this decade, as well, that middle-class American families, by trying to keep up with the yuppie Joneses, had to become two-income households. And that meant the advent of the “latch-key kid” syndrome: the child who came home from school to find…nobody at home.

All of this context plays into the terror that is Freddy Krueger. The sins of the father – the national debt – is visited onto the children; just as the sins of the father (murder) was visited upon the children of Elm Street. More than that, the ascent of Freddy – a hellish demon — in supposedly secure middle America suggested nothing less than an apocalypse in the making.

In Freddy’s Dead we saw what ultimately became of Freddy’s Springwood. As you may recall, the affluent community had turned into a ghost-town. And today, to continue the economic metaphor, there are hundreds of small towns in America where Main Street looks just like Springwood: places where the economic policies of the last thirty years have destroyed prosperity.

This is who Freddy was. Who Freddy has been for a quarter-century.

After Friday, I’m not sure who he will be. If the talents behind the remake are smart, they have paid adequate note to our unsettled times; to America’s continuing dreads and fears.

If the new Freddy can tap into these 2010 bugaboos, then the long-lived dream demon will survive the translation to the next generation.

If Freddy becomes, instead, just a ring-master shepherding a circus of impressive special effects, this new iteration of the legend may not carry the power of his predecessor. I wish Craven had been involved in the making of the film; at least then we would know for certain that the film would carry some sub textual meaning, or genuflect to the ideas that have currency in today’s America.

If you’re interested in reading more about Freddy and his creator’s history, don’t forget to check out my 1998 book: Wes Craven: The Art of Horror.

CULT MOVIE REVIEW: Home Sweet Home (1980)

“A little craziness never hurt anyone…”

- Dialogue from Home Sweet Home (1980)

In honor of the approaching holiday, today I’m looking back at a really terrible horror film that I first encountered while writing Horror Films of the 1980s (2007).

Conveniently, it’s both Thanksgiving-themed and a turkey.

Advertised with the ad-line “The Bradleys won’t be leaving home. Ever,” Home Sweet Home (1981) is the not-so-riveting story of a deranged serial killer and his holiday rampage.

Said serial killer is portrayed by Body by Jake’s (1988) gleeful Jake Steinfeld. The enthusiastic exercise guru – also known for his music label, “Don’t Quit Music” — plays this muscular madman as a cackling, bulging-eyed freak. This looney killer has the tattoo “home sweet home” emblazoned on his fist, and was incarcerated for eight years over the bludgeoning death of his parents.

In one of the film’s first scenes, this hyperactive, super-fit killer takes PCP by injecting it into his tongue, guns his car engine rowdily, and then runs over a little old lady crossing the street.

Lots of maniacal, silent-movie-style, villlainous cackling over that. Unfortunately, Jake has no moustache to twirl.

Meanwhile, at a Southern California ranch, the unconventional Bradley family is preparing for a holiday that may or may not be Thanksgiving. Let’s see: there’s a turkey. There’s a celebratory meal. There’s a family gathering. And there are guests. But no one mentions Turkey Day by name. The VHS box does it for us.

Anyway — for some reason — the obnoxious Bradley son, charmingly named “Mistake,” is dressed as a mime for the occasion. He’s a practical joke-playing mime, no less. And did I mention, Mistake also dabbles in the electric guitar?

Unfortunately, the mime is one of the last characters to die in Home Sweet Home, meaning the audience must endure Mistake’s lame antics for a very long time before the movie arrives at his fateful, and wholly-deserved electrocution.

The holiday meal with the Bradley family promises to be an unusual one too, not just because Mistake is a mime and because an uninvited serial killer is on his way, but because one of the invitees “won’t drink anything,” since “she hates to go to the bathroom.” WTF? You know, I don’t particularly like going to the bathroom either. I think I’ll stop drinking too. I didn’t realize it was that simple…

And did I mention that some crack cops are on the case, investigating the murders and pursuing the body-builder killer? The classy cops gawk at one character’s overripe breasts after stopping her for speeding, and share this colloquy:

“Did you see that chick with the big bazooms?”

Since Home Sweet Home is incompetently shot, written and acted, one might hope that the violence Jake ultimately inflicts on the Bradley family would at least prove entertaining. But it isn’t (well, except for the death of the mime, to be fair…). One character dies when she falls over and cracks her head against a rock. Can you really blame Ole Jack for that? Another character gets his head crushed under the hood of a car.

Home Sweet Home exhibits the familiar flaw of the worst slasher films, meaning that the killer is always positioned right where he should be in order to kill the one character who happens to be left alone at any given moment. You might accept that level of expertise from a Michael Myers or a Jason…but by Jake Steinfeld? I just can’t ascribe supernatural abilities to this guy. Enthusiasm, gung-ho inspiration, yes. Boogeyman capabilities…no.

Mere words can’t truly convey how irrevocably horrible this movie is. So Happy Thanksgiving, caveat emptor, and…gobble, gobble.

CULT MOVIE REVIEW: The Prey (1984)

As I wrote in my compendium, Horror Films of the 1980s (McFarland; 2007) I’ve always enjoyed the “mountain man” variation on the 1980s Slasher Paradigm as seen in such films as Just Before Dawn (1983), The Final Terror (1985) and even Wrong Turn (2003).

You know the type of genre movie I’m talking about: all the same Friday the 13th stock characters (bitch, jock, stoner, Final Girl, drunken Cassandra warning against trespass…) and all the same stock situations (the car won’t start, vice-precedes-slice-and-dice, the false scare, the cat jump, etc.).

One significant difference, however is that the villain is a hulking sometimes-disfigured “mountain man” rather than a masked, faceless killer.

These “mountain man” slasher variations are often set in extremely isolated, picturesque settings — meaning no rescue is possible — and tread heavily into the transgressive realm of the savage cinema (which includes the territory of rape and revenge, among other things…).

A modest but noteworthy entry in this mountain man/slasher sweepstakes is Edwin Scott Brown’s The Prey, a super-low budget film of the Reagan Era (though reportedly it was shot near the end of the 1970s..). It is not an elegant film and it is not a spectacular one…and yet — in many important ways — it accomplishes the primary mission of any good slasher: it terrifies. That terror is augmented by some good location shooting; shooting which tends to augment the leitmotif that the offending lead teens are not welcome in the domain of the wild forest. There, they must reckon with all sorts of predators…including the the wild mountain man. The mountain man is part of nature himself; nature’s avenger even.

In The Prey, six young and irresponsible adults from the city, Nancy (Debbie Thureson), Joel (Steve Bond), Bobbie (Lori Lethin), Skip (Robert Wald), Gail (Gayle Gannes) and Greg (Philip Wenckus) hike into the thick woods at North Point, oblivious to the fact that a nice married couple was recently axe-murdered there while camping. Before long, the young adults are the prey of a monstrous assailant, a deformed gypsy (Carel Struycken). A heroic forest ranger (Jackson Bostwick) attempts to rescue the hikers, but the giant wild man is a savage foe…and looking for…a mate.

After an axe-decapitation (our first act coup-de-grace…) at the outset, The Prey next settles down into…stock nature footage. The audience gets long views of centipedes, frogs, spiders and more. There are long shots of impressive mountain ranges, babbling brooks, a spider’s web and a majestic hawk overhead, searching for prey.

Then — in direct opposition to the images of nature featured in this montage — the camera catches sight of an unwanted invader: a modern van pulling into woods. All too soon, the van ejects bellowing, loud-mouthed, obnoxious teenagers, kids who clearly don’t give a damn about the “natural” world around them. In fact, the film’s protagonists treat the land as if they own it, committing transgression after transgression. One teenager turns up the volume on her radio in the woods — literally replacing the call of the wild with rock-and-roll, and, well, you just know Mother Nature is pissed.

Many reviewers have concluded that the stock nature footage included The Prey is mainly just padding, a way to lengthen a film too short for feature release. Indeed this may be so, but in this particular instance, the nature footage also serves a point (even if unintended): it serves as an explicit reminder that the teens have tread into a domain where they are no longer in control, and furthermore that nature is a force to be reckoned with. The teens experience “push back” not just from the scarred mountain man, but from the combined forces of the nature itself, which seem to judge them as invaders.

This approach fits into one of my primary theories about slasher films in general: we enjoy them because — for the most part – we all live in safe, artificial communities protected by layers of law enforcement and bureaucracy. We have no real predators, and we are perched at the top of the food chain. I believe some part of us –perhaps a prehistoric part of us — desires a challenge; a test of our survival skill set. We suspect, perhaps subconsciously, that such a challenge might even emerge from the wild (that’s where they came from in the past, after all…). That’s why Jason lives in the woods and his approach is almost universally heralded by a crackling thunderstorm. He is, simply put, a Force of Nature.

In other words, we had to invent Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger as horror movie predators because our contemporary lives are so safe and, well, predictable. The slasher films — as ritualistic and repetitive as a (bloody) sporting event — provide us the opportunity to imagine ourselves matched up against these predators. I think it’s a healthy response, frankly (and I love the slasher format.)

Anyway, getting back to The Prey, there’s a point in the film in which Mark (the forest ranger) discovers a corpse. This gruesome find is inter-cut with — again — stock footage of vultures high up on a tree limb. The connection between the two shots is explicit: the dead body is no longer a “person” but has joined the food chain of the pitiless forest and shall be treated as such. Again, the “padding” serves a kind of unique purpose. It actually adds to the artistic value of the film.

The Prey’s focus on natural images reminds the viewer at all times that the mountain man — a nemesis who is comfortable in these surroundings — has the home team advantage in any face-to-face battle. Nature is his ally, because he lives in apparent harmony with it. For instance, at the teens’ campsite earlier in the film, nature seems to come to life and encroach on the young interlopers. Snakes slither towards camp, owls land nearby, and nature focuses on the unaware, the oblivious, just as the mountain man also approaches. Ultimately, it is an attack from several fronts, but all fronts have one commander: Mother Nature.

Perhaps the film could have down with fewer shots of “nature” and still made this point, but in this case, the inclusion of stock footage actually grants The Prey a kind of artistic perimeter to work within. The focus on the living forest also serves, after a fashion, as counterpoint to the Friday the 13th films, which, as they progressed, became increasingly lazy and couldn’t be bothered to provide such crucial horror elements as atmosphere or mood, let alone character. By contrasts, it’s clear in The Prey that this is not Jason’s “silent,” unoccupied Hollywood forest, but rather a living, breathing ecosystem teeming with life and vying agendas. That’s an important distinction in a movie that is very much a man vs. nature story.

The character named Nancy serves as the film’s Final Girl, the plucky lass who seems more insightful and aware than her offending friends. But what ultimately makes The Prey a rather daring variation on the slasher formula is the film’s sting in the tail/tale following the final chase. Nancy suffers a terrible fate; one that is explained only with sound effects. I won’t say any more about this coda, only that I had never seen (or heard…) this ending in a slasher film before, and that is told efficiently: a baby’s cries linger over further images of the immortal forest. Yes, it’s sort of sick, but also rather ingenious.

At times, The Prey reminded me strongly of Wes Craven’s The Hills Have Eyes (though it is nowhere near that good). It’s one of those modest, mostly forgotten low-budget 1980s horror films (like 1980′s The Children) that is probably better than the film’s reputation suggests. Yes, there’s too much “wild kingdom” footage in The Prey, but somehow that seems entirely appropriate, given how the film uses it.

CULT MOVIE REVIEW: The Prey (1984)

As I wrote in my compendium, Horror Films of the 1980s (McFarland; 2007) I’ve always enjoyed the “mountain man” variation on the 1980s Slasher Paradigm as seen in such films as Just Before Dawn (1983), The Final Terror (1985) and even Wrong Turn (2003).

You know the type of genre movie I’m talking about: all the same Friday the 13th stock characters (bitch, jock, stoner, Final Girl, drunken Cassandra warning against trespass…) and all the same stock situations (the car won’t start, vice-precedes-slice-and-dice, the false scare, the cat jump, etc.).

One significant difference, however is that the villain is a hulking sometimes-disfigured “mountain man” rather than a masked, faceless killer.

These “mountain man” slasher variations are often set in extremely isolated, picturesque settings — meaning no rescue is possible — and tread heavily into the transgressive realm of the savage cinema (which includes the territory of rape and revenge, among other things…).

A modest but noteworthy entry in this mountain man/slasher sweepstakes is Edwin Scott Brown’s The Prey, a super-low budget film of the Reagan Era (though reportedly it was shot near the end of the 1970s..). It is not an elegant film and it is not a spectacular one…and yet — in many important ways — it accomplishes the primary mission of any good slasher: it terrifies. That terror is augmented by some good location shooting; shooting which tends to augment the leitmotif that the offending lead teens are not welcome in the domain of the wild forest. There, they must reckon with all sorts of predators…including the the wild mountain man. The mountain man is part of nature himself; nature’s avenger even.

In The Prey, six young and irresponsible adults from the city, Nancy (Debbie Thureson), Joel (Steve Bond), Bobbie (Lori Lethin), Skip (Robert Wald), Gail (Gayle Gannes) and Greg (Philip Wenckus) hike into the thick woods at North Point, oblivious to the fact that a nice married couple was recently axe-murdered there while camping. Before long, the young adults are the prey of a monstrous assailant, a deformed gypsy (Carel Struycken). A heroic forest ranger (Jackson Bostwick) attempts to rescue the hikers, but the giant wild man is a savage foe…and looking for…a mate.

After an axe-decapitation (our first act coup-de-grace…) at the outset, The Prey next settles down into…stock nature footage. The audience gets long views of centipedes, frogs, spiders and more. There are long shots of impressive mountain ranges, babbling brooks, a spider’s web and a majestic hawk overhead, searching for prey.

Then — in direct opposition to the images of nature featured in this montage — the camera catches sight of an unwanted invader: a modern van pulling into woods. All too soon, the van ejects bellowing, loud-mouthed, obnoxious teenagers, kids who clearly don’t give a damn about the “natural” world around them. In fact, the film’s protagonists treat the land as if they own it, committing transgression after transgression. One teenager turns up the volume on her radio in the woods — literally replacing the call of the wild with rock-and-roll, and, well, you just know Mother Nature is pissed.

Many reviewers have concluded that the stock nature footage included The Prey is mainly just padding, a way to lengthen a film too short for feature release. Indeed this may be so, but in this particular instance, the nature footage also serves a point (even if unintended): it serves as an explicit reminder that the teens have tread into a domain where they are no longer in control, and furthermore that nature is a force to be reckoned with. The teens experience “push back” not just from the scarred mountain man, but from the combined forces of the nature itself, which seem to judge them as invaders.

This approach fits into one of my primary theories about slasher films in general: we enjoy them because — for the most part – we all live in safe, artificial communities protected by layers of law enforcement and bureaucracy. We have no real predators, and we are perched at the top of the food chain. I believe some part of us –perhaps a prehistoric part of us — desires a challenge; a test of our survival skill set. We suspect, perhaps subconsciously, that such a challenge might even emerge from the wild (that’s where they came from in the past, after all…). That’s why Jason lives in the woods and his approach is almost universally heralded by a crackling thunderstorm. He is, simply put, a Force of Nature.

In other words, we had to invent Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger as horror movie predators because our contemporary lives are so safe and, well, predictable. The slasher films — as ritualistic and repetitive as a (bloody) sporting event — provide us the opportunity to imagine ourselves matched up against these predators. I think it’s a healthy response, frankly (and I love the slasher format.)

Anyway, getting back to The Prey, there’s a point in the film in which Mark (the forest ranger) discovers a corpse. This gruesome find is inter-cut with — again — stock footage of vultures high up on a tree limb. The connection between the two shots is explicit: the dead body is no longer a “person” but has joined the food chain of the pitiless forest and shall be treated as such. Again, the “padding” serves a kind of unique purpose. It actually adds to the artistic value of the film.

The Prey’s focus on natural images reminds the viewer at all times that the mountain man — a nemesis who is comfortable in these surroundings — has the home team advantage in any face-to-face battle. Nature is his ally, because he lives in apparent harmony with it. For instance, at the teens’ campsite earlier in the film, nature seems to come to life and encroach on the young interlopers. Snakes slither towards camp, owls land nearby, and nature focuses on the unaware, the oblivious, just as the mountain man also approaches. Ultimately, it is an attack from several fronts, but all fronts have one commander: Mother Nature.

Perhaps the film could have down with fewer shots of “nature” and still made this point, but in this case, the inclusion of stock footage actually grants The Prey a kind of artistic perimeter to work within. The focus on the living forest also serves, after a fashion, as counterpoint to the Friday the 13th films, which, as they progressed, became increasingly lazy and couldn’t be bothered to provide such crucial horror elements as atmosphere or mood, let alone character. By contrasts, it’s clear in The Prey that this is not Jason’s “silent,” unoccupied Hollywood forest, but rather a living, breathing ecosystem teeming with life and vying agendas. That’s an important distinction in a movie that is very much a man vs. nature story.

The character named Nancy serves as the film’s Final Girl, the plucky lass who seems more insightful and aware than her offending friends. But what ultimately makes The Prey a rather daring variation on the slasher formula is the film’s sting in the tail/tale following the final chase. Nancy suffers a terrible fate; one that is explained only with sound effects. I won’t say any more about this coda, only that I had never seen (or heard…) this ending in a slasher film before, and that is told efficiently: a baby’s cries linger over further images of the immortal forest. Yes, it’s sort of sick, but also rather ingenious.

At times, The Prey reminded me strongly of Wes Craven’s The Hills Have Eyes (though it is nowhere near that good). It’s one of those modest, mostly forgotten low-budget 1980s horror films (like 1980′s The Children) that is probably better than the film’s reputation suggests. Yes, there’s too much “wild kingdom” footage in The Prey, but somehow that seems entirely appropriate, given how the film uses it.

…thank God they’re somebody else’s!

…thank God they’re somebody else’s!

CULT MOVIE REVIEW: The Children (1980)

“Expendable as it is, The Children may serve as a useful audition film…Every so often, an inventive, eerie shot betrays the presence of a fitfully effective visual imagination…”

-Gary Arnold, The Washington Post: “Have You Hugged Your Ghoul Today?” (July 9, 1980, page B6)

The China Syndrome (1979) — an A-budget Hollywood thriller starring Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon and Michael Douglas — premiered in U.S. theaters on March 16, 1979. The film involved a meltdown at a nuclear power installation. A scientist in the film ominously warned that such a disaster would render an area “the size of Pennsylvania” uninhabitable for centuries.

A mere twelve days later, life imitated art…

On March 28, 1979, a partial nuclear meltdown occurred at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station (Unit 2)…in Pennsylvania.

The entire country — perhaps the world — was transfixed for days as the nightmarish, fictional scenario presented in the film became a very real threat. Fortunately, disaster was averted and there were no casualties (save for the future of the nuclear power industry). The prescient China Syndrome became a blockbuster film, a generational touchstone, and the fourth highest-grossing movie of 1979.

As a result of the accident and the film’s popularity, the anti-nuclear movement in the United States…err…mushroomed. In May of 1979 (just a month-and-a-half after the incident and the film), over 70,000 dedicated Americans marched on Washington D.C. to protest “unsafe” nuclear power.

Since horror films often deliberately mirror the fears and anxieties of their real life epochs, it was only a matter of time before a canny genre filmmaker picked up the gauntlet and crafted a nuclear-power themed horror movie. One of the earliest of the bunch was a low-budget effort entitled The Children (1980).

If you were a kid when this relatively-obscure film was released (as I was…), the TV commercials likely have resonated in your psyche ever since. The film’s horror imagery seemed…indelible (at least in short bursts). The advertisements for The Children were so terrifying that I didn’t actual see the film itself for years…until I was an adult.

Regarding specifics, The Children opens with a Three-Mile-Island-like crisis. An accident (caused by employee negligence…) occurs at the Yankee Power Company’s nuclear generating facility located near the quiet town of Ravensback, Mass. The reactor leaks a poisonous black substance, and in no time, a school bus filled with innocent children drives through a thick radiation cloud.

Because of this horrible exposure, the children are transformed into black-finger nailed zombie-like monsters. Their very touch causes the immediate incineration of human flesh. After disembarking from their bus, the affected children return home…exchanging hugs from their parents for – as I wrote in my book, Horror Films of the 1980s - “crispy, acrid death.”

Ravensback’s Sheriff Hart (Gil Rogers) teams with a local parent, John Freemont (Martin Shakar), to battle the monstrous children. The only way to stop the radioactive ghouls is to…chop off their hands, the source of their ungodly energy. The children lay siege to the Freemont home, and Mr. Freemont worries about his pregnant wife’s impending birth. Could the same contamination that changed the children, change the fetus in her belly?

In horror movies, children always represent tomorrow; the future. Sacrifice the children and you are killing hope, innocence and the potential for a better day, a happier future. That’s one reason why the demonic possession of Regan in The Exorcist remains so terrifying. If we cannot prevent our sacred children from becoming obscenity-spewing, crucifix-masturbating monsters, what’s to live for, right? The Children works some of the same territory. Here, the sins of the father (unsafe nuclear power plants) are visited upon the children, and the entire future is compromised. As you might guess from my synopsis above, the film concludes with a “sting” that imperils not just a few kids, but the next generation itself, and by extension, the very existence of the human race.

In my aforementioned book, I commended The Children for the gung-ho attitude it consistently evidences; for the courage to remain dedicated to its wacky and admittedly-insane convictions. In other words, the cast and crew really commits to the transgressive nature of the material, even if the first half of the film is undeniably rambling, goofy, dull and virtually incoherent.

Yet by the time of the film’s climax — wherein our “heroes” utilize broad swords and shotguns to chop-up and blow away primary-school-age tykes — such reservations about quality are likely rendered moot. In some important sense, The Children achieves that rarefied horror movie goal: it shatters accepted movie decorum. Audiences just don’t walk into the average horror movie expecting to see children dismembered, or taking shotgun blasts to the gut at point-blank range. So this horror film is not merely idiosyncratic, but deliciously freakish.

Again, you’re not going to see great make-up or special effects in The Children. The acting is pretty terrible. Ditto the editing. The movie lacks the veneer of professionalism you might expect; what you might term “polish.” But that’s all okay, because the movie’s ruggedly haphazard nature permits it to unfold like an unnatural dream; a bizarre nightmare. Harry Manfredini’s score aids in forging a pervasive atmosphere of dread, and there are some good “shaky camera” shots on display as the infected children creep behind tombstones in a local cemetery.

The Children’s finest moment, however, is one of surprising power, delicacy and subtlety. It occurs near the film’s denouement, when the sheriff and Mr. Freemont have the offending children (off-screen…) trapped in a barn. A tire-swing (hanging from a tree) is visible in the frame…and it is still swaying ever so gently. The fact that tire-swing was just recently in use indicates some important fact here: that the monstrous children, for all their destructive power….are still children.

Even as zombified, murderous monsters, the ghoulish children were engaged in the act of play and still obsessed with childish things (like swinging on a swing). It’s a moment of sentiment and realization; a grace note in an otherwise violent horror film. Night of the Living Dead (1968) shocked audiences by shattering many a movie convention (a lead character lapses into catatonia and stays there for the duration of the picture; the hero is not rewarded for his intelligence and resourcefulness…but rather shot in the head; and an innocent child cuts up her mother with a garden trowel). The Children is nowhere close to being in the same class as Romero’s seminal film, but it occasionally rises to that same plateau of hysteria: shocking viewers with not merely the violence the children cause, but the violence carried out against the children in the name of survival.

A superior person may be able to hold in his head two contradictory thoughts simultaneously and still continue to function. The Children holds two contradictory thoughts in its head and continues to scare…thus proving itself superior. Specifically, in The Children, the audience must countenance the idea of the contaminated children both as innocents and as rampaging monsters. That’s a pretty nifty accomplishment for a low-budget, drecky, semi-incompetent movie.

The Children gives the term “nuclear family” a whole new meaning.

CULT MOVIE REVIEW: The Children (1980)

“Expendable as it is, The Children may serve as a useful audition film…Every so often, an inventive, eerie shot betrays the presence of a fitfully effective visual imagination…”

-Gary Arnold, The Washington Post: “Have You Hugged Your Ghoul Today?” (July 9, 1980, page B6)

The China Syndrome (1979) — an A-budget Hollywood thriller starring Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon and Michael Douglas — premiered in U.S. theaters on March 16, 1979. The film involved a meltdown at a nuclear power installation. A scientist in the film ominously warned that such a disaster would render an area “the size of Pennsylvania” uninhabitable for centuries.

A mere twelve days later, life imitated art…

On March 28, 1979, a partial nuclear meltdown occurred at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station (Unit 2)…in Pennsylvania.

The entire country — perhaps the world — was transfixed for days as the nightmarish, fictional scenario presented in the film became a very real threat. Fortunately, disaster was averted and there were no casualties (save for the future of the nuclear power industry). The prescient China Syndrome became a blockbuster film, a generational touchstone, and the fourth highest-grossing movie of 1979.

As a result of the accident and the film’s popularity, the anti-nuclear movement in the United States…err…mushroomed. In May of 1979 (just a month-and-a-half after the incident and the film), over 70,000 dedicated Americans marched on Washington D.C. to protest “unsafe” nuclear power.

Since horror films often deliberately mirror the fears and anxieties of their real life epochs, it was only a matter of time before a canny genre filmmaker picked up the gauntlet and crafted a nuclear-power themed horror movie. One of the earliest of the bunch was a low-budget effort entitled The Children (1980).

If you were a kid when this relatively-obscure film was released (as I was…), the TV commercials likely have resonated in your psyche ever since. The film’s horror imagery seemed…indelible (at least in short bursts). The advertisements for The Children were so terrifying that I didn’t actual see the film itself for years…until I was an adult.

Regarding specifics, The Children opens with a Three-Mile-Island-like crisis. An accident (caused by employee negligence…) occurs at the Yankee Power Company’s nuclear generating facility located near the quiet town of Ravensback, Mass. The reactor leaks a poisonous black substance, and in no time, a school bus filled with innocent children drives through a thick radiation cloud.

Because of this horrible exposure, the children are transformed into black-finger nailed zombie-like monsters. Their very touch causes the immediate incineration of human flesh. After disembarking from their bus, the affected children return home…exchanging hugs from their parents for – as I wrote in my book, Horror Films of the 1980s - “crispy, acrid death.”

Ravensback’s Sheriff Hart (Gil Rogers) teams with a local parent, John Freemont (Martin Shakar), to battle the monstrous children. The only way to stop the radioactive ghouls is to…chop off their hands, the source of their ungodly energy. The children lay siege to the Freemont home, and Mr. Freemont worries about his pregnant wife’s impending birth. Could the same contamination that changed the children, change the fetus in her belly?

In horror movies, children always represent tomorrow; the future. Sacrifice the children and you are killing hope, innocence and the potential for a better day, a happier future. That’s one reason why the demonic possession of Regan in The Exorcist remains so terrifying. If we cannot prevent our sacred children from becoming obscenity-spewing, crucifix-masturbating monsters, what’s to live for, right? The Children works some of the same territory. Here, the sins of the father (unsafe nuclear power plants) are visited upon the children, and the entire future is compromised. As you might guess from my synopsis above, the film concludes with a “sting” that imperils not just a few kids, but the next generation itself, and by extension, the very existence of the human race.

In my aforementioned book, I commended The Children for the gung-ho attitude it consistently evidences; for the courage to remain dedicated to its wacky and admittedly-insane convictions. In other words, the cast and crew really commits to the transgressive nature of the material, even if the first half of the film is undeniably rambling, goofy, dull and virtually incoherent.

Yet by the time of the film’s climax — wherein our “heroes” utilize broad swords and shotguns to chop-up and blow away primary-school-age tykes — such reservations about quality are likely rendered moot. In some important sense, The Children achieves that rarefied horror movie goal: it shatters accepted movie decorum. Audiences just don’t walk into the average horror movie expecting to see children dismembered, or taking shotgun blasts to the gut at point-blank range. So this horror film is not merely idiosyncratic, but deliciously freakish.

Again, you’re not going to see great make-up or special effects in The Children. The acting is pretty terrible. Ditto the editing. The movie lacks the veneer of professionalism you might expect; what you might term “polish.” But that’s all okay, because the movie’s ruggedly haphazard nature permits it to unfold like an unnatural dream; a bizarre nightmare. Harry Manfredini’s score aids in forging a pervasive atmosphere of dread, and there are some good “shaky camera” shots on display as the infected children creep behind tombstones in a local cemetery.

The Children’s finest moment, however, is one of surprising power, delicacy and subtlety. It occurs near the film’s denouement, when the sheriff and Mr. Freemont have the offending children (off-screen…) trapped in a barn. A tire-swing (hanging from a tree) is visible in the frame…and it is still swaying ever so gently. The fact that tire-swing was just recently in use indicates some important fact here: that the monstrous children, for all their destructive power….are still children.

Even as zombified, murderous monsters, the ghoulish children were engaged in the act of play and still obsessed with childish things (like swinging on a swing). It’s a moment of sentiment and realization; a grace note in an otherwise violent horror film. Night of the Living Dead (1968) shocked audiences by shattering many a movie convention (a lead character lapses into catatonia and stays there for the duration of the picture; the hero is not rewarded for his intelligence and resourcefulness…but rather shot in the head; and an innocent child cuts up her mother with a garden trowel). The Children is nowhere close to being in the same class as Romero’s seminal film, but it occasionally rises to that same plateau of hysteria: shocking viewers with not merely the violence the children cause, but the violence carried out against the children in the name of survival.

A superior person may be able to hold in his head two contradictory thoughts simultaneously and still continue to function. The Children holds two contradictory thoughts in its head and continues to scare…thus proving itself superior. Specifically, in The Children, the audience must countenance the idea of the contaminated children both as innocents and as rampaging monsters. That’s a pretty nifty accomplishment for a low-budget, drecky, semi-incompetent movie.

The Children gives the term “nuclear family” a whole new meaning.