"A REALLY INTELLIGENT INTERVIEWER." -- Lance Henriksen
"QUITE SIMPLY, THE BEST HORROR-THEMED BLOG ON THE NET." -- Joe Maddrey, Nightmares in Red White & Blue

**Find The Vault of Horror on Facebook and Twitter, or download the new mobile app!**

**Check out my other blogs, Standard of the Day, Proof of a Benevolent God and Lots of Pulp!**


Showing posts with label Alien. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alien. Show all posts

Friday, November 1, 2013

"Get Away from Her, You Bitch": Maternalism in James Cameron's ALIENS

"My mother was a housewife, but she was also an artist. My father was an electrical engineer."
                                                                                                        --James Cameron

Much has been made of the sexual imagery of Ridley Scott's Alien. Stylistically based as it is on the work of H.R. Giger, it would be difficult for it not to be--after all, Mr. Giger has traditionally been fixated on all things genital-related. I won't even get into what those alien heads really look like. No doubt about it, sexual and birth-related imagery abound in the film.

But when it comes to Aliens, James Cameron's 1986 actionized sequel, that symbolism has been taken to its next logical stage (biologically speaking, anyway): Parenthood. In particular, motherhood. Aliens is preoccupied with maternalism, and I would go so far as to say that it is far and away the central theme of the movie.

To be sure, motherhood plays a certain role in Scott's film, as well. After all, the Nostromo's central computer is called "MOTHER"--it doesn't get any more blatant than that. And the manner in which the main characters rebel and rail against their cold, unfeeling, even treacherous "Mother" throughout the film has "mommy issues" written all over it. This culminates, of course, in Ripley's desperate attempts to escape before Mother destroys the ship, as she refers to the disembodied ship's voice as "You bitch!"

However, it's in the second film that this theme, merely touched on in the first, comes to full fruition. And it all centers on Ripley, last survivor of the Nostromo. In the first film, Ripley is a decidedly asexual character. In fact, she isn't even feminized with the first name Ellen until the sequel. The fact that the character was originally written to be a man, and that not a single word of the script was changed following the decision to cast a woman, speaks volumes. In short, Ripley's womanhood is irrelevant to the plot. She is a protagonist who just happens to be a woman--albeit a very strong and resourceful one who's more fit for command than any of the men on the ship. But that part could've been played--as it was originally intended--by a man, and no one would've batted an eye.

"A-ffirmative."
When we get to the second film, though, Ripley's womanhood comes front and center. The Ripley of Aliens could not have been played by a man. Being a woman is essential to the character. In that film, James Cameron did something remarkable--he created cinema's first truly viable mainstream female action hero. (Considering Linda Hamilton in Terminator 2, the female action hero seems to be something of a preoccupation for the director.) Not only is being a woman essential to Ripley's character, but being a mother in particular.

Cameron's genius here is in giving us a character who is not a strong protagonist despite her femininity--as in Scott's film--but rather because of her femininity. Cameron grafts all the tropes of the action movie hero--particularly the 1980s action movie hero--onto the image of the woman in her most traditional social role, that of the mother. And it works--because Cameron knows something most of us instinctively know, that mothers, as positively characterized, can be among the most determined, strong-willed, and powerful forces in all of fiction (as well as real life). Driven to protect their young, as well shaping who they grow up to become, the limits of their heroism are nearly boundless, and it could only be in a heavily paternalized culture as our own that this role would ever be demoted into something lesser than.

Cameron knows better, and succeeds in making a character simultaneously maternal and decidedly kick-ass in a stereotypically "masculine" sort of way. In the era of Predator and Rambo, Ripley stands out as a subversion of that macho ideal. Cameron has the vision to take the trope to places other filmmakers were too close-minded to go--or perhaps where they feared their audiences wouldn't follow.

If you've only seen the theatrical version, you're missing a big piece of the puzzle. In one of the worst examples of a movie being somewhat hamstrung in the editing process and much better served by the director's cut, there is a scene--included in the latter but missing from the former--in which we learn that Ripley was a mother. Tragically, because she was trapped in hypersleep for nearly 60 years, she has missed out on her daughter's entire adult life, and learned that she lived to a ripe old age and died just a couple of years before Ripley was recovered in deep space. It's a shocking moment for her and for us, and informs the character so greatly for the rest of the film. It's mind-boggling to me why it would've been removed, thus removing an important part of the movie's impact.

Knowing that Ripley was a mother who lost her child changes the way we look at Ripley's relationship with Newt, the little girl who is the only survivor of the ill-advised colony on planet LV-426. It is that loss which colors the rest of the movie, and their interaction in particular. Ripley has suffered the greatest trauma an adult can suffer--the loss of a child--and she'll be damned if she's about to let it happen again. For her, Newt represents not just a surrogate for her own biological daughter, but a second chance to indirectly "make up" for what happened the first time. Ripley was powerless to change anything about what happened to her own child, but she has the power to make a difference in this little girl's life, to substitute for her lost parents, and protect her from harm in a way she couldn't do for her daughter.

The growing bond between Ripley and Newt is quite touching to watch, as she begins to care for the child, gradually filling the parental role in a very real and emotionally invested way. It represents the heart of a film that is often consumed with macho, militaristic sci-fi. Or is it? Perhaps one of Cameron's greatest tricks is to subvert this macho ideal. All is not what it seems here. Rather, the Space Marines are portrayed more or less as ineffectual cartoon caricatures (with the exception of Hicks as well as Vasquez--the toughest soldier in the squadron who is, quite tellingly, a woman). Also, they are unable to stop the alien threat and properly protect the civilians Ripley and Newt. It falls to Ripley, in the role of "warrior-mother", to stand up and do the job herself. And she does it better than her militarized compatriots, unencumbered as she is by testosterone-driven hubris. Rather, she channels her maternal instincts and becomes the most formidable of them all.

In the process, she becomes cinema's first bona fide feminine action hero. She's not a woman posing in a traditionally "masculine" way, as a character who could either be a male or female, but just so happens to be a woman. Rather, her womanhood is tied directly into her action role. This is not to say that womanhood is only defined by motherhood; but rather, it is to say that, as written, the Ripley of Aliens must be a woman.

Make room for Mommy!
For the film's final conflict, Ripley is forced to do battle with another mother. But this is a very different mother--an "anti-mother" if you will. Of course, I'm talking about the Alien Queen. It's interesting to note that this creature would appear to be created for Cameron's sequel. As conceived in the original Alien, there's no indication given whatsoever that there is such a being. In fact, given what we know now about Ridley Scott's mythos with the expansion of last year's quasi-prequel Prometheus, it seem as if the eggs on that ship weren't necessarily laid by a mother at all, but rather, genetically engineered. Given the evidence we have, it's reasonably to argue that the "Alien Queen" device was invented specifically to further drive James Cameron's maternal themes in Aliens.

The Alien Queen represents the negative side of the mother--whereas we think of mothers bringing life, this mother, in a sense, brings death. Her offspring are killing machines, and her purpose for existing is solely to destroy and to breed others to destroy. She is the poisonous, cancerous mother. Nevertheless, it's worth noting that despite her ugly traits, she still retains that primal aspect of motherhood--the desperate need to protect her young. We can palpably feel her horror when Ripley torches the eggs in her chamber.

In order to truly save Newt in the end, Ripley must protect her from this evil maternal force which also seeks to possess her. And so, one of the watershed action films of the 1980s--if not of all time--culminates in a battle of Mother vs. Mother. And finally, it is the good that triumphs, the nurturing mother driven by altruism. Ripley redeems herself and achieves catharsis. In her final scene, she has become the surrogate mother, figuratively embracing Newt in the womb-like sanctuary of hypersleep.

Yes, this maternal triumph is heart-breakingly nullified by the opening scenes of the next film, David Fincher's Alien 3, when we learn that Newt dies when her hypersleep chamber malfunctions. In my opinion, this creative decision was destructive from a storytelling point of view. However, this need not diminish Cameron's achievement in Aliens, and when taken as a film on its own, as it should be, it remains one of the most impressive accomplishments of '80s cinema. Disguised as a traditional action sci-fi flick, James Cameron gave us one of film's most enduring odes to the nurturing power of motherhood.


Monday, September 20, 2010

TRAILER TRASH: Alien Edition!











Sunday, April 25, 2010

VAULT VLOG: The Alien Prequel Is a Bad Idea, and Enough with the 3-D Already

Friday, December 18, 2009

Dan O'Bannon 1946-2009

"A writer can't scare a reader unless that writer scares himself or herself first. So, you can't excite anyone in the audience unless you're excited writing the script! You're taking yourself for a ride before you take the audience for a ride!"

If you're not instantly familiar with the name Dan O'Bannon, you should be. This is the man who wrote Alien--not just a great sci-fi/horror film, but the sci-fi/horror film. This is the man who wrote and directed The Return of the Living Dead, not just a great horror comedy, but the horror comedy. The same man is responsible for both of these absolutely pivotal movies/franchises. Oh yeah, and he also wrote the scripts for Lifeforce and Total Recall, just in case his resume needed a little extra boosting.

And now, the man who did all those things is no longer with us, having passed away last night after a short illness at the sadly young age of 63.

From a personal perspective, I can tell you that were it not for ROTLD, I very well might not be the horror fanatic I am today. As a kid, I already had a solid grounding in Universal and Hammer, but it was O'Bannon's brilliant zombie comedy that put me over the top as an obsessed lifelong fan of the macabre. Without Dan O'Bannon, there might very well have been no Vault of Horror. Less than a fraction of a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things, to be sure--but I thank him for that.

O'Bannon had a somewhat sparse career, but what he chose to be associated with over the years is so impressive. Definitely a case of quality over quantity. He went to USC with none other than John Carpenter, collaborating with him on both of their debuts, the sci-fi comedy Dark Star (1974). He was on board for the earliest days of George Lucas' Industrial Light & Magic--you know those computer-generated Death Star blueprints, and the stop-motion game pieces Chewie & R2 use in Star Wars? Yeah, he worked on that.

He was also a writer of science fiction and horror in print as well as film, contributing occasionally to the landmark illustrated magazine Heavy Metal. In fact, two of his stories were adapted in the 1981 Heavy Metal movie, including the one about zombie pilots in World War II (figures!). In the '70s, he was attached as a writer to one of the most legendary cinematic missed opportunities, Alejandro Jodorowsky's adaptation of Dune. Although the project never happened, it did acquaint O'Bannon with H.R. Giger, the man who would design the title character of his most famous script.

What came out of the failed Dune for O'Bannon was the chance to script what would become Ridley Scott's masterpiece, Alien. So I guess we can't be too disappointed. You don't need me to tell you what a brilliant screenplay O'Bannon crafted for that picture, one whose influence continues to be felt to this day. He took the established haunted house/slasher motifs, and bonded them to a sci-fi template in a way no one had before. The closest prior comparison might be Forbidden Planet, but that was obviously pre-slasher. In the wake of Star Wars, he showed us the darker, grimmer side of sci-fi.

Nor do you need me to tell you what a minor miracle he pulled off with ROTLD. A movie called The Return of the Living Dead, based on a half-cocked attempt by John Russo to capitalize on the cult popularity of his previous work with George Romero, had no right whatsoever to be any good at all. Yet once O'Bannon took over, in his one great directorial turn, he transformed it into what I can say in all confidence is a terrific piece of film-making, justly revered among genre fans, but worth a look for any lover of film. It's a solid piece of work that gets better every time I watch it. Hell, it was so good it totally overshadowed Romero's own Day of the Dead, which came out at the same time!

So I'll be remembering Dan O'Bannon today, one of the key people who made me the fan I am. I hope you will, too.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

ALIEN vs. THING: Battle of the Ensemble Casts

If you're an astute reader of the Vault, you may have noticed that I haven't changed up the poll on the right sidebar, despite the fact that the last one has been closed for several days now. The reason for this is that I've been very intrigued with what a heated competition it turned out to be, and how close it was. The question is: Which film has the superior ensemble cast, Alien or John Carpenter's The Thing?

Both movies are superb science-fiction/horror films (perhaps the two best ever), and a big reason why is their absolutely excellent casts, made up of terrific veteran actors who are riveting in every scene. It's fascinating how the movies parallel each other in this way. In the end, The Thing won the vote, but with only 51%. It doesn't get any closer than that! So where do you stand? Truth be told, I give Alien the slight edge, but let's take a look at the players:

ALIEN

Sigourney Weaver as Ripley
The star of the film, and quite possibly the greatest performance by an actress in a horror movie, ever.


Tom Skerritt as Dallas
As the doomed captain of the Nostromo, Skerritt is able
to portray both the exasperation and the inevitable failure of a good man in way over his head.

Ian Holm as Ash
Possibly the film's most memorable performance. Holm brought the rigorous training of the English stage to bear in tackling his
role as the haywire android.

John Hurt as Kane
In his relatively limited time on screen, Hurt is nonetheless unforgettable as the victim of the notorious face-hugger.


Harry Dean Stanton as Brett
One half of the movie's duo of frustrated flunkies, Stanton is perfect as the ultimate put-upon space stoner.


Yaphet Kotto as Parker
And Kotto is the other half, bringing a certain physicality and presence to his role that takes a small part and makes a lot more out of it.

Veronica Cartwright as Lambert
Perhaps the film's most underrated performer, Cartwright play Lambert as the anti-Ripley, a hysterical woman who collapses under the stress of the situation.

In the case of The Thing, there are several more cast members involved than in Alien, so in the interest of relative "fairness", I've left out some of the more minor roles and focused on those who contribute most to the great ensemble work that goes on in the movie...

THE THING

Kurt Russell as R.J. MacReady
For some, he is the ultimate genre leading man/hero figure in this role. It's interesting to compare MacReady to Dallas, in that MacReady is just as unready, but rises to the occasion so much better.

Wilford Brimley as Dr. Blair
If you only know him as the sweet old man telling you about diabetes on TV, you need to watch Brimley as a serious-as-cancer hardass in this movie.


Keith David as Childs
Speaking of hardasses, David is terrific as always, and of course brings that unmistakable voice with him.


David Clennon as Palmer
The parallel to Stanton's Brett, as the put-upon stoner/slacker of the crew, Clennon provides what little bone-dry humor this movie has to offer.


Richard Dysart as Dr. Copper
Playing "cool-just-on-the-edge-of-losing-it", Dysart is very effective in a situation that has to be any doctor's worst nightmare.

Richard Masur as Clark
A somewhat atypical role for Masur, who made a career of playing semi-comical schlemiels. It's interesting to see how he plays this part.

Donald Moffat as Garry
A capable character actor if ever there was one, although I'll always have a soft spot for him as the tax collector in Popeye...

Thomas G. Waites as Windows
Packs a punch as the disgruntled grunt/techie of the crew, almost an everyman figure.


Beyond looking at the individual actors, there is of course also that intangible "ensemble" factor--the way all these fine performers come together and interact with each other to produce scenes that are absolutely gripping in one way or another. As I've said, I give a slight edge here to Alien, if only because it's a tighter group, but I don't want to prejudice you guys too much. I'm very interested in what others have to say about this. So now it's your turn...

* * * * * * * * * *

In other news, allow me to puff out my chest a bit here and declare that The Vault of Horror has finally attained the top spot at HorrorBlips. If you've never visited it, HorrorBlips is an excellent website which gathers together horror news from sites and blog across the web in one place, and also ranks tons of horror blogs based on traffic and linkage. Yours truly currently reigns supreme at #1, thanks in large part to the support of all you loyal Vault Dwellers. And thanks to that sweetheart BJ-C, who dedicated her post on Day of the Woman this morning to my triumph (and who is also currently ranked #3, by the way).

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

The Tuesday Top 10: Most Well-Made Horror Films

I know I may catch some flak for this one, and maybe be labeled a "film snob". So be it. Maybe I am one, a little. Let me explain what the concept behind this week's list is...

There is a big difference between a favorite movie and a great film. Just as when you're asked, "what's your favorite movie ever?", it's a very different question from, "what do you think is the best movie ever made?"

With that in mind, I'm putting together a list of the ten most well-made horror films ever. These are films that I would put up against any straight drama nominated for a Best Picture Oscar in its respective year--and, in fact, in some cases these films were actually nominated, or won. More than just great horror flicks, these are excellent films, period.

Let me explain the difference. As much as I love George Romero, and Dawn of the Dead is my favorite horror movie of all time, I can admit that I love it because it's a cool horror movie. It has flaws--the acting is often stiff, the editing sometimes sloppy, the soundtrack delightfully cheesy. That's all irrelevant to why I love it. As much as I adore it, if we look at the films nominated for Best Picture that year, we find movies like The Deer Hunter and Midnight Express. You can hurl tomatoes at me if you want, but I'm not going to put DOTD in a category with those movies.

On the other hand, if we look at a movie like The Exorcist, in my opinion, we're looking at a film that is superbly made from every aspect--apart from being a great horror movie, it is just a great film, plain and simple. And it was nominated right alongside films like American Graffiti and The Sting--and deserved to be. That's the difference I'm talking about. Film snob? So be it.

Got it? OK, let's proceed...

10. 28 Days Later (2002)
Before he became a mainstream darling with Slumdog Millionaire, Danny Boyle gave us this frenetically paced and brilliantly photographed picture. I remember seeing it at the time and thinking it was made with more quality than any horror films that had come along in a while, and I still stand by that opinion.

9. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Although I hesitate to call it a horror movie, it is generally considered as such, and thus it didn't seem right to leave it off. Jonathan Demme's masterwork became the first horror film to win Best Picture, and also took home statuettes for director, actor, actress and screenplay. This was truly horror's greatest moment in the sun.

8. The Haunting (1963)
Powerhouse director Robert Wise, who made his bones under Val Lewton in the 1940s, delivered this, the finest ghost movie ever made. Without ever showing us a thing, Wise creates an atmosphere of sheer terror. The editing is crisp, the camerawork restrained and effective. This is an awe-inspiring fright flick.

7. The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
While I enjoy the first Frankenstein more (and ranked it higher on my '30s movies list), I have to agree with most critics that this is a film of slightly higher quality. Working from a clever, satirical script, James Whale imbued his sequel with rich symbolism and wit. The sets are gorgeous. And that cabin scene with the blind man is one of the finest scenes in any movie--ever.

6. Jaws (1975)
Another flick I never quite considered horror, but I am decidedly in the minority, apparently. This is Speilberg at the height of his powers, and it earned him a Best Picture nom. Some of the finest performances you'll ever find in the horror genre, courtesy of Roy Scheider, Richard Dreyfuss and the great Robert Shaw.

5. Alien (1979)
Ridley Scott turned what could've been your by-the-numbers alien critter-in-space B-flick into a superb piece of filmmaking. With a knockout cast, flawless effects, captivating set design and beautiful cinematography, it is a true pleasure to watch. And I stand by the opinion that James Cameron's sequel, while perhaps a more action-packed popcorn flick, is in every way inferior.

4. Let the Right One In (2008)
Folks have called this the finest vampire film ever made, and I'd say that's accurate. But beyond that, this is a work of heart-breaking beauty that literally transcends the genre. Without the vampirism, it would still be outstanding. In a few more years, with a little more perspective, it is entirely possible that I would put it into the number-one position (as BJ-C suggested).

3. The Exorcist (1973)
The 1970s was perhaps the greatest decade for film, and this was horror's greatest contribution to the new movement. William Friedkin's finest moment, it's characterized by an excellent script from novelist William Peter Blatty and incredible performances from Ellen Burstyn, Linda Blair and Jason Miller. Nominated for the big one, and deservedly so. Never gets old.

2. Psycho (1960)
Alfred Hitchcock's proto-slasher has become a film school standby, and one of the most revered films ever made. And it's not even Hitchcock's best. A true master of the medium, Hitch dazzles effortlessly with gorgeous composition and a pacing rhythm that gives you no choice but to watch. Anthony Perkins is a revelation, and the landmark Bernard Herrmann score needs no hype.

1. The Shining (1980)
This whole shebang is a matter of opinion, and in my opinion The Shining is the finest horror film ever made. Stanley Kubrick's cinematic jewel is a work of absolute genius from top to bottom. This is a film so rich in texture and flawless in execution that I find it a rewarding experience to watch every single time. More than a horror movie, this film is a work of art.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Hump-Day Harangue: Alien Prequel Needs Ridley Scott!

I have, on occasion, been accused of being a little too negative. Fair enough, I'm always open to criticism. Perhaps it's a little too easy to constantly go off on a rant tearing down this sequel or that remake, demanding that some movie or another not be made, as I did recently with the Saw franchise. So today, I'm going to take the high road. I'm going to come out in favor of a new sequel--or more accurately, a new prequel. But I have one very crucial condition.

I'm all for an Alien prequel. But only--I repeat, only--if Ridley Scott is the director.

I continue to be amazed every time I see it what an extremely well-crafted and terrifying film the original Alien is. It's one I never get tired of. I guess it's a "comfort movie" for me, you might say. And although I will never go as far as many others will and say that James Cameron's sequel Aliens is even better, it is also a hell of a movie. But since then, I've watched my beloved Alien franchise go through a slow and painful death.

First there was David Fincher's Alien-cubed, which I actually enjoyed, but which was flawed in a great many ways. Killing off Hicks and the little girl before the movie even starts was probably the single most egregious. From there, I'd rather not even talk about it. Aliens ripping out Nick Tortelli's brains in some farcical horror space comedy; two half-baked and ill-conceived Predator crossovers...it's enough to make me pull an Ash and start spouting 2-percent out of my bodily orifices.

So I'm all for returning the Alien franchise to its former glory. But it has to be done right. And the only man who can pull that off, as far as I'm concerned, is the man who realized Dan O'Bannon's incredible vision in the first place back in 1979. Some may suggest Cameron, but to me, the guy has lost his mind ever since becoming "King of the World". He can go direct another 3-D movie about fish, as far as I'm concerned. I want me some Ridley.

I'm not sure what this prequel would entail exactly, but Ridley Scott has proven enough to be so completely in touch with the material that I'm sure he'd do a bang-up job. Checking out the special features on the recent Alien special edition DVD was more than enough to further convince me of that. The man speaks with great passion for the material, and remarkable insight--while admitting to not even having been much of a fan of sci-fi or horror. Normally that's strike one in my book, but in his case I find it gives him even more credibility. He approached the project with a clean slate, and created something remarkably fresh and powerful in the process.

The good news is, according to Entertainment Weekly, that 20th Century Fox, which owns the rights to the franchise, is saying it will only greenlight a prequel if Ridley directs. Now, Scott was already signed on as a producer, but had hand-picked some German commercial director by the name of Carl Erik Rinsch to helm the picture. Boo. Luckily, here is one instance in which studio meddling may actually be serving a greater good.

No word yet on whether Ridley will buckle under the pressure and consent to once again direct the actions of stuntmen in H.R. Giger-designed bodysuits, but this blogger can hope with fingers and toes crossed. It's not like the guy's not active in the director's chair anymore, and it's not like he still doesn't pack a mighty punch, as the likes of Body of Lies and American Gangster have recently shown.

So make it happen, Mr. Scott. Show us you can save Alien from mediocrity and finish (?) the series out with a real bang. And help me wash those images of Nick Tortelli in space out of my brain...

Friday, May 29, 2009

VAULT VLOG: In Praise of Second-Run Cinema



Wednesday, March 18, 2009

The Alien/Predator Conflict Takes an Unexpected Turn...


This image, which I've promptly hung on the bulletin board in my office, is one of three created by the New Zealand ad firm DDB to promote the airing last month of Aliens vs. Predator on Sky TV. I think the brandy snifter is what puts it over the top for me. Now, if only the film this is touting were anywhere near as amusing/entertaining! To see these iconic movie monsters locked in other heated contests, visit Ads of the World.

Monday, March 10, 2008

First Time Around: Space Monsters

Hello, all. You can call me RayRay, the name so nice you say it twice.

I would like to say that I am honored to have been invited to contribute to this page. I was pretty much offered an outlet for my opinions, on subjects which I love, which are monsters and horror movies. I assumed books and stories were also part of the fare. For that I have to say: thank you.

I have to confess that horror is not my favorite genre. I would have to say that I am a bit more of a science-fiction/fantasy fan more than anything, but from there you get some of the best monsters. And honestly, I love monsters. And that is the one thing movies have over books - you get to see the monsters. And science-fiction horror is a big sub-genre, and has some of the best monsters, so I guess I am in the right ballpark. And I love me a good space monster, be it intelligent or just plain mean. And there are soooo many good monsters from outer space.

Let's see, there are the hunters from the "Predator" franchise. They were a pretty good concept, and the first movie, with Arnold, had some very serious horror elements, especially when the small commando unit finally figures out that they are actually being hunted. The scene occurs during broad daylight (albeit in the jungle) which really adds to the tension. You have Schwarzenegger looking around, bug-eyed, at this unseen force which had just (if memory serves) picked off one of his own men. The horror implications of the movie wear off, though, once it is Arnold alone, and the creature's camouflage stops working, and you can see it is a man in a suit. At this point it more or less devolves back into a pure action flick, though it is still a good movie.

The monster in Predator is scary when you can't see him, and don't what he's about, except he really likes spinal columns. The ability to move about the trees is also disconcerting, as is the speed and obvious toughness. But when you get your first good look at him, when he emerges from the river and his camo-unit goes haywire, he is somewhat strange, but aside from his mask and his huge size, it's just a really big man, and all tension is dissipated.

But one of the great monsters from outer space, and of all time, are the bio-mechanical, H.R. Geiger-created "Aliens." Sure, I know, this is nothing new. Everyone has seen the movies of this franchise. Everyone knows that this is a very scary set of monsters. But I want to put my own 2 cents in. The original, Ridley Scott's Alien, is a pure classic, and the follow up, James Cameron's aptly titled Aliens, is one of the few sequels which actually stands up to the original [See: The Godfather]. (I will not comment at this time about the following movies of this franchise, or the AVP series.) The monster is the secret of these two movies. Simply, it is one of the most terrifying monsters ever thought up. To quote: "Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility." It is tough enough to withstand hard vacuum, and even a good blast by a spaceship's engines. It is essentially a black insectizoidal armored shell over what otherwise appears to be a humanoidal skeleton, but with a barbed tail, and a haunting eyeless face over a double mouth with teeth that appear to be metallic in nature. It is the very visage of soullessness - it is malevolent beyond a vicious animal; perhaps manufactured, but to what end? Even without eyes you can feel an inhuman consciousness burning into you, like when it is contemplating the cat, Jones, towards the end of Alien. And I haven't even mentioned its blood type or its less than charming form of procreation. It is almost industrialized horror made animal - manufactured in an assembly line, one of a series, in identical rows, oozing the slime from within the machine, precise in its actions, measured in its movements, hidden in the nooks of its nest. What isn't human is insect; what isn't flesh is chitin or metal. It is almost a realization of Kafka's bad dream, but we don't get to be the bug - the bug comes from us. All in all, I have long thought of this creature as the #2 scariest monster in horror, all time.

Now, that last sentence is begging a question: well, RayRay, what's the scariest monster of all time? I can tell you, and it is, in my humblest of opinions, also one of the best movies ever made: John Carpenter's The Thing. The Thing, you say? That bomb from 1981? The remake that was missing a cameo from James Arness? Yeah, that one. If you never saw it, then do so, and make sure the lights are out. If you don't want it spoiled for you, read no further.

There is nothing about this movie that is lacking. It is cast wonderfully. It's got a great script. It's screen shots and angles are great. The effects are top notch, and have held up for a quarter of a century, well into the CGI years (Rob Bottin did it right, and did it old school). And it has the single most terrifying monster of all time. The film combines the alienation from civilization with the alienation between the characters, where trust becomes the most valuable and vanishing commodity, in the midst of an Antarctic winter storm. And all with the lurking, oppressive horror of a monster that could be......is........one or more of the fellow men you are trapped with. Even after the monster is revealed for the first time - when it attacks the dogs in the kennel - it is immediately hidden again. This is the type of movie you watch over and over again, looking in the background to see if there was a raised eyebrow or a glance that you missed.

The Thing is such an effective monster as it can infiltrate at will; it can change shape at will; the forms it can take on are essentially unlimited; it possesses the souls of its victims (rare for a sci-fi monster from space); and when it attacks it...........well, what it does is not exactly explicable but it comes with generous helpings of slime and tentacles and wholly inhuman shapes, a horror of Lovecraftian proportions (more on the great HPL another time). As a victim you become just part of the creatures' coterie or its repertoire, depending on how you think of it. Also, once you begin to give it thought, the ramifications of this creature that absorbs its victims are troubling. Clearly, early in the movie at least one member of Outpost 31 is infected by the alien creature via the dog from the Norwegian base. Yet that person is not revealed until much, much later (it is either Norris, Palmer, or Blair, you never find out; and that person infects at least one or more of the others). At what point does that person cease to be that person? During the scene when MacReady, the putative hero, is performing the "blood and hot needle" tests, just before he tests Palmer's blood, you see resignation flash across Palmer's face. Is that Palmer, or the Thing, who is so resigned, sighing to himself? If it creates a perfect imitation, does the underlying person EVER stop being?

It is often forgotten (at least by me until it was pointed out) that MacReady, the pilot and aforementioned hero, takes a long helicopter ride to the site of the actual spaceship with the two characters that must have already been at least infected, if not full blown 'things' at the time - Palmer and Norris. Does anything happen off camera we don't find out about? Probably not, but that gnawing doubt is part of the essence of this monster.

Continuing, the "Thing" is no dumb animal. Whatever it is, it knows what it wants, and it wants to get the hell off Antarctica. And in furtherance of this it is building itself a SPACESHIP (!!) from the parts of terrestrial vehicles (while distracting the humans from discovering this activity). This is an extrememly intelligent creature (even if it is acquired intellect), with a lot of technical know-how (same caveat). Couple the toughness to lie dormant and frozen for a thousand centuries with all of the above, and the result is the most capable and frightening movie monster I can think of. Ever. All time. Period. At least to this casual observer.

Until next time, watch the skies.................

Sunday, February 3, 2008

Blood & Guts: A History of Horror Movies, Part 5

In the wake of the turbulent 1960s, the horror genre had been dramatically and permanenently altered. One taboo after another was being torn down, and it would be in the following two decades--viewed by some as the genre's second golden age--that the doors would be completely blown off.
In many ways, the 1970s represent an era in horror flicks which has yet to be equalled in terms of shocking themes, graphic violence and unflinchingly grim outlook. The demise of the restrictive Hays Code spawned two branches: one in which top-flight films began to be made with horror subject matter, and the other in which blood-soaked low-budget exploitation material meant easy money.
The success of Rosemary's Baby led to 1973's The Exorcist, often hailed as the most frightening horror film ever made. Whether or not it was, The Exorcist was a mainstream American film dealing with demonic possession--something that would've been unheard of just several years before. A series of occult and Satanic-themed pictures would follow, including Alice, Sweet Alice (1976) and The Omen (1976). All dealt frankly with matters of religion, and contained powerful dramatic performances.
On the other end of the spectrum, American audiences were confronted with a type of horror they were thoroughly unprepared for, and in the process some of horror's finest directors would make their names. Wes Craven emerged on the scene in 1972 with The Last House on the Left, featuring brutal scenes of rape and disembowelment. Two years later, Tobe Hooper created what was arguably the pinnacle of the subgenre, the nightmarish Texas Chainsaw Massacre. And in 1978, George Romero followed up his seminal '60s masterpiece Night of the Living Dead with Dawn of the Dead, this time ratcheting up both the gore quotient and the social commentary.
This explosion of explicit gore content was unheard of in the history of cinema, particularly American cinema--and it didn't go unnoticed outside U.S. boundaries. Other countries, most notably Italy, soon followed suit. Italian filmmakers such as Dario Argento, Mario Bava and Lucio Fulci churned out films that in many ways surpassed their American counterparts in terms of their power to both disturb and revolt.
Popular horror fiction writer Stephen King would become a force to be reckoned with in the movie world, as well. Beginning with 1976's Carrie, his novels and short stories would prove a fertile source of film material. Perhaps the greatest of them all would be Stanley Kubrick's The Shining (1980), quite possibly the best-made fright film ever.
By the end of the 1970s, the new style of horror was firmly in place, and even some of the old subgenres would begin to be reinvigorated by it. Ridley Scott gave us Alien in 1979, capitalizing on the success of Star Wars to bring back the horror/sci-fi movie. And it was the year before that John Carpenter produced a film that would take the territory first mined by Psycho to a whole new level, defining 1980s horror in the process.
Halloween was a new kind of horror flick, specifically, it was a slasher flick, portraying a superhuman, stalker/killer (in this case, Michael Myers) who systemically murders a series of hopeless victims over the course of 90 minutes. Although most still regard it as the high watermark of slasher movies, it spawned literally countless followers.
Chief among them would be Friday the 13th (1980) and A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), the franchises which gave the world Jason Voorhess and Freddy Kreuger, respectively. The 1980s would be dominated by these types of horror movies and their limitless sequels. And although today a generation of fans who grew up on them look back with fondness and nostalgia, at the time they were viewed by critics and older fans as the genre's all-time nadir.
Nevertheless, by the early 1980s horror had begun to struggle again at the box office. Some point to the advent of VHS home video, with most low-budget flicks in general having trouble competing for audience dollars with massive Hollywood productions. Horror would find a new home in the video market, with releases such as The Evil Dead (1981), The Fly (1986) and Re-Animator (1985) becoming run-away hits with audiences that found it easier to pay less and watch in their own homes. In the U.K., this led to the phenomenon of the so-called "video nasties"--movies deemed by British censors to be unacceptable due to home video's availability to children. Naturally, these pictures would become the most sought-after for British horror fans.
The 1980s' other major contribution would be the proliferation of horror comedy. Although humor had always had a place in the genre, never before had gut-wrenching violence been so deftly meshed with black comedy as it was in such pictures as Sam Raimi's Evil Dead II (1987), Dan O'Bannon's The Return of the Living Dead (1985) or Peter Jackson's Bad Taste (1987). With the almost mind-numbing level horror movie violence had achieved, it was a natural reaction to spoof it.
The 1970s and 1980s produced some of the most powerful and disturbing horror movies ever seen. Some would even argue the genre hasn't reached similar heights since. Yet despite changing times, the standard set during those years would become a benchmark to inspire and motivate every horror filmmaker who came after.
Other major releases:
Part 1: The Silent Dead
Part 2: Gods & Monsters
Part 3: It Came from Hollywood
Part 4: The Times, They Are a-Changin'
Soon to come - Part 6: From Post Mortem to Postmodern
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...