Alien

This week we got to watch the movie Alien starring Sigourney Weaver. I'm not going to summarize it for you though... Because if you lived through the 80's or 90's you already know what is about. If you missed those decades stop reading this and go watch the movie. I'm not kidding. Go. Everyone should see this film. Everyone. No, exceptions.

The first thing I want to talk about is the beginning of this film. There are approximately 6 minutes we don't see characters. All we get is scenery. Which in fiction we are good not to do. Ever. But here in this film it's shameless about is wanting you to notice and appreciate the scenery. I love that. It's so very wrong in fiction that it seems decadent and lovely in film. It's one of those things that film can pull off, but fiction cannot. Which is kind of a bummer.

Another convention that works in film but not fiction is the repeating scene. Specifically the 'we just woke up from hypersleep and we're starving scene.' This scene occurs in every film in this franchise. Go check. I'll wait. Even the prequel Prometheus has almost the exact scene. Which is great for a film franchise...but a big giant no-no in fiction.  If we use the same scene in every book in a series we get called unoriginal and the scene gets cut. Which I guess is maybe a filmmakers privilege. Even more so if your name is Ridley Scott. I guess being awesome lets you make that call.

One of my favorite parts of this movie is Ripley. For one very specific reason. Ripley was not intended to be a female character. She was written gender androgynous but intended to be male. But when they were doing casting they decided Ripley would be a female. And here's why that's awesome: she doesn't feel gender swapped. A lot of times in sci-fi/action/horror, the female characters that started as male characters don't seem authentically female. This is not one of those stories. Ripley may have started male, but she feels female. A strong, smart, capable female. And for that I love this film.

Can we all take a minute and appreciate that all the bad choice in this movie are made by the men. Usually in horror we get the "dumb blond running up the stairs when she should be running out the front door " type. I mean seriously it's a problem. We get girls who accidentally open boxes and release demons, girls who tell others about their dream demon allowing him to jump to others dreams, and girls who decide that smoking pot while having underage sex at camp and let a child drown and turn into a monster. But not in this film. In Alien, we get the guys making epically bad choices like: I'll just touch what's clearly an alien egg then stand here like a dumbass while it hops out and attacks me, or let's open the hatch and let the guy whose face is getting raped by an alien inside the ship, or let's cut off the leg of this unknown alien, and we can't forget the worse choice of all, we'll just let the guy who was face raped sit and eat with us, no need for quarantine. And who is the voice of reason? Ripley. Always Ripley. Because she's the shit.

Can we all just agree that if an android appears in a horror or sci-fi movie that they are going to be evil. It's pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point. That said I would still like someone to explain to me how they went from David (in the Alien prequel Prometheus) to the Ash model (in this film) of android? Seems like a downgrade to me. While he's just as culpable to Ash I much prefer the Michael Fassbender (David) android. Still evil but pretty. I'd sign up for a David android. No problem.

The last thing I want to talk about is the cat. It's no surprise I'm a cat person. I have a cat asleep behind me and one in my lap as I type this. But to be fair I love all animals I just find cats to be allies as I'm allergic to rodents. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. But I digress. The point I was trying to make (ineffectually) was that they didn't go for the shameless emotional appeal with the cat in this film. They could have, but they didn't. They took the high road. In my opinion too often horror writers go for the lowbrow emotional appeal of killing a pet instead of going for a real scare. I think it's a crutch and it's never effective for me when they make the scare mostly about killing house pets. I hate that. To me, it's pandering and I'm glad they didn't go that way in this film. The cat is there it's in peril, just like the humans, but it's not the scare. Instead, its peril adds to the overall scare without the last ditch effort of emotional appeal over its death. And for that I say, "Thank you," to Ridley Scott.

The alien/xenomorph on Family Guy...because this post was way too serious and I can't let that stand. 

Overall I love this movie. I think it's awesome on so many levels. If you haven't seen it go watch it. You won't regret it.

Works Cited

Alien. Dir. Ridley Scott. Perf. Sigourney Weaver. 1979. Blu-Ray.

Cycle of the Werewolf by Stephen King

This week we got to read Cycle of the Werewolf by Stephen King. And I really don't think I need to tell anyone that when you combine Stephen King and werewolves I'm in and I'll love it. And this is book lives up to that. This was closed to my 15 read of his book. I didn't have to buy it for class because I had a first edition book that my mother bought when it came out. My mother had great taste. Anyway without further ado here are my thoughts on this book.

Can we take a minute and talk about how this book starts, "Somewhere, high above, the moon shine down, fat and full--but here, in Tarker's Mills, a January blizzard has cooked the sky with snow. The wind rams full force down a deserted Center Avenue; the orange town plowed have given up long since," ( King, 13). It starts with ever scenery and weather. Two things as writers we are told ad nauseum ad infinitum not to do. And yet here it is and by the amazing Mr. Stephen King. I'm just saying, that is pretty awesome. It gives me hope. A lot of hope.

I also wanted to talk about the style choices that are made in this book. We don't meet the main character (Marty) until page 61. That's highly unusual... But it works. This book is almost like a series of short stories based around a central theme. That in my opinion is a really cool style choice and I really like it.

*Spoiler Alert* Can we talk about how the May chapter tells you that Reverend Lowe is the werewolf. I knew reading through this time who the wolf was. I challenge others to go back and reread the May chapter and see how masterfully King tells you it's him without telling you. I mean why wouldn't you stand up and accuse everyone else in town of being the wolf when you are yourself the wolf. Also the werewolf dream. In werewolf fiction dreams are huge and usually only occur to those who are turning or are werewolves themselves. And that's why Stephen King is the man.

The last thing I want to talk about is the body count and gore in this book. Nine dead people (if you don't count the Reverend), and nine pigs... That's a huge body count and yet there is very little gore. And that makes me sad. I want gore. I want buckets and bathtubs full of blood. I want severed appendages flailing and heads rolling. In fact my only compliant is that I wanted more gore.

Over all I really enjoyed this book. I have read it before and I'll read it again. I love werewolves. I love Stephen King. In my book that makes this book a Reese's peanut butter cup. Two great taste that taste great together.

Works Cited

King, Stephen. Cycle of the Werewolf. New York. Penguin Group, 1983

The Funeral by Richard Mathesen

This week we read The Funeral by Richard Mathesen. A short story about a mortician who performs funerals for...well let's call them questionable monster types since it never says outright says what they are.

I'm not quite sure what genre this short story is supposed to be in. Because it certainly didn't feel like horror. In fact the campy nature of this short seemed almost like a kids story. It wasn't scary and at times seemed like it was written for people who don't read horror. I got serious Munsters feels from this short. Monsters as the quirky neighbors not as being scary.

It was super campy, and the monsters very cliche. I have no problem with campy monsters. I love camp....yet I didn't like this very much. I think that was for two different reasons.

The first being that I wasn't sure where or when it was set. The language made it sound old. The language also made it seem...British. I say that because through word choice it sounds way more highbrow and proper than an American song. Words like "pendium"(Mathesen, 261) "diffident" (Matheson, 263), "solicitude" (Matheson, 262), "Indeed" (Matheson, 264), and "felicitous" (Matheson, 266), among others made this sound both old a British to me.

The second thing that annoyed me in this short story was that it totally lacked character ark. Morton Silkline doesn't change at all. He's the same money grubbing guy of questionable repute on page 269 as he was on page 261. He had no ark and for me that left no real point for the story.

That said I did like the variety of creatures that appear in this short story. I'm not quiet sure what the last monster is but he's definitely unique.  Which is always awesome and refreshing. I probably won't read it again. I'm glad I read it...even if I'm no quiet sure what genre is supposed to fall into.

Works Cited

Matheson, Richard. I Am Legend. New York City: Tom Doherty Associates, LLC, 1995. E-book.

I Am Legend by Richard Matheson

     The first book we read for our Reading in Genre Horror Monsters class was I am Legend by Richard Matheson. If you haven't read it it's definitely worth a read. It's about a man who is slowly going crazy set against the backdrop of the vampire apocalypse. 

What I Liked

     First things first last semester we read Hell House by Matheson...and I was not a fan to say the least. This one I liked a lot more. Overall it was way shorter and it progressed faster. 

Some Great Lines:

     One of the things that made me really like this book is that there were some really well written lines...or at least lines that stuck with me or that jumped out at me. Here are a few of my personal favorite that showcase some of the books highlights: "If she became ill, it irritated her. She was annoyed by sickness. She seemed to regard it as a personal affront," (Matheson, 39) and "Suddenly, like the eyes of a sleeper who has a definite job to do upon awakening; who does not move into consciousness with a vague entry, but with a single, clear-cut motion, knowing just what is to be done,"(Matheson, 45). I think what appeals to me the most about both of those lines is how well they show you the characters without telling you. They are so well written that you see them so vividly. I also like the first line because it perfectly describes myself when I get sick. So only a slight personal bias on that one. 

Viral Vampires:

     After having read two of Matheson's books I have noticed that he really likes to ground his horror in science. Which for my science loving self is just awesome. I definitely get the sense that he did his research on this one. I love that the vampires are viral. I love the logic/scientific explanation of the vampires. It helps make the fantastic seem real. 

What I didn't like:

Things We Are Warned About As Writers:

     I would really like to draw attention to pages 21 and 23. As I was reading these pages I noticed a repetition of the ending ing. The dreaded ing-ing. Each of the aforementioned pages have it occurring no less than 18 times each page. That's a long of ing's. when you combine that with the ly's that pop up in conjunction then it kind of makes those pages a hot mess. It's one of those things that I wouldn't have noticed before enrolling at SHU but now I can't not see it. While it does annoy me...it also comforts me. Matheson sold a lot of books so even though we are told it's wrong, it still gets through.

     Can we take a moment and talk about page 24 and the horrible word echo that for me stood out like a sore thumb. We get one sentence ending with the word consciousness and the next starting with the word consciously. Yuck. Just yuck. I don't know that I have ever read anything that had that blatant a word echo and it really got my hackles up.

Characters:

    So again I have to compare this book to Hell House also by Matheson and I am left wondering what does this dude have against women? On page 44 we get almost a tiny bit of meta on this when it says "Why do you always experiment on women," (Matheson). And honestly I was wondering why are the women always weak, evil, or victims in his books. Seriously?!?! What kind of misogynistic crap is that? Not cool Matheson, not cool. That is actually one of the main reasons I could never really say I am a fan of Matheson. When you are female, and all the female characters are bad, evil, weak, or victims, you can't really connect with the story. 

And yes I just used a meme from the film to shame the book. For which I am not sorry.

George R.R. Martin's getting it right.

And so is my spirit animal Joss Whedon. 

The Ending:

     Okay, this one is going to be short. The last three words of the book are the title. Ugh. Just ugh. I'm not sure why but it seriously annoys me when the title of the book is placed in the book. It just seems like the author was trying way to hard to make the title fit the book. Yuck. I don't like it and I really wish writers wouldn't do it. 

Final Thoughts:

     Over all I liked this book. Will I read it again...probably not. To be honest and I know this will probably get me a lot of boo's but, I like the 2007 movie I Am Legend more than the book (and it's not just because in the film I got to look Will Smith for almost two hour...although that didn't hurt he's very easy on the eyes). I prefer it because it basically sidestepped all the problems of the book. Gone is the sexism, and the above mentioned writing flaws. That said the movie did make them more zombie than vampire...but hey it worked. Anyway I am glad I read the book, and I would recommend others read it at least once, but I won't be reading it again because I can't connect to any of the characters. 

Yet another reason to love the movie: He talks to mannequins and it cracks my ass up. 

Works Cited

Matheson, Richard. I Am Legend. New York City: Tom Doherty Associates, LLC, 1995. E-book.

Ghostbusters

The last piece we were asked to look at for my RIG Horror class is Ghostbusters. I am no stranger to this film. I saw it first when I was a little kid. In fact I grew up watching the Ghostbusters TV cartoon every Saturday morning. And yes that was a thing, and yes I loved it even though they turned Slimer into a weird ghostly side kick instead of a poltergeist. I was a kid. that's my excuse and I'm sticking with it.

Like with the last reading I'm not quite sure that I would consider this horror. For me it's too silly and more of a comedy than a horror. I saw it on the list and I was like "What..." (Hear this in minion voice). I guess it could fall under haunting, for obvious reasons. Sure there are ghosts, and such but there are no real horror elements. For me placing this film in with horror is like saying Shaun of the Dead in horror. Both are more comedy than horror in my opinion.

I do genuinely enjoy that in the film they employed science to find, trap, and contain ghosts. I think it's really the only movie with haunting of any kind that attempts to contain the entities. The others all attempt to drive them off, damn them to hell, or is some form cast them out. Not Ghostbusters. They think hmm, lets catch all these ghosts and keep them in a tank in the office like ectoplasm filled goldfish or something. Now tell me that's not a comedy. In case you needed further proof that this film is a comedy the final big bad is a giant marshmallow man. That's a right  a giant marshmallow. How on earth is a giant marshmallow scary.

To prove marshmallows are not scary I give you Marshmallow Murder. For no other reason than Marshmallows are funny and not scary. 

Steve!!! See not scary. Not even a little bit.

So I love the movie. I will always love the movie. It's funny and reminds me of my childhood in so many ways. As a closer for the semester I think it fits me perfectly though. I enjoy comedic ghosts, and I love Bill Murray. But at the end of the class I am and always will feel the same about ghosts, and ghost stories. "I ain't afraid of no ghost," (Reitman).

Works Cited

Ghostbusters. Dir. Ivan Reitman. Perf. Dan Aykroyd, & Bill Murray. 1984. DVD.

A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens

This week we got to read a great Victorian era story by Charles Dickens A Christmas Carol. I was actually really excited to re read this story because I haven't read this since I was little. My mom used to read this to me very Christmas, a few pages at a time before bed every night. I think the first time she read this to me I was 6 or seven years old. And I loved it. Which probably explains a lot about me and my love of Gothic and Victorian fiction.

I'm not going to do this post the way I normally do. Generally I talk about what I like and don't like about this, but today I am just going to talk about it a little bit because it's such a wonderfully layered story for being so short.

The first thing I want to talk about is the first line of the story. "Marley was dead to begin with," (Dickens, 16). That may be the single best first line in ever. I freaking love it. You know right off the bat what this story is about. Dead folks, lots and lots of dead folks. Well played Dickens well played.

A lot of the reasons I love this time period of fiction is because of the love of language and words that is present. To put it bluntly, no one writes like that anymore. And I'm pretty sure I know the reason. The period is characterized by repetition or the same or similar words, the tangents, and the references to Shakespeare, that characterized the genre and time period. They are all things that have fallen out of favor or a frowned upon in current writing practice. I know because I have been dinged on several of these areas in my own work. But when this era is my influence and style I think I may be existing in the wrong genre perhaps. The most obvious repetition in the book is in the very first chapter. We get "There is no doubt that Marley was dead," (Dickens, 16) or some variation of that over and over through out the first chapter. I find it funny that this book is held up as great literature but this sort of repetition or word echoes are so chastised in current writing. It doesn't seem fair to me as in my opinion I feel it is beautiful writing regardless of time period. And I feel like it sets the mood.

The flip side of this story being a shining example of it's time period is that it comes off a morality tale...a heavily Christian morality tale. If you're a Christian you may not even notice. But if you were to remove that element of the story there would be nothing except an angry old rich guy who never changes. I'm not saying this is bad, I'm just noting it because for me it became painfully obvious that's what this was. It's less (if at all) about haunting and more about telling a morality tale about not being a jack-A. Label it accurately people.

I'm still not quiet sure why I had to read this story for a genre in horror class...it's not horror...it just isn't. Victorian, yes. Gothic, you betcha (fog much?). Morality tale, absolutely. But horror...not by a long shot. I mean consider that this story has been adapted for children a hundred times. By Disney and Jim Hansen. My personal favorite being The Muppets Christmas Carol. I hardly think that it would have been adapted for children if it were horror.  Sure he's haunted by ghost but in no way is it horror. If anything it's a ghostly shaming.

I'm not even sorry. Enjoy this song from The Muppets Christmas Carol.

Works Cited

Dickens, Charles. The Christmas Carol. London: Simon & Schuster, 2013. E-Book.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose

This week in class we got to read The Exorcism of Emily Rose. A paranormal courtroom drama based on supposedly true events in the life of a young woman named Emily Rose. This is not my first time watching this movie, in fact I didn't have to buy a copy because I already had one. I'm a fan of one of the main actresses so of course it was already in my collection. I've seen it a couple of times but I re-watched it so that I would have specific things to talk about for this post. 

What I Liked:

Jennifer Carpenter:

Okay, so I am a huge Jennifer Carpenter fan from her days on Dexter as Dexter's foul mouthed sister Debra Morgan. I really just loved that character. Rarely do women get to be the foul mouth, and not only was Debra a foul mouth she had some of the best one liners and creative cursing I have every heard and enjoyed. She made me laugh. So yeah I watched this movie the first time because I liked Jennifer and she didn't disappoint me. She was excellent in this film in her portrayal of a woman who is definitely afflicted with something (more on that later). She's mad brilliant and I love her in this film...but I'm not going to lie I kind of missed the foul mouth. And I will always love her as Debra best. If you want to see what I am talking about and you haven't seen Dexter watch this clip here (but free warning it's fairly profane), and watch Dexter on Netflix. It's awesome and Jennifer is awesome in it.

A couple Debra non profane moments for your enjoyment. 

The Demon Eyes/Great Visual Effects:

I also really enjoyed the special effects in this film. From the demon eyes that seemed to leak black goo to the awesome make up they did on Jennifer to show her deteriorating state. I felt that it was really well done and didn't seem to over the top compared to what we've seen in movies like The Exorcist films were. They seemed plausible and realistic...well except the demon eyes. Those where just awesome.

The Scientific Approach to Possession:

Not that anyone is surprised at this point but I loved the scientific approach to this movie. My little scientific heart skipped a beat when I first watched it. I'm a big fan of trying to disprove this sort of thing. That said there are some glaring problems with this movies science. First of all the one doctor claims he would treat her with ECT more commonly known as electroshock therapy. Here's the problem with that: ECT is used only by consent and has not been used on psychosis since the 70's. It's actually used only for major depressive disorder now and never with out full consent. If they were going to use that they  should have set this back when that ECT was still used for that. Just the same I liked the effort but they should have done their research before they used that.

Accurate Depiction of SIB, Rigidity, and Destruction of Property

I really enjoyed the accurate depiction of the ailments that Emily Rose suffered. The postures and behaviors of actress Jennifer Carpenter where spot of for these sorts of manifestations of behavior. First of all I love the pure physicality of the actress. Second I work with kids who exhibit several of these behaviors and she freaking nailed it. The frozen rigid poses (I actually see this regularly), the SIB, the destruction of property, they nailed those to. To someone who doesn't work with people who do these sorts of things regularly then I'm sure it could be seen as demonic, for me I saw it as accurate portrayal of mental illness. Around 51 minutes into the film Emily Rose is frozen on the floor in a perfect representation of a behavior I have seen represented in real life as recently as this week. It was so accurate I wanted to clap. Sure it's a weird thing to enjoy but when there are so many bad representations of these behaviors out there, when you see a good one you applaud the pains they went to make it perfect.

The blackout contacts make this seem way scarier than it actually is in real life. But still awesome. 

Ending Quote:

"Once You've looked into the darkness, I believe you carry it with you the rest of your life" (Derrickson). Need I say more? That's a brilliant line and I love it. They did an excellent job with dialogue in this film in not only rang true but had a lot of profound moments. I'm not spiritual, nor religious but I really appreciated the way the words where crafted in this film. They were well thought out and meaningful. The above quote just happens to stand out to me as possibly the best one.

What I Didn't Like:

Based On A True Story:

Can we not? The film starts with "This film is based on a true story," (Derrickson) and every time I see those words I swear my ass twitches. All it took was a simple google search to find out that one Emily Rose doesn't exist, Father Moore doesn't exist, the names are pure fiction. The movie is influenced by supposed real events that occurred to Anneliese Michel in 1976, the priest is an amalgamation of a Reverend and a Priest that tried to exorcised her. Also it's worth noting that Anneliese didn't just have 1 exorcism, she had 67, she chose to stop eating (trying to fast the demons out), she wasn't forced to do so, and  it is pretty widely excepted that her whole possession was a fraud, that was heavily influenced by the movie The Exorcist that came out two years before. I also find it destroys credibility for this story that Anneliese's parents had her body exhumed and reburied in a tin lined oak casket (to make sure the demon stayed inside her dead body)...So clearly being a crazy pants runs in the family. If they were going to change so much then they should have said inspired by not based on true events. Then it would have made a little less of a Crabby Patty. 

So Not A Horror Movie:

Yeah so am I the only one who noticed this is not a horror movie. It's a paranormal courtroom drama at best. Not a horror movie. I am really annoyed with how Hollywood will slap horror on so many movies that just aren't horror (*coughs* The Village *coughs*). This is another example of Hollywood pandering to an audience that they think will make them the most money but not living up to the genre convention in a pretty big way. The whole bill it as this, when it's really that is obnoxious and I wish they would stop doing that. If you are a hard core horror fan (and I am) and you see this is the horror section, you will most likely be upset when it doesn't deliver on it's promises. Not cool Hollywood, stop doing this.

Final Thoughts:

Admittedly this film has it's flaws, but over all it's a really good film and I genuinely enjoys it. That said if it weren't for Jennifer Carpenter's performance I may not have received it so well. A lot of the flaws I was able to overlook because of her amazing physical performance.

Works Cited

The Exorcism of Emily Rose. Dir. Scott Derrickson. Perf. Laura Linney & Jennifer Carpenter. 2005. DVD.