Ghost Story: Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed and the Evil Child

0

Note: Spoilers ahead.


Brett Sullivan’s Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed is the second installment in the Ginger Snaps trilogy. Unlike the first movie, Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed is a monster movie through and through. The film follows Brigitte and her ongoing battle with lycanthropy.

The movie begins with Brigitte (Emily Perkins) injecting herself with monkshood extract, believing it to be a cure to lycanthropy. Shadowed by a male werewolf, haunted by the image of her sister, and becoming more animalistic by the day, Brigitte repeatedly moves to different locations and studies possible cures. After a violent encounter with the wolf man, Brigitte is knocked unconscious and left for dead in the snow. She then reawakens in the Happier Times Rehabilitation Clinic, where she meets the young and wildly imaginative Ghost (Tatiana Maslany). From thereon, the film utilizes elements from the prison genre, such as the unraveling of scandals within the institution, as well as the inevitable escape.

Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed is a sequel that employs little to no enjoyable elements from its predecessor. The ironic humor, the witty dialogue, the sisterly bond between Ginger (Katharine Isabelle) and Brigitte, and the sense of relatability for young viewers, and the warm, tranquil atmosphere of Bailey Downs—the elements that made the original Ginger Snaps fun to watch, have all disappeared. What remained then is but a dark film set during the cold winter, in the narrow halls of a rundown clinic. The characters are automatons, lacking any uniqueness or personality, and the familial bond between two “sisters” was naught but a lie. The film’s sense of dread is joyless which, personally, evokes an adoration that is different and is effective in its own right. Lycanthropy, once a dysphemism for the beginning of a post-pubescent girl’s menstrual cycles, is now likened to drug addiction. The bittersweet ending of Ginger Snaps, where an empathic Brigitte cradles her dying lycanthrope sister, is juxtaposed to the grim aftermath in Ginger Snaps 2, where a new sister-figure, Ghost, exploits the lost and feral Brigitte—here, the protagonist we’ve come to know and love is turned into nothing more than a pet whose sole purpose is to initiate her mistress Ghost’s reign of moral terror.

The first film explored the misogynistic fear of the monstrous feminine in the guise of lycanthropy no less, whereas the second film sheds light upon another trope of the horror genre—the societal fear of the evil child.

While the fear of women and the usage of women as either horror antagonists, damsels in distress, or cannon fodder for the male monster is a social construct created by the patriarchy, both grown men and women are similar to the young child—they are both equally caretakers and figures of authority. In history and in most cultures, children represent a voiceless populace. In the rare times the youth are given a voice, elder generations always hear it with some sort of generational bias, saying the voice of the next generation is distorted by the inexperience that comes with their youth. Part of the horrific reality of children is that they are not governed by societal norms, as they have yet to understand the inner workings of the world. We, the elders of this generation, are who we are thanks to the unwritten rules of life, and we see safety as something authorities can promise us so long as we live by those rules. A child’s ignorance and unpredictability often creates anxiety within the society, rendering the elders scared of the young people. Therefore, gifted children either transcend the stigma and generate respect from their elders, or in the case of Ghost, exploit it for their own benefit.

The innocence of children is one of the many positive aspects of humanity to fall to the horror genre’s corruption. Much like the unconditional love a mother and the protective love a father has for their child, a child’s innocence is beautiful and pure. Sullivan, like many other horror directors, warps this guiltless reality into a source of horror. It is, again, run-of-the-mill, yet widely satisfying, because by subverting our expectations of children as non-threatening and protected individuals, horror is able to force doubt into our natural assumptions, which is a staple of effective horror films.

Usually, the corruption of a child’s innocence is brought upon by the intrusion of an external force. Esther from The Orphan is in truth the psychotic Leena Klammer, whose hypopituitarism has cursed her to forever look like an innocent little girl; Eli from Let the Right One In, like Esther, is actually an immortal vampire; Regan MacNeil from The Exorcist is originally friendly and curious, but was turned aggressive and vulgar after her possession by the demon Pazuzu; and Damien Thorn from The Omen, the ultimate trope codifier himself, is truly, ultimately evil due to his status as the Antichrist, the son of Satan. Ghost, however, is somewhat transcendent due to her being completely human. Like J.T., her evil nature and tendency to commit immoral, inhuman acts is made possible thanks to her humanity and her own freewill, which is more frightening than the corruption and influence of any spirit.

Film Theorist Mary Jackson identifies our fear of these evil children as the representation of our societal fear of failing the younger, emergent generations. She asserts that the susceptibility of a child to be corrupted is not due to the spirit’s strength or power. Rather, the ineffectiveness of the family, the church, the state, or whatever institution, allows the corruption of character to take place. Karen J. Renner, author of the book “The ‘Evil Child’ in Literature, Film and Popular Culture,” argues that there are two types of evil children—the possessed child and the feral child.

The possessed child makes visible the failure of a family via blaming and verbally assaulting them, as well as behaving in ways a child should not, such as expressing cruelty, disobeying their elders, cussing, and dressing provocatively, mainly to extract attention or repair the existent fractures of a broken family. The feral child, however, embodies the evils of a whole society deep within. While the possessed child behaves detestably in order to attain something, even if he or she does not want to (hence the presence of an external force and evil spirits), feral children do so simply because they have been reared in an environment where good and helpful humanitarian values have been thrown away in favor of self-centered motives and pleasures. In other words, possessed children are evil because something evil quite literally possesses them, while feral children are evil because all they have ever known is evil. Ghost, therefore, is a feral child.

Throughout the film, Ghost has shown some form of insanity. The genius lies in the portrayal of this. Initially, Ghost’s monologues are quirky, comical, and cute, which is bolstered by the fact that she is an avid reader of comic books. She remains cheery and appears ignorant to whomever she pesters with her verbose mode of speaking. Her true nature is then shown to be ruthless, calculative, deceitful, and egomaniacal. Ghost straight up burns her grandmother; she bruises herself and condemns Tyler (Eric Johnson) to his death by acting like he had raped her; she murders Alice Severson (Janet Kidder) in cold blood due to fear that she would take her pet away; and manipulates Brigitte from the get-go and emotionlessly locks the lycanthrope in her basement. She desires to rid the world of her enemies, and perhaps, even rule the world with the fully lycanthropic Brigitte chained by the neck.

Maslany’s dichotomous performance as the innocent, manic child turned psychopath with a God-complex, coupled with her mischievous turned malignant tone as she spouts monologue after monologue of the ingeniously written script is very much on point, and the little Ghost cast a shadow upon even Brigitte herself.

I give it a 3/5.

Young Blood: Let the Right One In and the Hiddenness of Truth

0

Note: Spoilers ahead.


Tomas Alfredson‘s Let the Right One In is a vampiric romance and horror drama film that acts as a filmic critique on gender issues. The film revolves around a bullied child and an immortal girl as they struggle with their immoral desire to shed blood out of vengeance and necessity.

The movie begins with Eli (Lina Leandersson) moving to an empty apartment unit with an elderly Håkan (Per Ragnar). One night, Eli sees her neighbor Oksar (Kåre Hedebrant) plunging a knife through a pole, vengefully imagining his bullies. This fateful night marks the beginning of Oskar and Eli’s growth and relationship, as well as a string of deaths they leave thereafter.

Initially, I felt that Let the Right One In was, in most ways, a beautiful film with an equally beautiful ending. The cinematography, for me, was top notch, in that I was reminded of The Grand Budapest Hotel but with a sickly, dark, and unrefined rusticity—my favorite scene being the time when an exhausted Håkan, battered by the guilt of countless murders and blood harvesting, gives in to his hopelessness and disfigures himself with hydrochloric acid. That scene was nigh perfectly shot, showing on the left side of the screen Håkan, who has lost the will to carry on, and the right side the young men freeing their captured teammate. Much of the film was dimly lit, catering to its own vampiric design. True enough, Alfredson’s film is heavily scenic.

Aside from its visual artistry, the vampiric aspect of the film is founded upon folkloric legend, as vampire-centric media ought to be. The title itself alludes to the age-old rule that vampires cannot enter a house unless invited in by whoever lives there. Personally, I appreciate this, seeing as aside from Adventure Time, The Vampire Diaries, and about a handful of other media, most vampire films and shows ignore this one little detail. For many, to be invited in is a feature vampires could do without, but Let the Right One In, with its many themes of finding who to spend life with, who should be your companion, and who you should share your life to, the concept of invitation and all its symbolic meanings go far beyond the confines of a simple house. Oskar is inviting Eli not only inside his unit, but rather his entire life.

Perhaps most importantly of all, the storyline also tapped into the feelings of our early adolescence, invoking both the curiosity of what it’s like to love as well as the wretchedness of Oskar’s situation as a victim of bullying. Let the Right One In encapsulates through the eyes of a twelve-year old boy what life for many kids sadly is. His character is deeply rooted in realism, even going so far as imagining himself murdering his oppressors and collecting macabre news clippings. As dark and as tragic as this is, Oskar’s life is more relatable than we’d like to admit, and it is made even darker knowing that he has never had any psychological help or has expressed the desire to release these feelings through words. The unwillingness to share how he truly feels is actually very common throughout the film, as one of the central themes of Alfredson’s film is the self-imposed reticence of one’s true colors.

Much of the hiddenness of a character’s feelings, backgrounds, and even sexual preferences are withheld from us. Instead, we are treated with indirect explanations, discreet visual clues, and vague scenes that are initially confusing. Although this excess of subtlety is what makes Let the Right One In so extremely marvelous, we as the audience suffer from the amount of withheld information and are given no definite answers by the end of the film. It is as if Alfredson himself is compelling us to create our own theories and conclusions based on our observations and interpretations of the scenes, which is actually as much fun as it is difficult. Still, one thing is for certain—everyone has something to hide from both one another and the audience.

In Oskar’s case, he is in truth deranged and violent. His tendency to collect morbid headlines is the result of psychological pain, and he spends his free time musing on the thought of vengeance. It is unnatural for a twelve-year old boy to indulge in sick fantasies of death, but quite understandable for victims of cruel bullying and physical abuse. His unwillingness to unravel the truth about his grim fantasies is exemplified in his tolerance of Conny (Patrik Rydmark) and his little gang. Being no stranger to violence, Oskar even nonchalantly slits his own hand and expels blood from his self-inflicted wound. These feelings, however, are unraveled when Oskar takes Eli’s advice to stand up for himself. While skiing, Oskar finds an iron pole, which he then uses to split Conny’s ear. My second favorite scene was when Oskar did this, and as Conny screamed in pain; a shot of Oskar’s smug, victorious face was shown, looking down on the bully and satisfied that he has finally enacted revenge.

Oppositely, the other bullies Martin (Mikael Erhardsson) and Andreas (Johan Sömnes) who are initially seen as bullies alongside Conny, are in truth reluctant and actually unwilling to harm Oskar. Throughout the film, they are only forced by Conny to hurt Oskar, but every time they do so, a remorseful, unwilling expression is etched upon their faces. From hitting Oskar after he left the school, to being unable to participate in pushing him down before Oskar hits Conny with an iron pole, to watching helplessly as Jimmy (Rasmus Luthander), Conny’s older brother, drowns Oskar, Martin and Andreas are silent. It is quite unfortunate then that in the end of the film, only Andreas survived Eli’s killing spree.

As for Håkan, he is shown, at first, to be a killer who harvests blood. It is a macabre profession, and it is always wrong to kill, but we are later shown that he does so out of love for Eli. This love is originally thought to be a fatherly love for his daughter, which is sacred. Second only to a mother’s love, a father’s love for his daughter is described as protective and giving. Initially, I thought asking Eli not to see Oskar for her own protection was understandable, and willingly giving her the blood of the innocent was his was of “providing” for his daughter. When I watched it, these external acts of love genuinely touched my heart. It was only after coming to the realization that Håkan couldn’t have been related to Eli that my original feelings were shattered. It heavily disappointed and disgusted me that Håkan, could have been just another boy in Eli’s life, and that his loving acts weren’t unconditional at all. Rather, he asked Eli not to see Oskar out of pure jealousy, and gave her blood so that she could continue living while Håkan continues to undress her with his pedophiliac mind. Again, this is done subtly, and we are left wondering if Håkan ever did, in fact, physically touch Eli. This revelation left me questioning the film, but affirming Alfredson’s talent.

In line with this hiddenness of the self, there is also the theme of homosexuality. Let the Right One In is a progressive film that either tackled the issue of homosexuality ineffectively or perfectly in a world that is still quite prejudiced when it comes to homosexuals. This is best exemplified in the relationships of Jocke (Mikael Rahm) and Lacke (Peter Carlberg), and most importantly of all, Eli and Oskar.

Jocke and Lacke are first seen tightly embracing each other before parting ways, and they remain hugging for a long while. After Jocke is killed, Lacke becomes increasingly devastated. He is seen sobbing longingly for Jocke, and ends up berating his girlfriend Virginia (Ika Nord), telling her she does not understand what he and Jocke had. Lacke even says “I have nothing left now he’s gone” after Jocke’s death, despite the fact that his girlfriend, whom he loves very much, is sitting next to him.

Eli and Oskar’s relationship is much deeper. Initially, I saw Eli and Oskar’s relationship as sweet. Personally, I was rooting for them as a couple, and I liked the idea of their “happily ever after” at the end of the film. However, much like how I was disgusted with the revelation that Håkan was attracted to Eli, I was genuinely saddened by the dark implications of the film.

Speaking of Eli, she is the epitome of the film’s two main themes. Throughout the film, she is seen hiding a large part of her life both as a vampire, as well as a male. It can also be speculated that Eli is more manipulative than Alfredson chooses to portray. Eli, therefore, is as thematic as he is folkloric as a vampire.

Initially thought of as a sweet, needy, innocent, and immature vampiric girl, Eli’s true nature is revealed after killing Jocke. After the epiphany that Håkan was once her twelve-year old lover, as Oskar now is, my eyes were opened to the possibility of an Eli that is more sinister and manipulative than that of Dracula or Count Orlok himself. To better understand this malevolence, we must look at this quote from a vampire child in the game The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim.

“I’m just a little girl! The Dark Brotherhood killed my mama and papa, and then they took me captive! Please, please help me! Rather convincing, don’t you think? In truth, I’m no more a little girl than you are. I was once, of course. Three hundred years ago. Vampirism tends to keep one remarkably… fresh. My targets make the mistake of not perceiving me as a threat. Last mistake they ever make.” —Babette

As the only vampire locked in the body of a child in the world of Skyrim, Babette uses her external innocence, purity, and beauty, as well perceived helplessness as a lure to murder her targets. Her childlike appearance and demeanor make her the perfect assassin.

With this in mind, who is to say that Eli doesn’t use his age the same way? It is clear that Eli utilizes his feminine frame and body to exploit the sick and twisted nature of many people of the world, like Håkan. Throughout the film, Eli has been silent and shy towards Oskar, occasionally giving him advice and encouragement when it comes to the bullies. To Håkan, however, Eli is less merciful. After the failed attempt to harvest a stranger’s blood, Eli’s guardian turned servant is harshly reprimanded. It is this failure that Eli draws the line. Håkan is not the swift and cunning harvester of blood that he used to be. He has grown old and weary, and knowing this, Eli believes that it is time to look for a new pet. After Håkan is drained of blood, he is thrown out the window like disposable garbage. In the final scene of the film, Oskar is seen riding a train, presumably having abandoned his parents without saying goodbye, so he could begin his new life with Eli—a life synonymous to a living Hell; one strewn with murder, incessant hiding, and guilt. It will only get worse when he realizes that he, like Håkan, is just another spec in her immortal life, like a vampiric fling.

In the context of the horror genre, Eli is also perceived as a socially immoral monster, simply due to the fact that he is gay or rather, so sociopathic and uncaring of mankind that even the notion of gender is beneath him. Let the Right One In, as stated earlier, is a progressive film that tackles gender issues in a prejudiced world. This is shown in the ambiguity of Eli’s gender. Eli, although legitimately a male, looks, acts, and sounds like a female. A brief scene in which Eli changes into a dress offers a glimpse of a suggestive scar but no explicit elaboration, and when Oskar asks Eli to be his girlfriend, Eli affirms that he is not a girl, because even monsters have gender.

Harry Benshoff’s essay “The Monster and the Homosexual,” describes the notion of homosexuality as a destructive factor in society, as well as a harmful disease that threatens the individual. As a “monstrous condition,” homosexuality aims to destroy the very foundations of a thriving society. This idea is so extremely backward, but nonetheless true in the horror genre. Alfredson tackles the issue of this underdeveloped thinking by creating a romantic sub-plot to appease the commonwealth, all the while hiding the fact that this romance is between two males and indirectly telling the audience that, basically, “there’s nothing wrong with being gay.” An excerpt in the essay talks about how homosexuals are described as bestial, incestual, masochistic, and downright evil people, and though this may be the case for Eli, who is obviously the “monster queer”, this is not the case for the innocent albeit naïve Oskar.

Through Oskar, the world is opened to a new way of seeing homosexuality. It can even be said that, if we look past his naiveté, his very character points to a politically correct next generation. His naiveté, which borders on ignorance as exemplified in his relationship with a manipulative, immortal vampire, still allows him to say “yes” to his homosexual relationship with Eli. He cares not if Eli is a girl or boy, but is compelled to be with him and help him survive until the very end of his age. As bleack as Oskar’s future looks, his soul and intentions were verily pure. While he hides his macabre tendencies from the other characters in the film, he openly expresses his love for a boy which, in many parts of the world, is discouraged.

It is unfortunate for Oskar, as well as many of the audience, that their relationship will last only as long as Oskar is useful. They were really sweet together. Still, even after all the grim revelations and dark truths were unraveled, Let the Right One In remains as a beautiful filmic spectacle for those who appreciates the grislier side of life.

I give it a 5/5.

The Talking Dead: Pontypool and Semiotics

0

Note: Spoilers ahead.


Bruce McDonald‘s Pontypool is yet another avant-garde zombie infection film that puts both philosophy and communication theory to great use. The film stars a renowned disc jockey and his crew, and recounts the story of how they survive a modern day Tower of Babel incident.

The movie begins with Grant Mazzy (Stephen McHattie), a shock jock turned radio broadcaster, arriving in the town’s radio station. Shortly thereafter, numerous reports of small riots turned calamitous upheavals come flooding in. Feeling trapped within the confines of the station, Mazzy and his crew, techie Laurel-Ann Drummond (Georgina Reilly) and station manager Sydney Briar (Lisa Houle), do everything they can to stay informed and unravel the truth behind the chaos. From then on, we are left scratching our heads, confused as the protagonists themselves.

The entire concept and central conflict of Pontypool is, in essence, as original as it is difficult to grasp. In more ways than one, Pontypool is the child of the Tower of Babel story and heist thriller Inception, if Cobb and his crew were all cognitive undead and they pilfered the meanings of various basic words instead of implanted life-changing ideas into one’s subconscious vault. The whole premise revolves around how a neural pathogen spreads through the words we speak, turning us not into zombies, but rather a darker, more violent version of a “stupid person,” by throwing every single thing we know out the window. The effect of this virus is that it thieves the infected of words and meanings that took a lifetime to understand, thanks to language.

Individually, social human constructs such as language and linguistics, meaning and semiotics, and verbal culture are complex in themselves, but McDonald takes it up a notch, creating a giant melting pot for these archaic manmade concepts in his oral film. We’ve talked about how lycanthropy, Madeline O’Malley’s life, and the ever-following “It” were mere dysphemisms for the advent of menstruation in a girl’s post-pubescent life, a tragic escape from a loveless life, and a demonized form of STDs respectively, but it is only in Pontypool that we get to discuss a warped form of something as primordial and ancient as the very concept of how we use our words.

You see, language is every bit as historical, political, philosophical, and all encompassing as life, but unlike life, it is of our creation. We are quite literally responsible for the dawn and evolution of language, from the mere grunts and hoarse moans that escaped our underdeveloped throats as cavemen, to the more sophisticated Shakespearean poems and sonnets recited alongside the strum of a guitar, to our post-modern slang delivered with hip hand gestures. Language per se is complex beyond understanding, and we don’t really know what its constitutive dimensions are, but one thing’s for sure—simply, it is here and it is being used. In fact, many sophists, philosophers, and linguists, one being Jean-Jacques Rousseau, would argue that it was language that must have fathered reason, rather than reason, language.

Much like how the English undead and American military are labeled as the two most infectious and powerful antagonists in 28 Weeks Later, many people perceive English as the most impactful language in the world because of the former influence of the British Empire and the current influence of American political and economic hegemony, as well as England’s effort to unite the globe through its technological advancements, America’s effort to spread fear through grandiose showcases of power, and the effort of both continent’s countless historical colonizations of neighboring countries. Many would add that its universality is also due to its simple nature, lacking no complicated morphology, gendered nouns, or tone system. While English has its own complexities, such as spelling and pronunciation inconsistencies, many would argue that they pale in comparison to the amount of confusing rules the other languages in the world have. In essence, by conceptualizing a source of horror that infects and disintegrates the very foundations of something so ancient, simple, and globally accepted, McDonald has basically done what only God has done—render the world helpless and confused. Metaphorically, Pontypool’s “God Bug” is the abstract punishment both England and America deserves for the transmissibility of their language and their incessant dabbling in the affairs of the world.

As a Communication Major, I have learned that good and clear communication is key to just about anything. I can attest to the complexity of the very words we speak and how to speak them, as well as their significance in the world. If you ask me, living in a world without verbal language is nigh impossible. It would take decades for us to get used to the silence, and another set of years to find another way we can communicate to our friends the simplest ideas that require any hint of explanation. Yet it is this self-imposed silence that prevents the God Bug from infecting us. By refusing to talk, we’re saving ourselves. While not as difficult as refusing to eat or drink, denying one’s self from talking with people is a form of torture. It’s like playing the “quiet game” with your parents during a long roadtrip—as a child, you’re dying to talk, but if you talk, you’ll die.

These challenges are made more difficult with the film’s crux—a statement riddle with irony. “Does mass communication do more harm than good?” For Mazzy, it is quite difficult—his whole job revolves around telling people about current events because without his voice, the world just might fall apart. However, he might be contributing to the destruction of the world by warning the people of Pontypool about the riots and reports of cannibalism and killings. The virus itself has a dark sense of ironic humor, which hints at a heightened intelligence. This God Bug knows that the breadth of human language, more so the English language, operates mostly where terms of endearment and positive words reign supreme. It knows that, for some reason, when faced with tragedy and fear, we humans reassure others with words reflective of love and acceptance, and so it latches unto those words, perverting and giving them a sort of “anti-meaning.” This, however, does not work for Mazzy, whose very career in radio broadcasting has honed his skills in the use of words and language, essentially making him immune, even giving him the ability to turn the tables on the neural parasite by mixing and matching incongruent and unrelated words together. Still, even with Mazzy’s life-saving rhetoric, he cannot share it to the world, being trapped within the confines of the radio station and all.

That is why the setting worked so well with Pontypool. It was soundless, dimly lit, and eerily claustrophobic, all the while a blizzard rages on beyond the walls. Mazzy, Laurel-Ann, and Sydney were all “imprisoned” in the radio station, a place that should have been the ideal place of salvation from the oratory virus. It is another on of McDonald’s many slap in the faces of his characters and his audience. Contributing to the setting’s sense of incarceration are the scenes of hyper-zoomed speakers and the shot when Mazzy, frustrated and confused by the happenings, forced himself outside only to be pulled back in by Laurel-Ann. The latter shot focused on the inside, even when Mazzy himself was open to the outside. In this scene, we can see McDonald’s effort to both hide Pontypool’s lack of funds as well as his refusal to treat us with relative information. Instead of answers, we are treated, rather punished, with not knowing anything! Even in the end of the movie, we know as much as, if not less than what Mazzy and the other protagonists know. Throughout the film, the presence of the unknown remained strong and influential.

Speaking of the unknown, the virus too is a rather Lovecraftian concept. Like It Follows, follows an unconventional path riddled with the antitheses of contemporary horror genre elements to ironically elicit a more ancient form of fear—fear of the unknown. Unlike Mitchell’s film, however, we the audience tackle a more “informational” unknown, whereas It Follows follows a creature with unknown, presumably demonic or cosmic origins. Still, seeing as we are social beings whose very existence is dependent on how much we know, to completely know nothing is detrimental to our physical existence, which is evident in the infected’s suicidal tendencies if they have no one to “talk” to.

That is the very purpose of the virus and its infected. Director McDonald even says himself that the “zombies” were neither zombies or undead. They are, as he puts it, conversationalists, and the reason why is because conversationalists crave and yearn for a decent conversation with others. In the context of Pontypool, these “conversationalists” wish to commune with others because if they are denied that right, they are killed. These “conversationalists” are unlike common zombies or the infected from 28 Weeks Later, who have no concept of self-preservation and instead act on sheer feral instinct and hunger alone, because they desire to exists and be. This, once again, connotes a heightened sense of intelligence. It is unfortunate, however, that while the virus remains intelligent and self-aware, its infected are, as I’ve stated earlier, extremely dumb. While most infected shamble, Pontypool‘s infected ramble.

In Ferdinand de Saussure’s communication theory of Semiotics, we are told that the words we use and what describes them have no initial connection. That is, when we say the word “dog”, it is not because the sounds we hear or letter symbols have anything to do with the qualities of a canine animal. In fact, the word, sounds, and letters are all unrelated to the creature we call dog, except that we humans have assigned a value to them. The word “dog” itself is the signifier, the code that opens our minds to; and the idea or meaning being expressed by that signifier is the signified, or the mental image of whatever type of dog we think of. This is why the virus is so frightening and powerful—it takes everything we’ve ever known and dumps them in the memory dump in true Inside Out fashion.

True enough, I have never seen of heard of, in any media, movie, or story, a virus as all encompassing, powerful, and indiscriminate as Pontypool’s God Bug. All in all, McDonald’s film brews existential terror within the very hearts of the audience. Coupled with the wonderful showcases of acting and supremely commendable dialogue and script, as well as the originality of the film, Pontypool deserves all the praise.

I give it a 5/5.

Zombie Politics: 28 Weeks Later and Euro-American History

0

Note: Spoilers ahead.


Juan Carlos Fresnadillo‘s 28 Weeks Later is a run-of-the-mill science fiction horror film set in a post-zombie apocalypse. The film tells the tale of two siblings and how their curiosity causes the destruction of a nation.

The movie begins in the ruined city of London, overrun and torn asunder by hordes of relentless infected. Don Harris (Robert Carlyle) is seen fleeing his house from pursuing runners, with his wife Alice (Catherine McCormack) still trapped inside. London is then reopened to the world seven months later, after all the infected have died of starvation. As visitors and ex-citizens pour in, a surviving Don greets his two children, Tammy (Imogen Poots) and Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton). Fearing they would forget their mother’s face, the two kids sneak out into the derelict ruins on the outskirts of the walled city, subsequently allowing the dreaded Rage Virus back into London.

28 Weeks Later and all the events that happened within its timeframe were par for the course. Much like Evil Dead, at first glance, there seemed to be little to no overarching themes or motifs that prompted the furthering of the plot. The film was riddled with raving mad “zombies” who ran and clawed more than they bit, as they should have, as well as the trope of a failed military. Externally, 28 Weeks Later is yet another film equivalent of Left 4 Dead. However, when we peer into its very core, 28 Weeks Later becomes some sort of political and cultural drama that just so happens to have “zombies.” Fresnadillo’s film, like its predecessor, may be a commonplace zombie flick with all the stereotypical characters and situations you’d expect to find in a zombie movie, but it is in truth a narrative that is founded upon and differentiates two of the most influential cultures in the world.

You see, most films of the horror genre pose questions regarding sexuality and the human person, or other existential problems about being, whereas Fresnadillo’s film differentiates American and British horror. When we watch films of the American horror sub-genre, most of where these movies take place evoke a sense of isolation. Evil Dead plays upon the generic “cabin in the woods” trope and all its characters have been forcibly possessed when they were physically alone, Deadgirl is set deep beneath an old, abandoned mental institute, and May tackles the inner loneliness a pariah of society struggles with.

28 Weeks Later, as with most zombie films, is founded upon a sense of “collective and communal helplessness” that a number of characters all feel at the same time, regardless of their individual differences as fictional characters. Fresnadillo even sets this sequel within a cold, derelict metropolitan area, which is, in essence, the symbol of a fallen society. These themes are more so evident within ancient works of literary horror such as Dr. Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, where the setting is cold and riddled with dark alleyways, and there is an obvious discrepancy between the social classes and who controls who; Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the origin of pop culture’s first undead zombie, where the sense of communal helplessness and fear is manifested in the torch and rake-wielding angry mob; and Edgar Allan Poe’s The Masque of the Red Death, where even Prince Prospero’s walled castle provides no protection against the plague. Does this mean the concepts we all know and love, such as the “zombie apocalypse” and the “zombie virus” are deeply rooted in English culture? Most probably.

Indeed, British horror is more atmospheric than its American counterpart, where showcases of bloodshed and gore splatter rule supreme. Any and all works of horror in general are different from country to country because they are more often than not based on shared cultural experiences. In his essay “The Problem of British Horror”, Peter Hutchings emphasizes that these elements and themes relate to certain psycho-pathological aspects of the English temperament, and much has to do with England’s political history. Sophisticated it may be, much of English history has been tainted and rife with traumatic events and internally shady dealings that happened within the confines of an urban location, to the point that, unlike the Americans who see a walled city and technological advancements as a protective haven and the key to victory over the monster respectively, the British see the city as the perfect example for horror to emerge, and having technology does not mean having a significant advantage in a horror situation.

For instance, Tammy and Andy’s escape from the walled city and bringing with them their infected mother, only for everything all Hell to break loose, is representative of a historical, nightmarish event—the Black Plague, and how rats brought with them the Yersinia Pestis bacteria from the outside in. The sheer amount of people within the cities of England only contributed to the swift spread of the disease, much like how the civilians were herded into bunkers only for an infected Don to transmit the Rage Virus quicker than any pop culture zombie virus.

Also, as the instigators of the Industrial Revolution, those in England have laid the foundation for their mastery over contemporary technology. Throughout history, England has been at the forefront of technological advancements, only sharing their information with the world whenever they’re ahead of everyone else. American horror films are set within dark forests, abandoned places, or far into the countryside to stress America’s excessive dependence on technology, whereas in 28 Weeks Later, the threat of the infected barges in almost abruptly, and even those who are armed to the teeth with lethal weapons and literal killing machines are brought to their knees. To the British, anything that can overcome even the most advanced weapons and technology is fearful in the eyes of those who have introduced technology to the world.

From real life events such as selling British orphans into slavery and throwing loving parents into debtors’ prison, to shadowy urban legends such Jack the Ripper, most of what scares the modern day Englishman have all either forcibly entered or emerged from within the city—this proves that no amount of technological advancements or fortifications can ever help England, and this is where Fresnadillo draws inspiration from, effectively capturing the zeitgeist of early English history within 28 Weeks Later.

While the infected represent the British and English horror, it is in the military faction, the secondary antagonists in the film, that we see the threat that is solely American. Led by Brigadier General Stone (Idris Elba), the American military is representative of the United States and its filmic brand—invasion and control, or its failure and lack thereof. These two themes also tell us why American horror takes place, as stated earlier, in isolated locations.

You see, American horror characters believe that, when entering into an unknown place, they are automatically in control and that no threat can ever come upon them. The reason why this is so is also because of history. Unlike England, many of America’s morally evil undertakings were done beyond its territory, such as the mass murder of Native Americans and the invasion of Middle Eastern countries for their natural resources. The United States is also notorious for racial discrimination, which is apparent in their intolerance of anyone who is “un-American.” Directors of American horror films utilize this historically accurate reality and turn the table on their own protagonists by punishing them with demonic books and masked hillbilly psycho-killers, if not labeling them first as one-dimensional and trigger-happy.

In the context of 28 Weeks Later, America’s militaristic occupation, prosperous and progressive as it may have been, still highlighted its unwillingness to understand the infection and forming a cure. If Don hadn’t kissed Alice, she would still be dead at the hands of Stone. In the end, the American soldiers were forced to indiscriminately shoot and kill with extreme prejudice, targeting anyone different from them in the name of “safety,” and were thusly punished with the failure to save London, death by betrayal, and infection.

The film itself is good, with above average acting and effects. The cinematography was condemnable, being either too shaky or slowing down scenes that didn’t need any slow-mo. I myself am not a fan of the Rage Virus, seeing as it’s nothing but a glorified form of rabies, which is not scary. 28 Weeks Later portrays the infected as feral, animalistic homicidal maniacs, which is synonymous to giving an average murderer encouragement and more motivation to kill. All in all, however, the film was okay.

I give it a 2/5.

Mother May Eye: May and Pressured Perfection

0

Note: Spoilers ahead.


Lucky McKee’s May is a psychological horror and erotic thriller film that communicates to its audience the horrific effects of parental pressure, bullying, and unfaithfulness. The film stars a generic societal pariah who is later pushed past beyond her boiling point and thusly commits heinous crimes.

The movie begins with a young May (Angela Bettis), a girl whose lazy eye has caused her to be the butt of jokes amongst her peers, receiving a glass-encased doll named Suzie on her birthday. May’s life, after many years, then belatedly takes a turn for the better—her lazy eye is gradually treated, she unwittingly attracts two attractive individuals, and along with her job as a vet, she goes on to volunteer at a school for blind children. Still, May remained to be the oddball she always was, making her relationships with Adam (Jeremy Sisto) and Polly (Anna Faris) precarious at best. This expectedly ends with May feeling betrayed and forgotten, snapping her into a downward spiral from her tolerable life to that of homicide and insanity.

McKee sews together the volatility of a mentally ill, borderline psychotic female lead, and the cold detachment brought upon by a sinister, disreputable doll in the sick embroidery that is his May. In fact, McKee’s film is so profusely riddled with a great deal of different horror genre elements that it can be described as, much like the film’s Amy, an abomination composed of filmic homografts. The film per se is exceedingly macabre, gifting its audience first with a peep inside the halls of May’s unsound mind, then the happenings that pushed the titular protagonist into homicidal delirium, then snippets of bloody human-snipping, and finally, an ending that can only be effectively strewn together by the film’s most invested theorists.

Personally, I saw May as an hour-long forewarning for anyone who has ever forcefully attempted to shape another person in his or her own likeness, overly inhibited a person with various unnecessary rules, maligned or maltreated others, or betrayed their significant other either through backbiting or infidelity. In all actuality, May and her mindset are results of all of these, brought upon by the different sectors of a callous society mainly within the false “comfort” of her own home, in school amongst judgmental peers, and in even in her workplace. Truly, May’s life, despite the small uphill victories, was still rife with people who sought to bring an awkward, antisocial individual like her down. That being said, May also revolves around the notion of a superficial ‘perfection’ that is defined by and only by society, as true perfection is non-existent except within the realms of the divine.

A testament to the theme of societal ‘perfection’ is the overabundance of scenes and dialogue pertaining dolls and parts. From the get-go, May is thrown into a world that cares only about external beauty—her mother and father fuss about her lazy eye and appear to even be disgusted by how their own daughter looks. When May was being teased because of it, her mother gives her neither encouragement nor comfort, instead leaving her with a doll she was not even allowed to play with. Though she did not deserve her difficult childhood, the way May was weaned by her parents justified the titular character’s superficial personality—May saw only the external, objectifying whole beings into mere parts, and dismissing what made people human. May even goes so far as to be turned off by the person as a whole if ever she sees one little imperfection. As the disturbed anti-heroine, May exemplifies and even embraces the chains that bind her—murdering ex-lovers and friends alike and harvesting from them what she regarded as ‘beautiful.’ On Halloween Night, May’s garbs resembled the only thing that ever came close to May’s definition of perfection—Suzie.

In fact, the Suzie doll was a wildcard in the entire movie. Unlike the possessed Chucky, Annabelle, or Brahms, Suzie played a more symbolic role. Suzie was the representation of May’s view on humanity and her own sanity. As in the movie, external beauty must only be admired from afar and never touched without consent. May, at first, admired the hands, neck, legs, and other body parts of other characters from afar when Suzie’s case was whole. When it began to crack, May began slowly caressing the bodies of others, even reaching out to Ambrosia’s (Nichole Hiltz) legs when they crisscrossed before May’s very eyes. When Suzie’s case shattered in the school for the blind, so too did May’s inhibitions and moral boundaries—she started to kill and amputate those who used to be her friends and lovers, making it evident she only saw them as parts. It is interesting to note, however, that while she fashioned Amy out of the body parts she saw as beautiful, she gauged her lazy eye, the “imperfect” eye, for Amy. It could be theorized that May either always saw herself as perfect, or that she has abandoned her superficial outlook on life and has decided to share her imperfection with her friend. Whatever the reason, May is quote literally “turning the blind eye” from a society that does naught but pull her down. Subsequently, the abomination Amy, inspired by Frankenstein’s monster itself, was endowed with life.

I personally believe that Amy lived due to a combination of her strong emotions and sense of desperation, and a mysterious albeit silent spirit that dwelt within Suzie all this time. Much like Madeline, whose pleas for her baby to live was answered by ethereal forces only to make Grace into a bloodsucking demon child, May’s pleas were also heard by otherworldly dark forces, ironically giving her a friend in the form of an abomination of allotransplants and flesh that cradled the blinded May as she bled profusely on the couch. Though the notion of acceptance and illusion is not in any way daft, I personally refuse to accept it as so, mainly and only due to the fact that it would be as classless as saying that the whole Inception took place in the dreamscape.

May truly is an intriguing film. Though only horror in its last moments, May gives its viewers a fear-induced respect and love for the mentally ill. McKee’s film also acts as a deterrent for any bully or egocentric individual, as there have been many, true-to-life cases of the bullied snapping and killing those who have wronged them. Bettis’ performance of a socially awkward girl and her transformation into a deranged killer and harvester of body parts is riveting, and it the white-hot and black-cold duality of employing the horrors of insanity as brought about by a living girl and the horrors of silence as brought about by a lifeless doll is chilling, which is all the more effective in a film that is as rustic as May.

I give the movie a 3/5.

 

Ash’s Legacy: Evil Dead and the Final Girl

0

Note: Spoilers ahead.


Fede Alvarez‘s Evil Dead is a supernatural horror film and a reboot of the 1981 film of the same name by horror legend Sam Raimi, featuring classical horror genre elements such as demonic possessions, a somewhat diverse cast of horror movie stereotypes, and a cabin in the woods. The film recounts the story of how a former junkie overcame her addiction to heroin by singlehandedly defeating an ancient spirit of demonic evil.

The movie begins in a cabin deep within a dark forest, where David (Shiloh Fernandez), his best friend Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci), a nurse named Olivia (Jessica Lucas), and Natalie (Elizabeth Blackmore), David’s girlfriend, are encouraging Mia (Jane Levy), David’s sister, to relinquish a packet of heroin and take the first step towards recovery. After a violent outburst due to withdrawal, Mia discovers a hidden passageway to the cellar. David and Eric investigate and unearth a chained book entitled the Naturom Demonoto. Having some knowledge of witchcraft and Satanic rituals, Eric curiously albeit foolishly recites an incantation that invites a demonic spirit into their lives. The film is fast-paced, packed with scares and gore galore, and ends explosively, with blood and sunshine.

As a remake of one of the progenitor films of today’s horror genre, there is no way I can hate Evil Dead. Its elements, though extremely generic, even for the horror standards, are executed well and proficiently. Aesthetically, Evil Dead trumps any of the horror films shown. Alvarez’s decision to tweak the original film and inject a familial ingredient was appreciable. Unlike its ancestors, Alvarez’s take on Evil Dead is humorless, which is understandable in spite of my love for the wisecracking Ash Williams. Still, the movie paced along its ancestral path—it is still, in most cases, utterly profane, and its showcases of gore and brutality remain second to none. Evil Dead is commendable for its ability to induce great fear. It is predictable albeit intense, and is quite the enjoyable film.

Now, unlike many other horror films, the conflict is not a dysphemism for a real-life situation. Ginger Snaps likened the state of lycanthropy to female post-pubescence; Deadgirl’s Deadgirl, and Rickie and J.T. were the embodiments of female subservience and lustful male dominance, respectively; It Follows is essentially an ever-creeping STD; and Grace employs motherly leitmotifs and childrearing symbolisms to tell its tale. Evil Dead is supremely direct—a group of teenagers unravel a book of demonic origins and, quite literally, all Hell breaks loose thereafter. Even the problem of drug addiction, substance abuse, and the effects of withdrawal, things that could easily have been Evil Dead’s euphemisms for the demonic possessions, held little to no hold over the film. Of course, with a movie entitled Evil Dead, it’s a surprise that there even was an attempt to connect the film to something more in-depth.

It is interesting to note, however, that the little Evil Dead has to offer is enough for some discussion, such as the roles that both the male and female characters play in beseeching the evil from the Naturom Demonoto.

In most horror or slasher films, especially the most typified ones, the larger-than-life male characters are the ones wielding the weapons and horrifically harassing the helpless group of teenagers. After the slow, exceedingly barbaric deaths of the four or five young people, it is the modest, conservative, virginal female lead that strikes the final blow, ergo ending the monster or murderer’s killing spree. In addition, before the prudish female can kill the antagonist, a big part of the movie’s plot is furthered by the valiant male lead.

Evil Dead, however, introduces a more complex equation—the evil was brought upon by the “intellectual” male, Eric’s foolish dabbling, entered through and subsequently tormented the females Mia, who was extremely weak-willed; Olivia, who was anxious and confused; and finally Natalie, who was mentally tortured and forced to amputate her own arm, bringing her to the precipice of insanity (in addition, all of these females were alone at the time of possession), significantly weakened by archetypal heroic male lead David, and was completely destroyed by the female, a revived Mia who, as a direct contrast to the modest, conservative, virginal female lead, is tarnished by her drug addiction. In short, she is the Final Girl trope, despite the fact that she is far from clean. However, she is still subject to a patriarchal representation of what should have been an inherently “feminist” ideal, seeing as Mia still requires the phallic weapon to defeat the final demon. As another subtle “slap to the face” of Mia, she was basically the butt of jokes and subject of cruelty of every single event in Evil Dead, and questions such as “Why was Mia the one sensitive enough to smell the dankness of the dead cats beneath the house?”, “If Eric was the one who first looked into the Naturom Demonoto, why was Mia punished in his stead?”, and “Why did Eric survive every single bone-breaking blow the Deadites threw his way, when a possessed Olivia and Natalie were killed almost instantaneously?” Even if Alvarez tossed the whole sexism only against female characters out the window, a bias against females still exists within Evil Dead, which is most unfortunate.

Personally, I loved David and Mia’s dynamic, even if they shared only a few scenes together. Be that as it may, I was hooked with both David and Mia’s role as both the “Ash Williams” character of the film—David was, like Ash, a maverick who feared not the demons and heroically sacrificed himself for the sake of his sister, while Mia, perhaps embodying Ash’s skillset, ended the true demonic antagonist, even losing a hand in the process.

The film is, in essence, as direct and as straightforward as it gets. The acting is top notch, and the characters’ name acrostically spelling the word ‘demon’ is a subtle Easter egg that etches a little smile upon its audience members’ faces.

I give the movie a 3/5.

Bitten is the Breast that Feeds: Grace and Two Great Loves

0

 

Note: Spoilers ahead.


Paul Solet‘s Grace is a supernatural horror film that distorts the beauty of motherhood and the God-given miracle of childbirth with a pinch of ungodly, satanic irony. The film pivots on the story of a woman whose solemn vow of veganism is broken to meet her infant daughter’s “special needs.”

The movie begins with Michael (Stephen Park) and his pregnant, vegan wife Madeline Matheson (Jordan Ladd) awaiting the birth of their baby girl. One night, after a tragic car accident, Michael and the unborn baby are killed. In despair and robbed of a child, Madeline carries her stillborn baby to term in her midwife’s independent clinic. The baby, once dead in her mother’s arms, is revived by naught but Madeline’s love. However, things turn for the worse as God’s gift of Grace is revealed to be a creature from below rather than above.

Like many other films in the horror genre, to corrupt an ideology we humans consider “good” as a horror director’s weapon to induce fear among the audience is run-of-the-mill yet somewhat satisfying. It is no wonder then that Solet’s Grace is founded upon warped versions of two types of great love—a mother’s filial love for her son or daughter, which is christened by society as the most powerful and most beautiful emotional force on Earth, and God’s agapic love for all, which is supremely transcendent and unbound by our human laws of logic and ways of understanding. These two types of love, again the two “greatest” forms of love as dictated by both culture and religion, are in essence beautiful and resplendent. They are more so to us, seeing as the Philippine people are a familial and religious people. Turned upside down, the leitmotifs showcasing bastardized storge and corrupted agape in Grace are horrifying through and through.

Like Triangle, the film revolves around a blonde, single (or, in Madeline’s case, turned single) mother whose every action and thought is for the wellbeing and protection of her child, and it matters not how gruesome, morally evil, or unethical to the point of inhumanity and insanity, those actions and thoughts seem to be. This film is a perfect example of how the beauty of a mother’s filial love is turned into the driving force of horror and acts of inhumanity and insanity. However, as a film per se, Grace brings nothing new to the table. In fact, as stated earlier, it is a film that burns slowly and is stretched too thin—two elements in a film that must never be incorporated together. As the longer version of Solet’s short film of the same name, Grace, I believe, should have circumvented the silver screen. Admittedly, however, the elements that comprise Solet’s film are poetic, perhaps the most substantial of all, and necessitate deeper discussion.

Solet’s work is undoubtedly horror, though the monster and antagonist are found not within Madeline’s womb despite the baby Grace requiring lifeblood to live in the stead of her mother’s milk, but Madeline’s heart and mind. Madeline’s actions are indeed monstrous such as making short work of Dr. Richard Sohn (Malcom Stewart) and milking his vessels in order to feed baby Grace, as well as brutalizing her late husband’s own mother, all in the name of keeping her baby. A hint of monstrosity can also be found within Vivian (Gabrielle Rose), Michael’s mother. Abusive, hypercritical of Madeline, and enshrouded, Vivian acted as a secondary antagonist—working behind the scenes, pulling the strings with the intent of stealing a child, in spite of Grace’s demonic nature, from her mother. She does naught but spite Michael’s wife and maltreats her husband Henry (Serge Houde).

As a son, young man, and God willing, a future father, I admit, I have never understood the sacrifices my mother had made, and will never know the inherent feelings a mother has with her newborn. “Can a mother really be driven to kill for her child?” I ask myself. Unfortunately, I will never know. To corrupt this globally accepted notion that a mother’s inherent love is powerful is both a low blow and an act of genius for Solet as a director of horror, seeing as Grace stirred quite the emotions of disgust and disbelief within the audience, as well as my own heart… and yet, Solet continues to transcend his own standards by perverting a love even greater that a mother’s—God’s.

As a Christian, I see God’s love as something uncontested, even though it is sometimes illogical and all times enigmatic. Truly, the love of God is physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually transcendent. Without Jesus Christ, the embodiment of God’s love, love itself will have been forever unknown to all of creation. The sacrifice of the Son introduces to us the notion of “grace” which is roughly described as a “free and unmerited gift” and “the condition of being favored by the divine.” In Grace, both Madeline and the titular Grace are graced by a foreign power. However, Solet magically manipulates the essence of the word ‘grace’, injecting its meaning with dark exaggeration in that, instead of God favoring them, they are favored by what I believe is the infernal opposite. Perhaps as a mockery of the Son’s resurrection from death, Grace is resurrected into demonization—attracting flies and craving blood and flesh, instead of milk.

The reason why I am quick to conclude that Grace’s origins are demonic in nature and not viral, like Deadgirl or other zombie films, and vampiric, is due to the nature of hellish demonic spirits in ancient lore—they must be invited within a lifeless body only at the behest of those in mourning. Madeline, overcome with grief and loss, acted as the beseecher, summoning the spirit, albeit unknowingly, through her pleas.

Not only did Solet deface the sanctity of God’s and a mother’s love, so too did he mar the very blessedness of life itself. His way is quite commendable—through symbolisms and irony. The film is riddled with countless dialogue and images of milk—the soy milk that Michael was struggling to drink, Henry suckling the breast milk of his wife, Dr. Sohn downing a glass of what seemed to be milk, and of course, the numerous scenes about breastfeeding. Milk, perhaps in all cultures and society, is connected with life. Even before water, it is a mother’s milk that nourishes an infant and gives him or her strength. In the Bible, milk is a symbol of wholesome truth due to its simple yet nutritive qualities. In essence, it brings about life itself.

While blood per se is not milk’s polar opposite, Grace connotes that blood is a symbol for both life and death. Grace, being demonic in nature, is repulsed by milk. Symbolically, a natural, life-giving elixir such as milk being the ironic cause of sickness for a demon is aligned with certain cultural mythologies. Instead, Grace is nourished by blood. Biologically, drinking blood is a sure way to contract various diseases and infection, which brings about death. However, Grace, like a vampire, is instead nourished by lifeblood. Like the literal monster she is, Grace is paradoxically harmed by that which gives life and nutrients to the living, while that which is borderline poisonous for the living to drink is what she longs for.

When we focus on Madeline, however, the notion of blood is seen using a different set of lens. On the other side of the spectrum, blood is linked to life as well. Spiritually, new life was gifted to us by the spilling of the Christ’s blood. We are also compelled to consume the “flesh” and “blood” of God’s son during Communion. While seeing blood as a more transcendent life-giving elixir than milk is in no ways wrong, it does harm the giver. Christ did not bleed instantly,. rather he was subjected to torture most cruel. Christ, the giver of his blood, was lashed in the back with hook-tipped whips, got his head smashed with a barbed crown, was nailed to the cross, and was pierced in the side—and so his blood spilled and washed us clean! Even in Christ’s crucifixion, new life can never be brought upon without the spilling of blood. Suffering and letting blood is essential for life to be accessible. Therefore, after seeing Madeline willingly suffer by the teeth of Grace, we can connect the spiritual symbolisms between Christ and the mother.

It is apt that the two greatest types of love, a mother’s love and God’s love, is encapsulated in the two types of liquid that Grace revolved around—breast milk and blood. For Solet, corrupting these two notions and pouring down a ton of meaning to these two liquids was extremely essential for the film to be considered horror, as horror as a film genre eclipses mere scares. It is bleeding with meaning.

To conclude, while the film was stretched thinly, the sheer amount of meaning in Grace’s symbolisms and scenes were far beyond what was initially expected.

I give the movie a 4/5.

To Where It All Began: It Follows and Derridan Philosophy

0

Note: Spoilers ahead.


David Robert Mitchell‘s It Follows is a low budget supernatural horror film comprised of the antitheses of everything contemporary horror brings into the theater. The film’s plot follows a young woman shadowed by an formless entity after a sexual encounter.

The movie begins with Jay (Maika Monroe), a Michigan college student whose love for her then-boyfriend Hugh (Jake Weary) compels her into finally giving herself to him. After their steamy encounter outside an abandoned building, Jay is then chloroformed, carried to a building, and subsequently bound to a chair. Scared and confused, Jay implores her boyfriend to explain himself. Hugh then rambles on and on about how he passed his curse of being followed by a mysterious, somewhat Lovecraftian creature to Jay through their having sex. Jay, now marked for death by a snail-paced entity of unknown origin, must either pass it on in turn, or run—a task she knows she cannot do forever.

Like Deadgirl, It Follows follows an unconventional path riddled with the antitheses of contemporary horror genre elements to ironically elicit a more ancient form of fear—fear of the unknown. Mitchell, whom I believe to be heavily inspired by American horror maestro H.P. Lovecraft himself, nips and reaps at our psyche, invoking paranoia and nonsensical anxiety through this film, aside from your run-of-the-mill jump scares and intricately detailed demons and masked psycho killers.

As a sore thumb to the horror genre, It Follows employs an unnamed, non-speaking, amorphous stalker as its antagonist. As a demon, ghost, or cosmic entity that blends in with humanity so well, its identity as a horror monster is quite unique. The horror genre’s most notorious monsters and villains are, in fact, usually christened individuals with a fully fleshed out backstory explaining how they ended up so horrific. Though these villains’ faces are hidden behind a mask of human flesh, disgusting scars, a blood-soaked white hockey mask, or teeth galore and inspire uneasy sleep or a lack thereof, we still empathize with most of them due to their given history. In It Follows, Mitchell defies the horror norm by turning the other way around—showing the audience nothing; no explanation, no definitive ending, not even a solution. It is, one can say, fatalistic from the get-go.

Even trumping Lovecraft and his demonic pantheon in his own game, Mitchell’s version of an “unknown” entity is true to form and more. Our sense of paranoia and anxiety comes from the ever-stalking “It” having no definitive backstory or a default shape or form. Truly, when we ask ourselves questions about what Mitchell’s monster exactly is, where it comes from, or what it can do, we get nothing. However, our fear finds its completion in the fact that “It” manifests itself as a “known” being.

Whereas the “unknown” of Lovecraft is synonymous to a pantheon of grandiose, aesthetically appalling cosmic entities that, if ever seen or at the very least, glanced at, would literally warp our minds and churn our stomachs, rendering us dead from sheer insanity, Mitchell’s monster wears human skin in an attempt to relate to us the unfathomability of the fearful unknown. We might come to the conclusion that this “diminishing” of the “It” from a truly unknown cosmic entity to a mere doppelganger results in Mitchell’s monster becoming less scary, but in truth, its slow display of power scares us even more. How? The philosopher Jacques Derrida questions the existence of certain notions, mainly forgiveness, hospitality, and justice. Derrida says that true forgiveness, hospitality, and justice, if there are such things, do not operate on the level of what we know. Rather, those three principles manifest themselves in conditional forgiveness, biased hospitality for groups of persons, and the physical law, respectively. Derrida states therefore, that the totalities of forgiveness, hospitality, and justice are too great that we cannot comprehend them. Due to our human imperfection, we can only feel “bits and pieces” of such notions, not the purity of their forms. These earthly manifestations therefore, give us hope that the spirits of true forgiveness, hospitality, and justice exist beyond our world.

In the same way, the “It’s” original appearance is simply so unfathomable that it cannot simply manifest as its own body. Rather, Mitchell’s monster manifests in what we know—human beings. Whereas Lovecraft’s Cthulhu, perhaps the most notorious of his creations, destroys minds without an effort, but leaves nothing to react to its power, the “It’s” earthly manifestation of itself gives us despair, as it is literally a walking paradigm that points us to the reality that darker, more evil spirits and entities exist beyond our world. Simply put, if the “It” unleashes the full totality of its being, the sheer unfathomability “It” carries within itself will render the cursed nothing. By following the cursed, “It” is building up tension and fear. Sometimes, it is more terrifying to anticipate a slow albeit known death than to live and die in no less than a second.

Another element of the film I find intriguing is the emphasis on the act of ‘looking.’ Linda Williams states that, more often than not, “the woman’s exercise of an active, investigating gaze can only be simultaneous with her own victimization.” However, I find it interesting that Jay’s situation is the exact opposite. The relationship between Jay and the “It” is founded on the strength of one’s guard. Constitutive of one’s guard is his or her ability to frequently look and observe the goings on of his or her environment. “It” is described to be extremely intelligent, with its only perceived weakness its slow pace. “It,” as Hugh describes, must always footslog towards the cursed. Therefore, in Jay’s situation, actively looking around and at Mitchell’s monster, being investigative of her surroundings, and keeping her guard up is simultaneous with a chance to free herself, albeit temporarily, from “It.” Williams also concluded that Everything conspires here to condemn the desire and curiosity of the woman’s look. However, in It Follows, it is reversed—condemnation follows those whose sights are unguarded. Fatalism aside, if a protagonist had the patience and the will, he or she can theoretically outwit and outrun the ever-following “It.”

One sin of It Follows is, like Ginger Snaps, its indisputable symbolism and classless analogies. Sex is an overarching theme of It Follows and the “It” is to sexually transmitted diseases as the lycanthropic Ginger is to menstruation and growth into the post-pubescent woman. The film is permeated by metaphors, dialogue, and subtle hints that point the audience to the themes of sexuality and a lack of a spirit of chastity. For instance, when Yara (Olivia Luccardi) likened Paul (Kier Gilchrist) to the titular Idiot in Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s novel. The Idiot about Prince Lyov Nikolaevich Myshkin, a young man whose goodness and openhearted simplicity lead many of the more worldly characters he encounters to mistakenly assume that he lacks intelligence and insight. In the character of Prince Myshkin, Dostoevsky set himself the task of depicting “the positively good and beautiful man”. In a world obsessed with greed and sexuality, he is seen as an Idiot for his innocence and purity. In the same way, Paul, the shy and pure man who genuinely loves Jay, is considered an idiot by her sexually active friends. It is heartbreaking for Paul to see Jay give herself to other men who only wished to have sex while he himself was willing to lift the curse from her from the very beginning.

The aspect of fatalism was evident in the poem that was shared during Jay in her class. The poem, The Love Song by J. Alfred Prufrock is a story about isolation and incapability for decisive action—this is evident in Jay who, being the only one to see the “It,” is somewhat isolated from the rest of the world and, no matter how fast or how far she ran, she was always incapable of any worthwhile action.

It Follows utilizes simplicity in the way it portrayed its characters and setting. The acting was, although dull, true to form for teenagers with literally nothing to do in their lives. Monroe filled the shoes of a worried, hopelessly in love to just hopeless girl excellently, and the setting of the film was nightmarish at best because wherever the protagonists went, it was always either by the sea or surrounded by buildings. To overthink things, I believe Mitchell utilized the appearance of water and the ocean to remind us of the vastness and unfathomability of the “It,” while the ceaseless towns suburban buildings effectively “walled” any and all forms of escape from the entity. Mitchell also utilizes color proficiency, in that the color red symbolized that “It” was coming. In most scenes where the entity was onscreen, there were red shoes, a red car, a red beer car, red theatre curtains and carpet, a girl wearing a red shirt, and the old man in the final scene where Jay and Paul were walking hand in hand was wearing red, as well.

All in all, It Follows is extremely philosophical when dissected to its very core. It is a film that tackles the notions of existence and the unknown, as well as the very relatable problems of human sexuality.

I give the movie a 3/5.

The Bite of ‘69: Deadgirl and Human Evil

0

Note: Spoilers ahead.


Gadi Harel and Marcel Sarmiento‘s Deadgirl is an avant-garde zombie film that utilizes elements of the exploitation film, specifically the rape and revenge genre. The film revolves around two fun loving high school seniors whose morals quickly degenerate after meeting a bound, seemingly helpless “human” girl.

The movie begins with Rickie (Shiloh Fernandez) and J.T. (Noah Segan), two high school seniors who spend their time gawking at girls and longing for sex, deciding to cut class. After a couple of minutes walking and drinking a few warm beers, they stumble upon an old abandoned psychiatric hospital, which they then break into and subsequently thrash, as best friends most often do. Rickie and J.T. soon discover a mute, naked woman (Jenny Spain) in the basement. Rickie and J.T.’s solid friendship wanes hereafter, expressing clashing thoughts on what to do with the girl. Later that night, J.T. rapes the woman in secrecy and, after three failed attempts on her life, discovers she is undead. The film progresses quickly thereon and before long, the entire film becomes a repulsive admixture of all the perversely immoral acts, thoughts, and decisions men can do, think, and make.

Harel and Sarmiento’s use of an undead character technically makes Deadgirl a zombie movie. However, most of us would agree that, upon watching the film unfold, Deadgirl is no ordinary zombie movie. The notion of undead, as I’ve tackled before, is a primitive source of fear in the horror genre—so much, that zombies have now become and are even perceived as less of a threat than they originally were during the early 2000s.

When 28 Days Later and Dawn of the Dead hit theatres worldwide, the notion of cannibalistic shamblers plagued our minds and compelled us to think critically about what we would do if we were ever thrust into such an apocalyptic situation. But, as the era rolled along, the notion of the undead as an immeasurable army of rot and terror decomposed into simple albeit laughable tools of our human entertainment. Shaun of the Dead and Zombieland, two of the most famous romantic comedy films about a group of zombie-killing misfits (zomromcoms, if you will), paved the way for the undead to become less of a threat to humanity and more a means to whatever end, be they rational or arbitrary. I mean, don’t get me wrong—Shaun of the Dead and Zombieland were two really good movies. Today, however, zombie movies have become so dishonored that Zombeavers and Cooties, two movies devoid of any filmic worth, are permitted to exist. With Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse the genre’s most recent spawn, great films about undead armies have, unlike the undead themselves, stayed in the grave. And yet, we live in a paradoxical time where the popularity of the zombie film is sparkling and golden, despite the quite rusty appearance of the genre’s lagging antagonists.

If not tools for comedy and laughter, zombies play no role other than tools for destruction. This way of seeing the undead redeems them, if only a tad bit. Zombies as targets has been a constitutive dimension for zombie-centric media, but the extremely convoluted methods of killing the undead are manifested more in video games. Plants vs. Zombies introduced perhaps the wackiest way one can deter the zombie apocalypse with rows and rows of combative plants; Dead Rising gives the players the option to choose from a plethora of perhaps the most unorthodox, random-looking weapons ever; and Left 4 Dead, Dying Light, The Last of Us and my personal favorite, Killing Floor unleashed upon us endless waves of mutated, nontraditional, and atypical undead enemies. Finally, I simply cannot go without saying that Capcom and the Resident Evil franchise are to video games as George Romero, the Godfather of the Dead himself, and basically all of his zombie films franchises are to movies. In all of these examples, all the undead enemies are more nuisances, walking targets, and test subjects for experimental weapons than they are invokers of fear.

Whether on the big screen or in our gaming consoles, zombie-centric media stay more or less the same—these undead are objects and nothing more.

That is why Deadgirl is so brilliant. It is by far a clear redemption of the genre despite being sandwiched between legendary films about the living dead and the cinematographic embodiments of childish ideas, as well as a sea of zombie-objectifying games. Even then, Deadgirl supersedes both its predecessors and successors with its nigh matchless efficacy in inducing all types of fear and disgust. Its simple aesthetics complement its beyond evocative nature; its cast of extremely shallow, worldly, and unlikeable characters and how they interact with one another is ironically appealing in its own, macabre way; and it took the zombie movie equation to a whole new level.

You see, in all the films and games mentioned above, the undead are clearly the destructive force. They come in ravenous multitudes, bringing forth wave upon wave of destruction and disease. They quite literally carry the key to man’s total annihilation and spread it with every bite. They lack any form of personal identity or individuality but were once humans themselves—that, for me, is the most devastating element about fighting zombies—to kill a monster knowing it was once a friend or loved one. The humans, on the other hand, have a valid reason for wasting the undead; they fight solely to survive and renew a dying race. The humans’ goals are reasonable and even noble.

Deadgirl’s cinematic formula is the antithesis of everything we know and loved about the generic zombie film. Harel and Sarmiento implore us to view the polar opposites of the old elements that once made zombie movies work. The endless armies of the putrefied dead are exchanged for a zombified woman without a single sign of decay albeit a mild case of skin discoloration; the overbearing strength of an undead horde is nonexistent and is instead replaced with the titular Deadgirl helpless and tethered; and the film encapsulates what would happen if the lust of men is left unchecked. The only element of this zombie movie left unchanged is J.T.’s objectification of Deadgirl, but even then, Harel and Sarmiento disturb us again by making the woman an object to appease J.T.’s unabashed lust instead of wrath due to a sense of self-preservation. It is even implied that before she was zombified, the woman was alive and well only a day or perhaps even a few hours before Rickie and J.T.’s discovery of her, as evidenced by the orgasmic motion subsequent to J.T.’s sexual stimulation, the lack of external signs of decay, and the fact that by the end of the movie, the corpse had not undergone bloating—a stage in bodily decomposition that should inevitably happen within the first three days postmortem.

Personally, I believe the most unnerving theme of Deadgirl is its pessimistic view on humankind, specifically the male sex. Whereas most zombie-centric media depict the remaining survivors as heroes and propagators of humanity, the men in Deadgirl are portrayed as selfish individuals whose hearts and minds beat and think in a shockingly inhuman fashion—no male character has any redemptive qualities at all. But, dark as this movie’s viewpoint on men may be, it is, in most cases, truer than we care to admit. It is from how Harel and Sarmiento make use of the male characters do we question the very foundations of Rickie and J.T.’s character. They are, as television tropes put it, “not so different.”

We begin with J.T. who, like most of us, is a normal high school senior who hangs around with friends, fancies girls, cuts class every now and then, and loves his grandma. He is so ordinary and extremely human that if Deadgirl were about anything else, he’d be a boring character. In fact, if Deadgirl were a generic zombie movie, he’d be the very first one to die. It is interesting to note, however, that it is J.T.’s very character as an “ordinary human male” that makes him the most diabolical villain in any of the movies we’ve seen so far. Despite his youth, he displays a form of abuse that dwarfs Jess’ abuse of her autistic son, and despite being fully human, his sexual desires and longing for sex far exceeds that of even Ginger’s.

What is also interesting to note is how fast he succumbed to this lust-driven evil. J.T. is the personified answer to the question, “What would you do if nothing held you back?” Without explanation, everything favorable was laid before him—an attractive girl lacking any form of a personality let alone the ability to speak, was nude, chained, and powerless, and was hidden both far from civilization and deep underground. J.T. responds to all of this malevolently—he expresses the desire to rape Deadgirl even before they find out she’s a zombie, finds out she’s a zombie by killing her thrice, sells Deadgirl’s fetid body as an overvalued sex doll, blackmails Johnny (Andrew DiPalma) and expresses no concern over his penis getting bitten off, murders Dwyer (Nolan Gerard Funk) in cold blood, and kidnaps Joann (Candice Accola) in order to create a new Deadgirl. And yet, we see him do something heroic in the end but, I ask, was it really noble of him to save Joann? It is not only when he bites Joann does he infect her with the zombie virus, but also infects Rickie with the very lust-centric evil that he so graciously accepted into his life. We focused so much on Joann becoming the new Deadgirl, but it is Rickie, the supposed “protagonist” of the movie, that becomes the new J.T.

Even before assuming J.T.’s role, Rickie stalks Joann and masturbates to the “love” of his life. He watches her from afar, spits on her human worth and turns her into the subject of his sexual fantasies. It is no surprise then that we see him bind Joann in the same way the first Deadgirl was bound. We can even conclude that Rickie will be even more psychotic and perverted than J.T., who had sex with a zombified girl he knew nothing about. If you replace J.T. with an obsessed stalker and the first Deadgirl with the “love” of Rickie’s life, then things will get even more ugly. Rickie should just “fucking grow up” as Joann puts it.

All the supporting male characters are, in hindsight, equally as disgusting. Wheeler (Eric Podnar) is the equally perverted and arrogant but extremely dumbed-down version J.T., Johnny calls his loving girlfriend “his own pussy,” and Dwyer is every bit as a jerk as his best friend.

Watching Deadgirl is a polarizing experience. Externally, it is a repugnant and disgusting film that deserves public hate, but Harel and Sarmiento’s glee in pushing the buttons many of us keep buried within the unconscious mind is what makes Deadgirl a thoroughly captivating film. No, that doesn’t mean I condone rape or any other acts of violence against women, but I believe the directors and writer Trent Haaga could make no better film that sheds light upon the issue. The appearance of rape and torture is even darkened by its point of origin—within the social hierarchy, amidst peer-pressured kids and the sexually active and yearning.

The acting is top-notch mainly due to their detestability. I mean, Jack Gleeson’s Joffrey Baratheon unified a world by being perhaps one of the most hated fictional characters in any series. Deadgirl’s characters are all basically as culpable and as deserving of hatred than King Joffrey, if not more. As Andrew Tudor puts it, the horror genre should evoke strong responses. Deadgirl’s overarching themes, aesthetic execution, and its cast’s vile acting styles all induced a sense of horror in all aspects. All in all, I was mystified by Harel and Sarmiento’s film, coupled with Haaga’s beautifully dark script.

I give the movie a 5/5.

Such A Lovely Place: The Innkeepers and Failed Relationships

0

 Note: Spoilers ahead.


Ti West’s The Innkeepers is a supernatural horror film with a plot tantamount to that of an old-fashioned ghost story. The film recounts the story of two impassionate friends and their final days as employees of a seemingly average inn that hid within its halls a dark and terrible historicity.

Set and even shot in the truly and infamously haunted Yankee Pedlar Inn in Torrington, Connecticut, the movie begins with Claire (Sara Paxton) and Luke (Pat Healy), two, as with most horror films featuring ghosts and haunted homes, would-be paranormal investigators obsessed with unearthing the Inn’s horrific story and seeing the ghost of the fabled Madeline O’Malley (Brenda Cooney). The film burns slowly in the beginning, with the exordial “chapters” being riddled with banter, cheap scares, showcases of character personality-based comedy, and Claire awe-struck in the presence of Leanne Rease-Jones (Kelly McGillis), a once-famous actress turned psychic healer. However, things take an abrupt turn in the wake of O’Malley’s first appearance. Almost immediately, The Innkeepers gets bombarded with a flurry of silently eerie sounds that slowly intensify into explosive bursts of noise, panning shots into the subversive darkness, and memorable, even nightmare-inducing scenes that nip your mind even days after the credits start rolling

The Innkeepers is comprised of a sufficient amount of elements that add to the its excellence not necessarily as a film of horror, but a film in general. Its main protagonists, Claire and Luke, have a unique, somewhat enviable dynamic. Their conversations, quips, and banter are witty and not unlike a pair of real best friends. Their droll antics when drunk shone light in a supposedly dark movie, and Luke’s bold decision to accompany Claire to the basement to impress her is true-to-life for any desperate man with a crush. In the same way, Paxton effortlessly plays the “clueless girl” trope, feeling nothing even when Luke confessed his feelings for his co-worker. Both Paxton and Healy’s acting are au-naturel for two friends. That, for me, is a commendable, irreplaceable element.

Part of The Innkeepers’ brilliance lies within its cinematography. Unlike most horror films that focus too much on the design aesthetic of the antagonist, the space beyond the frame is as important than what the audience sees. In fact, many of this film’s most suspenseful moments happen when we see nothing but Luke’s face, a blurred shot, or utter, unperceivable darkness. For instance, when Claire tells Luke that Madeline O’Malley is right behind them, we see only their faces. However, there is certainty due to the subtle hints the movie gave us beforehand—after Claire saw O’Malley’s ghost in her dream, we know that, in her mind, Claire knows what Madeline O’Malley looks like. Luke’s expressions also made the scene more difficult to watch through, seeing as we feel his fear grow, and grow, and burst at the seams. Much of the film’s events are inspired by The Shining, which is always a plus for any fan of horror.

Much of these unseen moments are made more horrifying with the accompaniment of eerie sounds. From silence to explosive booms, West employs all types of sounds in order to rupture our senses. Most horror films compel us to cover our eyes, but unlike most horror films, The Innkeepers‘ punishment will harm us either audibly or visually. In fact, West even gives most of these sounds a physical source. Most of the tension emanates from Claire and Luke’s recorder, and one of the shocking parts was when an invisible force bashed two of the piano’s keys. Even Madeline O’Malley’s first actual screaming scene, her “scream” was in truth a loud thrumming almost akin to the sound of a large bell.

Its ghostly element coupled with themes of love and romance, however, is this movie’s crème de la crème. Undoubtedly, The Innkeepers is horror through and through. Like Ginger Snaps’ John Fawcett, West effectively employs and extracts from his audience the fear of what once was—ancient antagonists of the past. However, unlike the primal drive to satisfy a physical hunger common in lycanthropes, vampires, the undead, and other medieval monsters, West unleashes upon both Claire and Luke a more primordial, more universal, albeit paradoxically more human source of dread—ghosts.

As I’ve stated in my review for Ginger Snaps, werewolves, vampires, witches, and Frankenstein’s monster have been overly romanticized and therefore bastardized by many authors of today—so much that bringing them back to a state capable of educing effective fear is nigh impossible. The most prestige these progenitors of today’s horror can get is, as in Underworld and Van Helsing, that of a powerhouse or combatant in horror action films. Underworld and Van Helsing exploits the age-old conflict between lycans and vampires, but its purpose is more on portraying the aesthetics of action than that of horror.

Spirits, however, speak of another story. There is a vast history regarding these incorporeal beings. From Plato, to Aristotle, to Hegel, the notion of souls and the ethereal dead have become commonplace in today’s philosophically and academically hungry society. These immaterial minds have both figuratively and in some cases literally haunted us in the past. Personally, I believe the reason why ghosts are effective and versatile subjects for horror media and fruitful in terrifying audiences lies within their connection with humanity. Oftentimes, the more bestial antagonists of horror have no other drive save for the satisfaction of their basic needs. We see in various monster movies such as Jaws, Tremors, and Little Shop of Horrors the shallow purpose these beasts have—to feast and nothing more. Ghosts, however, are more insidious in nature—the ghosts from Poltergeist are angry because their tombstones were defaced by the living, Parker Crane from the Insidious franchise is a psychotic ghost plagued with issues of identity because of an abusive mother, “Mama” from Mama kills out of extreme duty to protect her “children,” and Sadako Yamamura and Kayako Saeki from The Ring and The Grudge respectively are only vengeful due to their torture and eventual deaths at the hands of selfish men.

Here we see another side that bolsters the efficacy of spirits as tools of and for horror—the corrupted vestiges of their humanity. More than baseless antagonists, Poltergeist’s ghosts, Parker Crane, Mama, Sadako, and Kayako can be seen as epitomes of tragedy. This dark reality begs the question—who really are the monsters in ghost films? The ghosts themselves or the humans who have wronged them? It’s interesting to think that human beings act inhumanely to other human beings thus, when they die and turn into the restless dead, they act inhumanely in retaliation.

This is why Madeline O’Malley and the ghost of the Old Man (George Riddle) are such complex and beautiful characters. Despite being such a silent entity, O’Malley’s story and pain is made known to us by the film itself. Claire, in her curiosity, unravels the tragic story of Madeline O’Malley and, aside from being scared; we’re left as hurt as the Yankee Pedlar Inn’s fabled ghost herself. The Old Man, however, rends our hearts with his voice and story. It is there we get to see him before his transcendence into a spirit. With the introduction of his life, we are also introduced to his situation. We are not spoon-fed the idea of tragedy right away, but we are given partial snippets and hints to his eventual suicide which is beautiful in its own, macabre way. Upon turning into a ghost, the Old Man becomes a pale shell of his former self. Despite not even meeting each other, both O’Malley and the Old Man have their own ghastly dynamic. O’Malley’s suicide is symbolic of her desperate escape from pain and living in a world where the person who broke her heart still exists, whilst the Old Man’s suicide represents a willed transcendence and a desire to be one with his beloved in the afterlife. They both contrast and complement each other. That is why Claire as the third ghost completes the equation—O’Malley died because her love life failed before it even began, the Old Man died because his successful love life ended, and most importantly, Claire died not knowing love at all.

In spite of The Innkeepers‘ basic horror formula, the outcome was pleasant and enjoyable. It’s one of the few horror films that stressed the importance of the audio alongside the visual aspect of horror—a feat many directors either fall short in doing or tend to exaggerate. Its themes of relationships are also very scary because O’Malley, the Old Man, and Claire all represent the worst of deaths. Will you die betrayed by love, unsatisfied with life, or not knowing and feeling anything at all? Only time will tell.

I give the movie a 4/5.