I mentioned in my post about Wolfman that I think I've overdosed on horror films/stories in the month of October. As a result, I have the same attitude about The Thing as I do about my Salted Caramel Hot Chocolates at Starbucks: the flavor is a little muted. When you overdo something, whether it's by ordering the same caffeinated beverage every day or watching too much of one genre, things start to blend together and lose their oomph. And I saw that a bit with The Thing. Fanboys and fangirls, please don't maul me! It's not that I didn't like the movie, but I didn't quite see it through the star-studded eyes many of my classmates did. (Post-Halloween, I plan on "cleansing" my palate with a juicy romance or non-paranormal YA novel so that I can reset my love for horror and quit harping on good books. I want to enjoy Snow as much as I can.)
I'll start by looking at the things I did like about the movie/monster. The isolation in this movie was a great approach, IMO. It created the idea that no matter what evil these characters came up against, they had to face it. There is no running away and saving yourself. And that makes the monster more menacing because you know it's there and it's going to do something bad. However, the big bad doesn't happen right away. The movie moves slowly, allowing the viewer's anticipation to build. Allowing the viewer to use their imagination to build upon the facts they know about the monster. In short, it ups the fear, I think. I also loved the sneakiness of this monster. Because it can replicate humans, you never know who is man and who is beast. The Thing can invade a group of people at will and use its sneaky take-over methods to decimate an otherwise strong band of fighters. It's not like the men in this movie weren't tough. They were living in a frozen wasteland, after all! So, having this beasty come in and take over with seemingly little effort really showed the viewer just how evil this thing could be. And I enjoyed how gore-filled that first scene showing the beast was. I mean it went from cute German Shepherd to blood-thirsty and dangerous monster. Great transformation, even if the special effects were a bit outdated. (Not to mention that anything that threatens dogs instantly scares me. I love animals. When they get hurt, I want to hurt the Thing that did it.)
Obviously, it's easy to see the parallels to Alien. Alien threatens humans in a somewhat isolated area, and can replicate inside them without anyone knowing (until a baby bursts out of their chest!). And technically, isn't it "The Thing From Another World?" aka an alien? Sad to say this is what killed the movie for me. Yes, The Thing has different elements. Yes, The Thing took different plot twists. But I think watching this right on the heels of Alien made me see the movies as too much the same. As writers, we are taught that there is no original plot line anymore. Vampires have been done. So have werewolves, mummies, harpies, devil beasts, etc. Somewhere out there, you're going to find a story with similar elements to the one you're writing right now. I get that. It's just that you don't often read two stories with similar plots or see two films with similar backgrounds one on top of the other. I think, had I watched Alien back in September and The Thing now, I wouldn't have seen them as one and the same. But this way, I really did.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Wolfman
**I officially feel stupid. I wrote and saved this last week and forgot to hit publish. Only found it when I logged in to start writing about The Thing. Apologies for the lateness.**
I'm not 100% sure how I feel about The Wolfman. Compared to Stephen King's Cycle of the Werewolf, I don't think it quite holds up. Looking at them side by side, I didn't think either of them was particularly scary; I did, however, enjoy King's characters a bit more. So, maybe I should approach this post by saying The Wolfman is a bit below what I was expecting, especially since I enjoy Jonathan Mayberry's writing.
There are several "background" elements here that could have enhanced the monster. We have a town full of superstition and mistrust, the perfect environment for a werewolf to thrive. We have passing gypsies, which adds a flair of the exotic. We have a famous detective who chased down The Ripper. There's a mysterious death, a dysfunctional family, and a lot of intrigue. And yet, I didn't feel that level of fear and anticipation that I expect from horror stories. I will say here that, as it's nearing Halloween, I've been watching an abundance of horror films. And I think that overdoing any genre can take some of the impact away, just like adding many sequels to a story can ruin a character/monster/etc. So, my "blah" attitude about this novel may be, in part, because I've overdosed on horror in the month of October. However, I don't think Mayberry's approach is doing anything to help. Throughout the whole book, the plot was kind of predictable. The brother, Lawrence, becomes a werewolf. The gypsies, the ones who are seen as exotic, know about it. The detectives can't figure it out. This is typical of a werewolf story, and coming from Mayberry, I expected something surprising. On that front, he didn't deliver.
Reading this reminded me of a movie I just saw called Wolf with Jack Nicholson. He *gasp* turns into a werewolf, and consults a Native American (not gypsy, but close) about his condition. The Native American, of course, knows all about it. And does nothing to stop the transformation from man into beast. I'm seeing an echo in plot here, and because it was so easy to draw parallels between the two, I felt that some of the excitement was zapped out of Mayberry's tale.
I think another problem with the monster here is he is so humanized. It's hard not to feel sympathy for him, at least at some points. I mean, the gypsies even insist that he must be saved because he is noble, because he sacrificed his life for one of their children, that killing him would make them sinners. Killing a beast does not make someone a sinner, so the gypsy assertion that it is wrong to kill this werewolf automatically separates him from your typical beasts. It makes it OK to see the monster in this book as human. It makes it OK to sympathize with him. It makes it hard to really fear him. Yes, he slaughters people. But then he feels guilt, another human trait.
However, his guilt let me draw another parallel, this time to King's Cycle of the Werewolf. Lawrence says he wants to kill himself, but never does, much like the werewolf in King's story realizes he should be put down but justifies staying alive. Not exactly the same, but similar. Mayberry's characters feel more guilt, in my opinion, which makes them even more human. At least in his refusal to commit suicide, the priest in King's story became more monstrous. It revealed his evil nature. Mayberry's werewolf becomes, at times, more human through his guilt.
I think this is a shame, because Mayberry's description of the wolves themselves is badass. They came off as scary, they just didn't have the human counterparts to back that fear up. The wolves are super tall, super nasty, and supernatural. Great start for a monster, I think the story just fell flat whenever it wasn't a full moon.
I'm not 100% sure how I feel about The Wolfman. Compared to Stephen King's Cycle of the Werewolf, I don't think it quite holds up. Looking at them side by side, I didn't think either of them was particularly scary; I did, however, enjoy King's characters a bit more. So, maybe I should approach this post by saying The Wolfman is a bit below what I was expecting, especially since I enjoy Jonathan Mayberry's writing.
There are several "background" elements here that could have enhanced the monster. We have a town full of superstition and mistrust, the perfect environment for a werewolf to thrive. We have passing gypsies, which adds a flair of the exotic. We have a famous detective who chased down The Ripper. There's a mysterious death, a dysfunctional family, and a lot of intrigue. And yet, I didn't feel that level of fear and anticipation that I expect from horror stories. I will say here that, as it's nearing Halloween, I've been watching an abundance of horror films. And I think that overdoing any genre can take some of the impact away, just like adding many sequels to a story can ruin a character/monster/etc. So, my "blah" attitude about this novel may be, in part, because I've overdosed on horror in the month of October. However, I don't think Mayberry's approach is doing anything to help. Throughout the whole book, the plot was kind of predictable. The brother, Lawrence, becomes a werewolf. The gypsies, the ones who are seen as exotic, know about it. The detectives can't figure it out. This is typical of a werewolf story, and coming from Mayberry, I expected something surprising. On that front, he didn't deliver.
Reading this reminded me of a movie I just saw called Wolf with Jack Nicholson. He *gasp* turns into a werewolf, and consults a Native American (not gypsy, but close) about his condition. The Native American, of course, knows all about it. And does nothing to stop the transformation from man into beast. I'm seeing an echo in plot here, and because it was so easy to draw parallels between the two, I felt that some of the excitement was zapped out of Mayberry's tale.
I think another problem with the monster here is he is so humanized. It's hard not to feel sympathy for him, at least at some points. I mean, the gypsies even insist that he must be saved because he is noble, because he sacrificed his life for one of their children, that killing him would make them sinners. Killing a beast does not make someone a sinner, so the gypsy assertion that it is wrong to kill this werewolf automatically separates him from your typical beasts. It makes it OK to see the monster in this book as human. It makes it OK to sympathize with him. It makes it hard to really fear him. Yes, he slaughters people. But then he feels guilt, another human trait.
However, his guilt let me draw another parallel, this time to King's Cycle of the Werewolf. Lawrence says he wants to kill himself, but never does, much like the werewolf in King's story realizes he should be put down but justifies staying alive. Not exactly the same, but similar. Mayberry's characters feel more guilt, in my opinion, which makes them even more human. At least in his refusal to commit suicide, the priest in King's story became more monstrous. It revealed his evil nature. Mayberry's werewolf becomes, at times, more human through his guilt.
I think this is a shame, because Mayberry's description of the wolves themselves is badass. They came off as scary, they just didn't have the human counterparts to back that fear up. The wolves are super tall, super nasty, and supernatural. Great start for a monster, I think the story just fell flat whenever it wasn't a full moon.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Alien
Compared to other viewers in this class, I feel like I took a backward approach to seeing Alien. The first time I became acquainted with the monster it was via one of the Alien v. Predator films. From there, I moved through the Alien series backwards (unintentionally). And in some ways, I think that made the original film shine even more. It amazes me that Alien was made so long ago, and yet in comparison to more recent films, it's a masterpiece.
It was full of a ton of "monsters"...and by that, I'm not talking about the aliens themselves. Ash, the Company, many of the human (or programmed beings) in this film really qualify as monsters more than the title character, in my opinion. Mostly because they created this being for a purpose. They had motivation that was truly malicious. The Alien, on the other hand, was only doing what it was born to do: kill. And man, did it do that well.
As far as enemies go, the Alien is top notch. It provides character conflict both externally and internally.
The external conflict is apparent in every one of Alien's forms. The primitive beasts that plant the baby aliens into humans look innocent enough when compared with their progeny, but they are extremely dangerous. When I first saw one of them clamp on to a victim's face, I was shocked. I think I actually jumped in my seat. Even more impressive are the scenes where they burst from human chests. The way they are filmed, with their tiny heads covered in goo, is truly frightening. However, the most intimidating form of the Alien is the adult version, the one that hides in shadows and kills without mercy. The one that's grown on the instinct to kill. The sheer size and intelligence of this beast makes it the perfect villain.
The internal conflict comes from the fear it creates. It leaves the viewer wondering which dark corner it's hiding in, or which human it's incubating in. That uncertainty really ups the game here. Because this isn't another Jason/slasher who you know is hiding around the corner and will jump out at predictable moments. The Alien stalks its prey much more effectively than that. And because it wasn't predictable, because the Alien was always upping the game, the fear factor stayed through the whole movie. I think that's the part about it that I loved the most.
I have to give credit to the director of this film, because so much of the terror I felt while watching came from the approach. The setting fit the monster completely and enhanced its predatory skills. There were so many dark corners for it to hide in, stalk prey from. However, in later films, especially the Alien v. Predator films, I didn't get the same vibe. In some senses, having this monster in a less enclosed space weakens the fear factor. I think this is because it doesn't pit helpless humans against Alien in quite the same way; in an enclosed space, humans are forced to confront the monster instead of just running. Also, when you pit Alien against a being as powerful and intelligent as it, it's less of a contest. The conflict, the stakes, aren't as high. So, while the original Alien is genius, the later films didn't quite do it for me.
It was full of a ton of "monsters"...and by that, I'm not talking about the aliens themselves. Ash, the Company, many of the human (or programmed beings) in this film really qualify as monsters more than the title character, in my opinion. Mostly because they created this being for a purpose. They had motivation that was truly malicious. The Alien, on the other hand, was only doing what it was born to do: kill. And man, did it do that well.
As far as enemies go, the Alien is top notch. It provides character conflict both externally and internally.
The external conflict is apparent in every one of Alien's forms. The primitive beasts that plant the baby aliens into humans look innocent enough when compared with their progeny, but they are extremely dangerous. When I first saw one of them clamp on to a victim's face, I was shocked. I think I actually jumped in my seat. Even more impressive are the scenes where they burst from human chests. The way they are filmed, with their tiny heads covered in goo, is truly frightening. However, the most intimidating form of the Alien is the adult version, the one that hides in shadows and kills without mercy. The one that's grown on the instinct to kill. The sheer size and intelligence of this beast makes it the perfect villain.
The internal conflict comes from the fear it creates. It leaves the viewer wondering which dark corner it's hiding in, or which human it's incubating in. That uncertainty really ups the game here. Because this isn't another Jason/slasher who you know is hiding around the corner and will jump out at predictable moments. The Alien stalks its prey much more effectively than that. And because it wasn't predictable, because the Alien was always upping the game, the fear factor stayed through the whole movie. I think that's the part about it that I loved the most.
I have to give credit to the director of this film, because so much of the terror I felt while watching came from the approach. The setting fit the monster completely and enhanced its predatory skills. There were so many dark corners for it to hide in, stalk prey from. However, in later films, especially the Alien v. Predator films, I didn't get the same vibe. In some senses, having this monster in a less enclosed space weakens the fear factor. I think this is because it doesn't pit helpless humans against Alien in quite the same way; in an enclosed space, humans are forced to confront the monster instead of just running. Also, when you pit Alien against a being as powerful and intelligent as it, it's less of a contest. The conflict, the stakes, aren't as high. So, while the original Alien is genius, the later films didn't quite do it for me.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
World War Z
I'll start off by saying that I find zombies one of the most laughable horror creatures out there, for many reasons. The stereotypical zombie is slow, travels in packs, has no discernable method of communication...in short, these creatures aren't even as threatening as a pack of wild dogs. Sure, zombie lore states that they can only be killed by a head shot, but that doesn't actually make them more dangerous, no matter how difficult a head shot may be. Why? Because you don't need to kill them to stop them. Dead limbs don't grow back. So, shoot a machine gun into a crowd of zombies at about thigh level, and suddenly you have a lot of un-walking dead. Escape becomes easy. Because of this fact, I find zombie films to be amusing rather than scary. My favorite one by far is Zombieland. Not because of the zombies. Because the characters get high with Bill Murray and play ghostbusters in his dining room. Who doesn't want to do that?
I started this blog post in this way because I wanted to say that Max Brooks kind of impressed me. He added a bit of depth to his zombies, so it wasn't the typical army of the dead vs. the lone band of survivors. And he did this in two ways. For one, the zombies themselves had a bit more development. In normal zombie movies, the creatures moan simply because what else are they going to do? Their voice boxes are clearly rotted to the point of malfunction. However, in World War Z, the moan is somewhat of a call, a form of communication. This makes the zombies a bigger threat, because if they can signal one another, they may be more difficult to defeat. He also lets them survive underwater. Very cool, even if it's not 100% threatening (there are no humans on the bottom of the ocean for zombies to kill, after all). The second way Brooks ups the zombie game is by creating a unique set of human characters. It's not just a band of lone survivors who find guns and miraculously know how to shoot them. There are soldiers. The soldiers plot, they fight battles, they must come up with strategies and adapt to tackle the zombie problem. The fact that the human characters have to do more than just shoot a machine gun into a crowd to survive makes it more enjoyable.
At the same time, the things that made the zombies so cool also made them a bit unbelievable. I couldn't help but think that if zombies flock to each other's call, why don't the humans automatically bait a zombie crowd? Send an armored and heavily trained human out into the open, make some noise, they start calling to one another and...bam...instant zombie trap. The fact that the monsters can semi-communicate yet still don't have brains makes them slightly easier to defeat, in this way. And an enemy that is easier to defeat because of its collective stupidity doesn't make for a fully riveting story.
I did enjoy the battle scenes, though, because Brooks managed to write them with tension and for moments I was on the edge of my seat while reading. And even though this book is written in interview style, and you know that the characters have survived if they are alive to give the interviews, it worked here. There was enough tension on the page for me to still worry about the outcome of the battles, even if I knew who lived through them.
If I was going to recommend a zombie story to anyone, this would definitely be it.
I started this blog post in this way because I wanted to say that Max Brooks kind of impressed me. He added a bit of depth to his zombies, so it wasn't the typical army of the dead vs. the lone band of survivors. And he did this in two ways. For one, the zombies themselves had a bit more development. In normal zombie movies, the creatures moan simply because what else are they going to do? Their voice boxes are clearly rotted to the point of malfunction. However, in World War Z, the moan is somewhat of a call, a form of communication. This makes the zombies a bigger threat, because if they can signal one another, they may be more difficult to defeat. He also lets them survive underwater. Very cool, even if it's not 100% threatening (there are no humans on the bottom of the ocean for zombies to kill, after all). The second way Brooks ups the zombie game is by creating a unique set of human characters. It's not just a band of lone survivors who find guns and miraculously know how to shoot them. There are soldiers. The soldiers plot, they fight battles, they must come up with strategies and adapt to tackle the zombie problem. The fact that the human characters have to do more than just shoot a machine gun into a crowd to survive makes it more enjoyable.
At the same time, the things that made the zombies so cool also made them a bit unbelievable. I couldn't help but think that if zombies flock to each other's call, why don't the humans automatically bait a zombie crowd? Send an armored and heavily trained human out into the open, make some noise, they start calling to one another and...bam...instant zombie trap. The fact that the monsters can semi-communicate yet still don't have brains makes them slightly easier to defeat, in this way. And an enemy that is easier to defeat because of its collective stupidity doesn't make for a fully riveting story.
I did enjoy the battle scenes, though, because Brooks managed to write them with tension and for moments I was on the edge of my seat while reading. And even though this book is written in interview style, and you know that the characters have survived if they are alive to give the interviews, it worked here. There was enough tension on the page for me to still worry about the outcome of the battles, even if I knew who lived through them.
If I was going to recommend a zombie story to anyone, this would definitely be it.
Friday, October 1, 2010
The Yattering and Jack
While I've enjoyed reading many stories from Clive Barker's Books of Blood, the Yattering and Jack was not my favorite story. Within the first few pages, the stage was set for a psychological horror, more based on insanity than actual physical damage, and I usually love that type of tale. However, it's only really effective when you get into a character's head, thus experiencing all of the mental ups and downs and crazies. (Ironically, I read this story after posting a response to IPP #6, and the monster I used for that post was creepily close to the Yattering, although Polo used a different method of defeat.) So, I think it’s the set up and POV here that’s ruining the monster and the horror factor.
“He seemed to live apart from his experience, living his life as an author might write a preposterous story, never involving himself in the narrative too deeply.” (49) This quote describing Jack Polo also seemed to describe Clive Barker’s approach when writing the story. Sometimes, I can appreciate the irony in that, but not here. Clive Barker’s approach of an omniscient narrator only served to make me as disaffected by the story as Jack Polo was by his dying cats. I didn’t feel fear at the Yattering’s pranks. I didn’t feel fear when he stalked Jack Polo through his house. I wasn’t even disgusted with him ogling the naked widow or blowing cat guts all over the house. This is the result of the distance of the omniscient POV, for me. I don’t think it worked in this story, just like I didn’t quite like the distance in I Am Legend. I want to be scared when I read horror, and if I’m not in the moment with my characters, that doesn’t happen. So, for me, the distance ruins the monster. I know that might not ring true for everyone. Note: that’s not to say this POV can’t ever work in horror, it’s just how you pull it off. I don’t think it was right for this particular story, but it really worked in The Stand. I think that's because even though King wrote in a semi-distant third person, there was plenty of time to get to know all of the characters and care about them. When you care about the characters, the stakes are higher. However, in a short story, you don't have the page space that King had, and that omnicient narrator creates a distance that there isn't time to overcome.
There were other things, little author mistakes, that also took something away from the monster. The first is that we have a twenty-two and twenty-four-year-old daughter, and yet the dialogue between father and daughters sounded to me like a discourse between a father and a five year old. All of the “daddy’s” instead of “dad,” all of the little things that aren’t quite adult made me feel like the monster didn’t have to work as hard. It’s a lot easier to scare a child than it is a tough-as-nails woman. And the initial description of the two girls made them seem like they would be tough as nails, so when they weren’t I was disappointed.
Also, when everything is spinning, Jack Polo is convinced the monster must be exhausted and confused, and yet the Yattering is excited and enjoying things…it doesn’t quite make the reader believe that Jack knows 100% what he’s doing, but rather than up the stakes for me, it made things fall flat. Not quite sure why. Finally, there were “housekeeping” mistakes. The Yattering blows up the second new cat Jack brings home (thus Freddy III), but the Yattering labeled it the third new cat. If there were three new cats after the first Freddy’s demise, it should have been Freddy IV that he blew up. As for Freddy I, regular fires don’t cremate cats (or anything, for that matter), yet there’s nothing in there about the Yattering upping the temperature. Missing details weaken a monster because I’m left wondering if the Yattering actually has the ability to make that powerful of a fire, when I should know from the story. When the daughter gets turkey grease on her face – grease from a turkey straight out of the oven – she isn’t burned. These details rob authenticity from the story and thus from the monster. A monster is only as good as the people it has to scare, and the details in this story made them seem inept and numb. That combined with the detail that this is a lower demon of lesser power really made the Yattering seem like a wimp, in my opinion. Finally, because of the POV, I knew that Jack Polo was playing his own game, so the “twist” at the end wasn’t all that unexpected. I think it could have been more shocking if it was just left in the Yattering’s POV.
“He seemed to live apart from his experience, living his life as an author might write a preposterous story, never involving himself in the narrative too deeply.” (49) This quote describing Jack Polo also seemed to describe Clive Barker’s approach when writing the story. Sometimes, I can appreciate the irony in that, but not here. Clive Barker’s approach of an omniscient narrator only served to make me as disaffected by the story as Jack Polo was by his dying cats. I didn’t feel fear at the Yattering’s pranks. I didn’t feel fear when he stalked Jack Polo through his house. I wasn’t even disgusted with him ogling the naked widow or blowing cat guts all over the house. This is the result of the distance of the omniscient POV, for me. I don’t think it worked in this story, just like I didn’t quite like the distance in I Am Legend. I want to be scared when I read horror, and if I’m not in the moment with my characters, that doesn’t happen. So, for me, the distance ruins the monster. I know that might not ring true for everyone. Note: that’s not to say this POV can’t ever work in horror, it’s just how you pull it off. I don’t think it was right for this particular story, but it really worked in The Stand. I think that's because even though King wrote in a semi-distant third person, there was plenty of time to get to know all of the characters and care about them. When you care about the characters, the stakes are higher. However, in a short story, you don't have the page space that King had, and that omnicient narrator creates a distance that there isn't time to overcome.
There were other things, little author mistakes, that also took something away from the monster. The first is that we have a twenty-two and twenty-four-year-old daughter, and yet the dialogue between father and daughters sounded to me like a discourse between a father and a five year old. All of the “daddy’s” instead of “dad,” all of the little things that aren’t quite adult made me feel like the monster didn’t have to work as hard. It’s a lot easier to scare a child than it is a tough-as-nails woman. And the initial description of the two girls made them seem like they would be tough as nails, so when they weren’t I was disappointed.
Also, when everything is spinning, Jack Polo is convinced the monster must be exhausted and confused, and yet the Yattering is excited and enjoying things…it doesn’t quite make the reader believe that Jack knows 100% what he’s doing, but rather than up the stakes for me, it made things fall flat. Not quite sure why. Finally, there were “housekeeping” mistakes. The Yattering blows up the second new cat Jack brings home (thus Freddy III), but the Yattering labeled it the third new cat. If there were three new cats after the first Freddy’s demise, it should have been Freddy IV that he blew up. As for Freddy I, regular fires don’t cremate cats (or anything, for that matter), yet there’s nothing in there about the Yattering upping the temperature. Missing details weaken a monster because I’m left wondering if the Yattering actually has the ability to make that powerful of a fire, when I should know from the story. When the daughter gets turkey grease on her face – grease from a turkey straight out of the oven – she isn’t burned. These details rob authenticity from the story and thus from the monster. A monster is only as good as the people it has to scare, and the details in this story made them seem inept and numb. That combined with the detail that this is a lower demon of lesser power really made the Yattering seem like a wimp, in my opinion. Finally, because of the POV, I knew that Jack Polo was playing his own game, so the “twist” at the end wasn’t all that unexpected. I think it could have been more shocking if it was just left in the Yattering’s POV.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)