me & my molasses

No Claire, it's the monk's monastry choir's annual obscene phone call.

When i first saw the film ‘Black Christmas’ (1974) i knew it would be one of my favorite films of all time. It has remained one of my favorites to this day.

The film surrounds a sorority house being terrorized by an anonymous killer. This killer is frivolously knocking off the sorority sisters one by one, but that is not the only plot in the story. Simultaneously Olivia Hussey’s character, Jess, is dealing with an unwanted pregnancy and weighing her decisions much to her boyfriends discontent. I do not think this is the first film to use the camera as the ‘killer’ , only letting you see through the killers gaze and their face, but it is certainly the most effective use of this tecnique i have seen. The brilliance of this tecnique is that it proclaims that you, audience member, are the killer. Instead of locking into an instant alliance with the young & beautiful final girl of the film the audience member is identifying with the villian and heroine at the same time. You, as an audience memeber, are realizing the film through the eyes of the killer, and camera, making any connection with morality near impossible.

The film is laced with gortequley beautiful match on action shots. For example the shot of claire in the attic with plasitic wrap over her face turns into a shot of the frosty glass on the front door. Another wonderful aspect of this film is director Bob Clark’s understanding of angles. Whether its Barb getting stabbed in her bed or Claire being suffocated by the plastic wrap, the angles choosen for film create a most realistic and terrifying image for the viewer. The use of the phone is most likely not the first, but very well done. Scream (1996) borrowed alot from this film in terms of Clark’s use of the phone as an intorduction to the killer. The girls initially sense “danger” when they keep getting obscene phone calls that sound like choir of people action out a scene. The voice(s) on the other end are saying some of the most disgusting, threatening, frightening words and while some of the girls (Barb) give him a piece of their minds, the other girls (Claire, Jess) are very aggitated and concerned. The phone becomes a character, the girls interact with it, and it is a huge focal point of the first 20 minutes of the film.

The tag line of the film is “If this film doesnt make your skin crawl, its on too tight.” Brilliant. The movie is visually jarring and disrupting, but simultaneously gorgeous in its composure.

Grá mo chroí. Tá tú go h-álainn

long live gialli, kids

If there is a home base of the Italian giallo, then Mario Bava’s Blood and Black Lace (1964) is surely it. Giallo is is an Italian 20th century genre of literature and film, which in Italian indicates crime fiction and mystery. Giallo, means ‘yellow’ in Italian, the origin of the genre is a series of cheap paperback novels with trademark yellow covers. With his predatory camera and unflinching view Bava arguably gave birth to a new slasher genre that would pave the way for many future auteurs. (Argento, Carpenter, De Palma etc.)

Like most of Bava’s Films, Blood and Black lace, has little care for plot or character, or even a logical progression of ideas. The plot is simple. A faceless (and i mean faceless as in this character goes through the film with what resembles cheese cloth wraped around his entire head) killer dressed in a black trench coat and sporting a fedora that was later to become the staple of a famous cinema character- Fred Kruger. The faceless aspect would later be adopted by John Carpenter, accident or not, to create the horror that surrounds Michael Myers in Halloween. The brilliance of the monster sporting a blank face is that the audience can project anything they want onto it. Horror film, unlike other cinema, presents a form of catharsis that is often misunderstood. The curiosity about mortality, death, fantasy, and violence can all be felt during the viewing of a horror film. More importantly, aggressions and anger/fantasy can be openly experienced in the darkness of the movie theater because the audience can even project their own face onto that blank mask —genius. The killer stalks and murders all these glamorous models in order to retrieve a diary that could be incriminating. From beginning to end this film is alive, brandishing bright colors, invasive camera angles, and infectious enthusiasm for the macabre.

The most amazing part of this film, however, is Bava’s commitment to his own mis-en-scene. Although made up of vivid colors, visual and narrative red herrings, it ultimately leads no where. The visualization however, still remains stunning. The script was written to treat the elaborate deaths, not the plot, which is, in my opinion, a genius characteristic of Giallo films. Directors such as Argento, Carpenter, De palma, Craven, and even Hitchcock understood that the plot is subsequent, the murders serve the plot and not the other way around.

Even though Psycho and Peeping tom (1960, 1962) were released before ‘Blood and Black Lace’ the ferociousness of Bava’s death scenes and his refusal to shelter American viewers ushered in a new wave of cinematic violence, especially against women and womens bodies. Hitchcock played with viewers, Powell exposed viewers to everything but kept a safe distance, but Bava unflinchingly revealed everything. Camera as weapon; the killer as cipher upon whom the audience is invited to project their darkest animosities.

what’d you think? See the film, you might see what im talking about. Long live Gialli films :)

don't expect it to tango; it has a broken back

Does anyone understand how amazing ingrid michealson is? I’m having a phase with her right now. Re-listening to her albums back to back and falling in love all over, it’s nice. Also, I’ve continued listening to the cure and, well, all is well auditorily.

One film that i have not seen in a while, but truely love is ‘Re-animator’ (1985). My suggestion is that EVEYONE on earth should see this film. However, I’m no fool. I recognize that this film is laced with VERY traumatic material - the head giving ‘head’ scene is a perfect example of this. Film/cinema is not perfect. I do not aim to imply that it is, but as a student of horror film influence and creation this movie is by far one of the genres most influential. What about Re-animator? What made me think of it? Well as a film itself it is often not respected, and the genre of horror itself is always tossed out as gross, bloody, disgusting, brutal, anti-feminist, sexist, racist, homophobic rubbish that any dignified cinema lover would not treasure. Forgive me for saying so but anyone who really likes cinema would NEVER cast out an entire genre. Everything deserves to be studied and respected for it’s influence regardless of personal feelings. And if you doubt the influence of ‘Re-animator’ not just on horror films but on any genre of film you haven’t seen enough movies. Trust me. For example, a favorite film of most college students, indie kids, cinema studies students, and suburban white kids looking for some tragic story to relate to is definitely ‘American Beauty’. Be mindful this movie, nor any film, was created in a vacum. Even Director Sam mendes and writer Allan ball have seen and or were influenced by horror film. How do i know this? Well for example in a scene in the 1999 Oscar Winner American Beauty that homages Re-Animator, there is a clear sign of horror film knowledge. That lovemaking scene [in Beauty] is shot exactly like the [“giving head”] scene in Re-Animator. They match shot for shot. [Kevin Spacey’s] head is in the bottom corner of the screen moving up her body. And the allusion is no mistake, since in another part of the film, Spacey’s character refers to that “movie, with the body walking around holding its own head. And then the head went down on that babe,” clearly referring to ‘Re-animator’. Given this information i cannot see how people can continue to ignore horror films value. If not on the entire film world then at least in the creation of more “worthy” cinematic experiences.

i stand by my admiration for this film, but not blindly. I recognize its faults and praise its wonders. I’m level headed like that :)

p.s. Castelia Dannae Mercer will be in my arms by 8:10 tonight, and you’re jealous.

this is the most beautiful siren the world has had the pleasure to know; please bow to her.

daylight licked me into shape

Daylight licked me into shape

Hello.

Welll today i have been obsessed with the cure. Their album “kiss me, kiss me, kiss me” is basically amazing and i can’t stop listening to it. I want to go buy it at bullmoose music tonight or tomorrow. So my music fix is satisfied. As for my movie fix, i havent been satisfied but i have a feeling tonight i will be. I’m thinking i’ll watch Aliens. Havent seen it in a long time and im introducing miranda to the whole series. It’s been going well, she likes it i mean.

Things with miranda have gone from amazing to indescribable. She bought me a beautiful standing jewelry box for our anniversary. I have wanted one for soo long, i was so thankful. I’m moving again real soon. I’m so excited to decorate a new room.

uh, im tired, starving, and sick of waiting. When am i going to be the next imfamous horror film scholoar? Speaking of starving, can we discuss how amazing this cupcake looks? please? thanks

two summers ago; i actually smiled.

It'll be two quid, mark

today i’ve been thinking a lot about “Peeping Tom”, made in 1962. Completely perverse & brilliant. So brilliant it ruined michael powells career. Which im sure he’s greatful for now. When your career is ruined, in years you become a genious to critics everywhere. And thoes critics shame the critics before them who called your work rubbish. They called it rubbish, we call is genious. However, theres always a fine line between the two.

So Mark, the main character in the film, carries around a camera. He shoots whatever he sees. The film opens with him filming a prostitute who advises him “it’ll be two quid” for her services. Once alone with her he reveals that one of the legs on his camera stand is actually some sort of ice pick. He slowly leans into her and as this is going on she can see the fear on her own face in the mirror attached to the top of the camera. Mark has made it so the last thing the victims sees before death is their own face frozen in horror. He continues this throughout the film and is eventually brought down. However, this is not whats important about this or any other film. The importance of peeping tom lies in the creation o Mark. The reason that this film ruined micheal powells career was NOT becasue it was perverse and women were being brutalized and killed. It is because unlike the myth created by a white supremist society, the killer in this case was an extremely likeable, sweet, handsome, talented guy. In 1962, this couldnt be. There were specific threats on the world and they did not include the composit character that would eventually become mark. The Haunting (1963) and Psycho (1960) symbolized perfectly what 1960’s audiences were to be afraid of: “ghosts” and the unstable “cross dressing” killer. These are extremes. The 1960’s audience lived on extremes, not that the person next door could be a threat.

I’ll keep thinking, but i know there is something more to this. When was the rise of the serial killer? Was it psycho? Or is that just wishful thinking? I know how much everyone loves to credit hitchcock for EVERY horror film tool, but i like to explore.

This weeks Films:

Rebecca (1940)

Aliens (1986)

The Night of the Hunter (1955)

i practically live in this car with this person :)