Day 31: Shadow of a Doubt

"You go through your ordinary little day, and at night you sleep your untroubled ordinary little sleep, filled with peaceful stupid dreams. And I brought you nightmares. Or did I? Or was it a silly, inexpert little lie? You live in a dream. You're a sleepwalker, blind. How do you know what the world is like? Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you rip off the fronts of houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?"
- Joseph Cotton as Uncle Charlie in Shadow of a Doubt

I find myself tired, and trying to find some spare time in my Halloween night, so I'll only leave you with the quote above, and the extreme recommendation, Halloween movie or not, make sure you see Shadow of a Doubt at least once in your life. It is one of Hitchock's best films and definitely one of my all time favorites. I'll go in-depth on this film at a later date, but for now, it shall simply be something that I recommend.

Day 30: The "Friday the Thirteenth" Series

Though not the original—I suppose that would be “Halloween”—the “Friday the Thirteenth” series is synonymous with “guy who can’t die in order to make more movies”…as if that’s something of which to be proud. Truth is, a lot of horror purists think it is, and frankly so do it. Should the thirteenth of a given month happen to land on a Friday, this previously innocuous* day now warrants horror of the highest level all thanks to a hockey mask and whatever’s convenient for killing someone at that moment.

What the layperson associates with the franchise—the hockey mask, machete, and “ch ch ch ah ah ah”—are rather frightening, but they’re not what the franchise is really rooted in. When the original “Friday the Thirteenth” was released in 1980, the murderer was a mystery, the killings rather simple, and the horror very real. Once revealed, we learned that the original “Jason” was simply the voice in a grieving mother’s head, as she sought revenge on those that had caused Jason’s death: the counselors at Camp Crystal Lake.

And thus we have the mythology of the character Jason that we all know so well. This brute who doesn’t feel pain, hides his face and is surprisingly crafty when in need of a death tool was once a young camper whose promiscuous and drug addicted counselors felt no need to keep track of—even when he was drowning. It’s really a case that any mother would want to take revenge on. What we’re all so afraid of however is when the boy himself takes over.

In the second installment of the franchise (well, really the last few minutes of the first), we’re introduced to Jason the specter, a ghoulish figure who, seeking revenge for his own death, will seek any means necessary to murder not only those responsible for his death, but anyone who takes up post as a counselor at Camp Crystal Lake, and in fact any late teen or twenty something that seeks his legend or spends a few hours or a night there.

The good news for those watching is not only the amount of nudity in the series used to demonstrate the promiscuity, but also the fantastic ways in which Jason kills: From his trusty machete, to drowning people, to trapping people in sleeping bags and smacking them up against trees, to conveniently finding the right weapon at the right time (see: a random vat of toxic waste in “Jason Takes Manhattan,” or a sink full of liquid nitrogen in “Jason X, Jason in Outer Space”). The beauty is that Jason can be killed each of these ways as well…he just doesn’t stay dead come the intro to the next movie.

Like any great horror franchise, there’s a drop-off in greatness the more movies that get made. In his 10 movie career (11 if you count “Freddy vs. Jason”), Jason has murdered in Manhattan, been defeated by some sort of telepath, gotten new mythologies, traded a burlap sack for his trademark hockey mask, had his heart eaten, and been to outer space (which happened after he “went to hell”). No franchise can sustain itself for 10 (or 11 movies) well, and “Friday the Thirteenth” is no different. But the beauty of the franchise isn’t its sustained quality, but it’s cultural affect. Halloween was scary before “Halloween,” and nightmares were frightening before they happened on Elm Street, but the thirteenth’s mainstream cause for terror was never the same after 1980.

*Maybe not historically, but certainly commonly.

Day 29: EDWARD SCISSORHANDS (1990)

With Tim Burton's second attempt to make a Frankenstein film, at this point in his career with a couple of successful films under his belt, the director re-interprets Frankenstein as a kid-friendly story with a slightly darker tone.

He does once again jettison the central conceit, which is, to refresh our memory, that men like Baron Frankenstein (or in this case, The Inventor played by Vincent Price) will be punished for transgressing against God or the Gods. In its place, Burton substitutes two different Ur-conflicts, man versus himself and man versus society. The Edward Scissorhands (Johnny Depp) of the title plays a central role in both.

On one level, the film explores The Inventor's battle with his own loneliness. While Frankenstein's attempt to create life was spurred on by pure hubris (or maniacal glee when played by Peter Cushing), here, the creature's erstwhile creator seeks only to complete himself. He desires only a companion and a son, someone to love and be loved by in return. Sadly, like many parents, he dies before he can see his child reach his full potential. It is a far more personal story, even if Burton only skims the surface.

On the other level, the film explores the conflict between the creature as an outsider and mainstream society. It is not mere coincidence that Edward resembles the typical Goth, or that the film takes place primarily in the suburbs, among the American ideal that this imperfect being can never fit in with. As Edward learns societal norms and acclimates himself more to the suburban lifestyle, the people in turn accept him more. Later, they turn on him sharply, never having learned to fully trust this outsider they believe absolutely in the first (false) rumor of his transgressions against one of their own. In the end, the creature is once again cast off by society and forced to live alone.

These two conflicts are subjects that Burton turns to in his films time after time. In so many ways, he wears his broken teenage heart on his sleeve when he directs.

There exists a certain fondness in my own heart for this film, which has resulted in my being awful lenient, complimentary even, towards Burton's departure from the classic Frankenstein story he draws upon for his narrative. There are a couple reasons for this.

First, most serious devotees of film will likely agree by this point that Burton's waters run only so deep. Thematically, his films trend strongly towards shallow ponds, albeit ponds with an inspired sense of design. (SWEENEY TODD (2008), for example, was a Frankenstein's monster-like abomination against Stephen Sondheim's work but was also the most beautifully shot film of the year. I look forward to seeing it in Blu-Ray.) One must accept his work for what it is, contradictorily both deeply personal but failing to provide any deeper truth.

Second, the film adheres to most of the window dressing of the James Whale films. Examples of this include the castle and the angry mob, though the rationale behind the mob is slightly different. Burton, despite his flaws, is gifted when it comes to borrowing elements from other sources and re-fashioning them as his own. Say what you will about PLANET OF THE APES (2001) but if someone had told you he would re-make that sci-fi classic, the final result was basically what you would expect--an homage or two, followed by a complete re-appropriation of the story in an insane direction.

This is without any doubt a film which belongs in the upper echelons of the Frankenstein canon. Although it is not very faithful to many of the core elements, it does manage to explore alternate themes in a highly satisfying way.

OVERALL: ****/5 and an oddly faithful adaptation of the Frankenstein myth.

Day 28: Robert Kirkman’s "The Walking Dead"

For more than eight volumes, Robert Kirkman has told the story of a band of survivors just trying to survive in his graphic novel series, “The Walking Dead.” Much like my colleague describes below in regards to George A. Romero’s movies, Kirkman succeeds in creating a world where the existence of zombies is simply the norm. But where Romero has the restraints of the MPAA, and the need to keep his movies at an R rating or less to make all of their money back, Kirkman has the freedom to take his characters, and the artists with whom he works, to almost uncharted territory in the zombie genre.

It’s true that there are only so many ways in which a zombie can devour a human, but put in the scenario that the living (as opposed to the undead) are in, the human mind seems be limitless in its possibilities to survive, and this is the territory that Kirkman treads on. And sometimes, he trespasses: killing babies, decapitating humans as bribes, fighting zombies as sport and torturing the living are just some of the devices that Kirkman’s characters employ, not just to survive, but to prove to each other that his or her life is more valuable than another’s.

“The Walking Dead” has been published monthly since 2003, and in these five years, it’s had ample time to develop its story. While early volumes certainly cast the undead as the villain, later volumes almost seldom have them making appearances, and often when they are in a scene, facing them is the preferred option to facing the other survivors. In fact, when later volumes feature killings by the zombies, those deaths almost seem like copouts.

While Kirkman hasn’t hinted that any ending is near, he’s running out of characters to kill. Perhaps upcoming volumes will return to the zombie-as-villain storyline, getting the remaining survivors out of their surrogate homes, and back on the run from the undead and the pathetically living. It might be a good turn since most of the protagonists’ character traits are almost exactly those of the other humans they’re fighting: selfish, dangerous, and mostly uncaring. But for the world in which they’re forced to live, maybe it’s not so far fetched to not have a “good guy”.

Three people that are scarier than zombies out of five.

Day 27: Night, Dawn, Day, Land, & Diary of the Dead

It is more than likely that until the day he dies, George Romero will make zombie movies that point out the ills of society. He might even continue after that, because it seems that the same problems he's been pointing out over the years: racism, classism, and consumerism among other themes.

The thing about Romero's Dead series is that the zombies aren't the bad guys. They are simply part of that world. They may not seem like anything natural, but they represent two things that are very natural, human nature and death. The walking dead can almost be considered innocent when their actions are compared to those of the survivors. The zombies are driven by one thing, the need to feast on living flesh. There is some base version of survival in their instinct. They may not need living flesh to survive, they're going to rot and decompose either way, but there is a purity in their single-mindedness.

No, the true villains of these films are those in humanity who seek more than survival in the end of the world. They come in the form of a lynch mob-like group of hillbillies in the end of Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead, as well as marauding bikers in Dawn, and they are the remnants of the military-industrial complex in Day, Land and Diary of the Dead.

It's not to say that the zombies are "good guys." They simply are. Romero always presents a group of human survivors that are simply trying to live, to carry on with some sort of life as the good guys. And they inevitably come into conflict with the dregs of humanity that have survived, ultimately leading to the destruction of whatever society they have tried to restore, leaving even less people to carry on. There is never any action on the part of the zombies, they are only able to feed when the good guys and bad guys collide. In other words, humanity always brings death and destruction upon itself because it can't move past things as petty as race, religion, or material wealth.

Romero has shown us these images again and again, and in Diary of the Dead he shows how ineffective it is to simply watch these events unfold. It takes action to survive and build a better society. We can't beat death, but we can defeat those who selfishly put themselves above the greater good. It just seems that we are stuck in a pattern of watching instead of doing.

Day 24: THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957)

The first Hammer horror film and the first of many Frankenstein films the studio would produce, Terence Fisher's THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957) is neither an adaptation of the novel nor an update to James Whale's Universal original. (Hammer explicitly drew upon the early Universal horror films for inspiration.) While it jettisons many of the central thematic elements of those works, and indeed the Frankenstein mythos itself, it does manage to create an exceptional horror film.

That is not to suggest that the film does not hint at the error of man usurping the powers of Gods. Towards the beginning of the film, an imprisoned Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing), calls upon a priest to come and act as his confessor. This encounter proceeds to the point where Frankenstein moves to strangle the priest. To paraphrase Ralph Wiggum describing the final scene of THE DEPARTED (2007), the rat symbolizes obviousness. Later on, Frankenstein and his former tutor, Paul (Robert Urquhart), have an argument on the result of their shared experiment. Paul calls it a revolt against nature, having been in the corpse reviving game purely in pursuit of a humanistic improvement to modern surgery techniques. Frankenstein is genuinely ambivalent about stopping scientific progress merely because his work is an abomination in the eyes of God. Those two scenes would be the extent of it.

The film remains more than notable, however. Even if it fails to transcend its genre in favor of a shallow horror film, it is at least far from typical. Here, at last, was all the blood and gore and sex and pure, insane awesomeness which is the basis of the Hammer horror legend!

More than a Frankenstein film, this is cross between a mad scientist film (a dominant horror sub-genre during the 1950s) and a zombie film (in the style of George Romero but before Romero). It possesses trappings of both, without completely indulging either instinct. The film is also like a Gothic love story, in the style I have discussed here previously, but with a nefarious, crazed leading man.

Peter Cushing does a phenomenal job as Victor Frankenstein, going through his role with a mad gleam in his eyes the whole time. In the first experiment to revive the dead, he and Paul bring back a small dog from the dead and Cushing just dives into madness. He plays its just with his facial expressions, stopping just short of breaking into maniacal laughter and self-parody. He bangs the maid and treats her terribly, manipulating and controlling her, as he does most of the people in his life.

Christopher Lee, under make-up that has him looking like the Toxic Avenger with a Beatles moptop, does an equally great job as Frankenstein's unholy creature. Less a man in a state of nature (the novel) or a shambling hulk (the Universal film), here the creature is basically a zombie. Well, except for a love of eating brains but he can always learn that one later. The similarities really hit me towards the middle of the film, when Frankenstein has the creature chained to the wall like a late-stage Romero zombie.

To accompany these elements, the film has plenty of violence. The appearance of the creature, shockingly disfigured and grotesque, especially for that era, is only the beginning. Victor Frankenstein non-chalantly sawing off a corpse's head and collecting various gooey eyeballs, brains, et cetera from corrupt charnel house attendants, continue in this vein. The creature gets his eye shot out and blood subsequently squirts out like a geyser. Later, the creature gets set on fire and falls in a tub of acid. Also, some other random murders. It is, to put it simply, fucking insanity.

After being disappointed by THE HORROR OF DRACULA (1958), made by largely the same group of people, this film was approached with trepidation. The MacBook was at the ready, biding its time until email was checked, webpages distractedly scrolled through and unsuspecting females creepily scrutinized on Facebook. Instead, THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN achieved pure greatness.

OVERALL: ****/5. I was shocked to have enjoyed this film so much.

Day 23: Count Chocula, Frankenberry and Boo Berry cereals

Each features a sugary rice puff, vaguely in the shape of its branding motif, as well as tiny marshmallows, also vaguely in the shape of something "spooky." They are relatively devoid of nutritional content--approximately 130 calories per 1 cup, high in sugar and nearly devoid of fiber, protein and nutrients.

Count Chocula is clearly the "big ticket" item among these cereals, being the only one reliably found on supermarket shelves year-round. In most markets, Frankenberry and Boo Berry are unavailable until around Halloween. (I am unaware of whether they are produced during the remainder of the year and available to order.) There is nothing particularly distinguishing among the three except the artificial flavor. Chocula, obviously, gets chocolate. The others receive something akin to berries, or at least the closest thing to it that can be developed along the "Chemical Corridor" in northern New Jersey; Frankenberry leans towards strawberry but not anything immediately recognizable as such.

On that account, Frankenberry gets the closest to the themes of its source. While the term "Frankenfood" traditionally is applied only to genetically-modified produce or livestock, it would be difficult to argue that the cereal is anything less than an act in definance of God and all that is holy. On the other hand, only very special people would recognize the erotic subtext of Count Chocula.

OVERALL: ***/5 compared against the sugary breakfast cereal genre. They lack the nutritional value of Cheerios, for example, but also do not go as far into decadence as Cookie Crisps.