Your Film Professor

I thought I might start a new feature that focuses on my pithy thoughts (well, pithy for me, and as it turns out, the first two weren’t as pithy as I had intended them to be!) on films or perhaps other issues, controversies, etc. associated with film or TV.

For my first one, I thought I would comment on the horror films I’ve watched in the month of October. I have a long tradition of watching a lot of horror films in the month of October (you know, for that Halloween thing:). I love horror films but I also realize that most horror films aren’t very good and many are just simply awful, but one most dive into the muck if one is going to find that gem in the rough and thankfully I think I did find one this month. (For more on my thoughts on what film studies scholar Robin Wood described as the “revolutionary” potential of horror, see my “Favorite Horror Films” list blog post.) I didn’t watch as many as I usually do but I did get around to watching a handful. I’m not going to comment on all of them — for one thing, I almost immediately start forgetting movies I don’t like or just don’t hit me in some way, and I thought of this feature just recently, too long after I watched many of these films — but I do want to comment on some of them, not all of them films I liked. Before I do that, here is a rundown of the horror films I watched this month (followed by my most pithy of reactions): Under the Shadow (2016, Babak Anvari), Thelma (2017, Joachim Trier), The Endless (2018, Justin Benson, Aaron Moorhead), Pontypool (2009, Bruce McDonald) (meh!), The Asphyx (1973, Peter Newbrook) (ugh!). And these:

The Girl with All the Gifts

The Girl with All the Gifts (2017, Colm McCarthy) is my one gem in the rough this year. Despite some glaring contrivances (come on, how can the dog still be alive!) I loved this film! For one thing, the film gives a fresh spin on the zombie sub-genre of horror. Just when I think no new spins can be created for this well tread sub-genre of horror, I get this zombie film with yet another interesting take. The film has got lots of fun and interesting twists and characters and of course the requisite tension and horrific moments, but I think it also has some deep elements and if you’ve read my “Favorite Horror Films” blog post, you know that is what most peaks my interest in horror films. More pointedly, I think there are two interesting allegorical elements in the film, which I will only just briefly sketch out: First, the film seems to explore the notion of “free will” and how it’s not as clear as we would like to think: Melanie and the other kids cannot really control their baser appetites (allegorically speaking to our baser appetites and behaviors) though it is suggested that Melanie is developing control. (I could go on a long spiel on the conception of “free will” and how we largely don’t have it but will save that for another time.) Second, more importantly, the film does what AI (artificial intelligence) and clone films do in science fiction (well, at least, the more serious ones–see my “Favorite Science Fiction Films” blog post for more), e.g., it reveals how historically dominant social orders/ideologies have Othered those who are different (people of color, indigenous peoples, LGTBQ people, etc.) and have seen them as exploitable and/or disposable. Melanie (Sennia Nanua, in just a superb and endearing performance) is the Other, both in terms of her “zombie”/human hybrid Otherness but also in her casting, e.g., Nanua is a young female of African descent. That we come to care about Melanie despite her, um, predatory appetite, speaks to our own potential (and the incredible potential of film) to open our minds and accept and embrace Otherness in all of its manifestations, e.g., yes, in terms of humanity (people of color, people with different beliefs, LGTBQ people, and so on) but also in terms of any other present (other sentient species) and future possible permutations of Otherness, whatever that might be. In other words, what films like The Girl with All the Gifts do is evolve our minds to accept and embrace Otherness in general, breaking down the dehumanizing self/Other divide in the process.

Hereditary

Spoiler Alert! I know this is a highly regarded film and I have to say that I was really excited to watch it when I heard all of the positive advance word, especially since I sensed that it was trying to do something a little deeper and more interesting than your average horror film. For me, however, the film disappointed. I do recognize that it is a film that doesn’t just want to scare and disturb but also wants to give us something deeper. From the tantalizing beginning opening of a doll house to the what ultimately seems to me red herring references to familial mental illness in the film — which I thought would be what would really inform the evocative title of the film, “Hereditary” — I thought the film would be more along the lines of other tremendous psychological horror films such as The Babadook (2014, Jennifer Kent) and Black Swan (2010, Darren Aronofsky). Instead, the film I think jettisons any tangible psychological horror, and I think even any possible allegorical readings, for a pretty straight forward horror narrative, of the satanists/demonists-cult sub-genre variety. (I know, I know, the doll house opening is symbolic of the family/son being controlled by the Paimonists — and perhaps something deeper here, e.g., that we are to an extent “controlled” or determined by our family heritage — a nice bit of symbolism but never really exploited for a deeper payoff I don’t think. And I also get the whole literal demon within, Paimon, speaking to our figurative internalized “demons” — presumably speaking to “hereditary” familial “demons” — but here again, just creating this metaphor doesn’t mean that it is actually played out in any sort of substantive way, e.g., by ending the film with a literal enactment of Paimon and his followers, and by never really exploring in-depth deep seated familial issues in the course of the film, for me, again, this element in the film becomes more of a red herring, shifted to the periphery for the jarring real focus of the film, e.g., the literal Paimon and its followers enacting their scheme.) I will say that I appreciated the intricate construction of the film, with all of its intricately placed symbols and signs, and the thoroughness of the many Paimon/followers elements in the film. In that regard, I think I might watch the film again at some point to see if I can enjoy it on that simple (but still complex!) level, enjoy it just for this core focus. And I do love satanist/demonist films, so I feel like I should at least enjoy this film, even if I don’t get any deeper meaning satisfaction from it. And, yes, I do watch horror films for just enjoyment as well:)

The Open House

I loved the first three quarters of The Open House (2018, Matt Angel, Suzanne Coote) — it creates a real vicarious enactment of loss and the dysfunction that exists between mother and son and puts them in a strange and disquieting place/space — but like too many horror films that create a nice build-up, the film then doesn’t give us a satisfying payoff. Spoiler Alert (sort of) Actually, I’m being too kind here: I ended up really not liking this film. And that largely stems from the ending: I hated the ending. The only reason I even decided to write anything on this disappointing film is because nothing makes me more frustrated and angry than horror films that want to create a franchise and thus create an ending that frustrates instead of satisfies.

Before I Wake

A really nice film. Unlike The Open House, I found the ending to this imaginative film satisfying. I would say that Before I Wake (2018, Mike Flanagan) has a deep element as well, in that it explores how traumas early in life never leave us and in fact if not addressed, manifest later in dysfunctional ways. For a child who can literally manifest his traumas in the real world, well, that’s not good. Spoiler alert: I have no problem with negative endings but for me some horror films beg to have a happy ending: I hate it when our protagonists fight and fight and suffer and suffer, only to lose in the end. In the case of this film, I just love how the adopted mother fights for her adopted (fostered) “son,” who has suffered greatly for most of his young life, and does so in a smart way, doing her research and applying what she learns to do battle with a repressed materialized evil entity.

Incident in a Ghost Land

This is another “meh” film but I feel compelled to comment on it because of the filmmaker’s other two previous prominent films, The Tall Man (2012, Pascal Laugier) and Martyrs (2008, Pascal Laugier). I think that The Tall Man is woefully underappreciated, a film I will write on at some point. And while I did not like the much talked about and admired (by horror fans) Martyrs (too much of an unabashed torture porn horror film, and I really hate those), I did appreciate its thoroughly evocative twisty ending, which, by the way, I just have to add this thought: I think Laugier missed a golden opportunity to make the ending twist even more evocative; indeed, I think Laugier could have created one of the most provocative twisty endings in film (horror) history, e.g., by really going for it and making the tortured girl the second coming of Christ. In any case, Laugier seems to be a horror filmmaker who wants to do more than just disturb and/or scare. And, so, I had high hopes for Incident in a Ghost Land (2018). However, for me, the film was a huge disappointment. It started out fantastically, by doing something I don’t think I’ve ever seen done before, give us a mother who flew to her two daughters’ defense, becoming a ferocious, raging beast, taking out two baddies. That pleasantly surprised me. But then from there, Laugier not only negates that startling and refreshing moment but then gives us two faux deep elements, the red herring “doll” thing that could have been interesting — e.g., women being seen as disposable objects/dolls — but which Laugier doesn’t really do anything with, and (Spoiler Alert) the whole catatonic thing, which, here again, seems more superficially gimmicky than substantive. Ultimately, the film becomes just another survivalist film and while that can be engaging (as a survivalist film, it was okay), the set-up of something deep and interesting renders this mundane direction a letdown.

Under the Skin

Under the Skin (2014, Jonathan Glazer) is more science fiction film than horror I think (though that the “female” preys on men and then what happens to these men is genuinely horrific) but in intersecting my horror film watch this last month with also working on my favorites for 2014 (Under the Skin is a 2014 film as well), I re-watched the film this month and thought I would include it (since it is most definitely not going to make my 2014 favorites list!). (See my “About Me” for more on “my favorites” features and the one that I have done so far, “Favorite Films: 2013.”) In terms of “re-watched,” I screened this film when it first came out and was a little perplexed by it. I was intrigued by it and liked it aesthetically but also found myself feeling unsatisfied. In short, it was a film that I needed to watch again, to try and get a better handle on it. In my second viewing, my reaction was pretty much the same, though now my feelings for the film are more clear. That is, I like the film, think it is a nice film, aesthetically pleasing (loved the neorealist touches), provocative in its exploration of an alien discovering (I think!) empathy, and intriguing in its unique vision of a mysterious alien life form hiding among us. However, while I ultimately like the film, really enjoyed experiencing the film (to my mind, that is the film’s strength, it being less a cerebral film than an experiential film), I also found the film finally, hmm, perhaps unsatisfying is too strong. Let’s say not entirely satisfying. That is, for me, it didn’t really have another layer to it, as it seems to suggest it does; more pointedly, it doesn’t give me anything particular deep or meaningful, another film that seems deep but really isn’t. I think. I may be wrong about this film and would love to hear if I am!