2021 Halloween Challenge

Tools    





Without getting into spoilers, I think that this is a good example of a film that prioritized extending its central mystery instead of deepening its characters. I think that in a stronger film, who the characters are would tie much more strongly to the strange things happening around them. But instead the two things feel siloed, and neither entirely resolves in a satisfactory way.
Yeah, I think that issue runs throughout Shyamalan's filmography and part of why he hasn't been able to top the ending in The Sixth Sense.
__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd



I remember when there is the big reveal in The Village, I was deeply confused, since I had assumed the twist as a matter of course from the beginning of the film.


God I hate Shyamalan. He should stick to what he does best: utilizing dirty diapers with the perfection of a saint.



Yeah, I think that issue runs throughout Shyamalan's filmography and part of why he hasn't been able to top the ending in The Sixth Sense.

And Nolan has been trying to top the structural cleverness of Memento with ever more convoluted plots.



And Nolan has been trying to top the structural cleverness of Memento with ever more convoluted plots.
Yeah, pretty much. While Nolan is certainly more talented than Shyamalan, both filmmakers have been trying for years to capture the success of one of their early films, yet keep falling short.





The Wolf Man, 1941

Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr) returns to the village where he grew up to be with his father, John (Claude Rains). But soon after arriving--and catching feelings for local shopwoman Gwen (Evelyn Ankers)--Larry is attacked by what he believes to be a wolf. Soon, Larry finds himself experiencing strange events that seem to fit with local legends about werewolves.

The Wolf Man is a rather compact little horror, coming in at just about 70 minutes. And yet it is chock full of classic sequences so that even things that are overly familiar move along at a good little pace.

To begin with, the film is packed with talent, including Bela Lugosi as a local fortune teller and Ralph Bellamy as a local colonel who takes an interest in the seeming appearance of a dangerous wolf.

Many of the conversations in the film involve a distraught Larry trying to understand what is happening to him via consultation with his father, the colonel, and other men. Discussing the legend of the werewolf, the men assert that it is possible for someone to be crazy and believe himself to be a wolf, but not for someone to actually transform. It's a undertone of horror---the idea that something can be happening to you, and yet science says it is impossible. Only a local Romani woman (Maria Ouspenskaya) understands what is happening to Larry and offers him comfort, though she knows he is doomed.

The scenes out in the moor, all swirling mist and different figures popping in and out of the fog, are great looking and atmospheric.

My only complaints were that Larry sometimes felt a bit bland. At times, Chaney really seemed to convey a quiet desperation, but Larry lacked in personality at other times. And it doesn't help that a painfully dated element is our introduction to him: he uses a telescope to spy on a woman in her bedroom, then flirts with her by letting her know that he's seen into her bedroom. Charming! The whole romance feels like it exists mainly to introduce a conflict--ie Larry doesn't want to accidentally eat Gwen--and their scenes lack the intensity of the conversations about werewolves, or the genuine emotion of the scenes with the local woman.

Not sure this is one that I'd revisit often, but I'm glad I finally checked it out.

Just watched this one and I think we're on the same page with Chaney being kind of lame and the worst thing about it.


I didn't comment on it in my review, but yeah, that telescope scene. What's this Revenge of the Nerds bull**** doing in my '40s werewolf movie?



Victim of The Night
I think I've found something that will work. I will keep Castle Freak on the back burner in case I have to bail on my choice.

I have seen Dagon, which I agree would be good for this.

And I will throw out there an endorsement for Spring. It's not perfect, but I really liked it.
Castle Freak is definitely icky. But it's an otherwise pretty good little movie.
And we also reacted similarly to Spring, not perfect but we liked it and someone mentions it not infrequently.



Victim of The Night


The Village, 2004

Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard) lives in a rustic village where she gently crushes on Lucius (Joaquin Phoenix). The village is ruled over by elders, including Edward Walker (William Hurt) and Alice Hunt (Sigourney Weaver). The village maintains a strict border, as the woods are stalked by mysterious creatures. As romantic melodrama unfolds among the young people, attacks and other strange happenings begin.

Oof, it's so hard to try to give an honest reaction to a film when you've been given a lot of key information ahead of time. Unfortunately, many of the plot turns in this film have long since been spoiled for me. As this is a film where certain reveals are critical to the pacing and unfolding of the story, it's hard to tell what I would have thought about it if I'd gone in without that foreknowledge.

That said, I think that even going in ignorant about the plot this film would be a little too long and not entirely satisfying in its character arcs.

The plus size is the look of the film. I liked the use of color (especially yellow and red). A sequence where a character is stalked through the woods by a creature is effective and tense. I also appreciated that the cast has some interesting and quirky choices, like Michael Pitt and Judy Greer.

I did think that the performances were a bit hit or miss. I know that Adrien Brody got a LOT of flack for his portrayal of the village simpleton, Noah. But while the performance is a choice, I think that the writing is largely to blame. Howard and Phoenix manage to kind of emote their way through it, but many characters feel not quite right, and not in a way that serves the film.

Without getting into spoilers, I think that this is a good example of a film that prioritized extending its central mystery instead of deepening its characters. I think that in a stronger film, who the characters are would tie much more strongly to the strange things happening around them. But instead the two things feel siloed, and neither entirely resolves in a satisfactory way.

Yep, throw another one in the "it was fine" pile.

I really liked this film but apparently the scene that gives it a way and therefore seemed to knock it down a bit for a few people, I was in the bathroom for. And then once you see it a second time well you already know going in. But I thought the design and cinematography and editing were just aces. And I really thought BDH was pretty special. And of course, I will enjoy almost anything with William Hurt in it.
And the bolded paragraph just seems like a bummer. I intentionally avoided any exposure before seeing it so I could really get the full flavor and I probably liked it as much as any fan it has.



Victim of The Night
Yeah, I think that issue runs throughout Shyamalan's filmography and part of why he hasn't been able to top the ending in The Sixth Sense.
Except of course, for his true masterpiece, Unbreakable.



Except of course, for his true masterpiece, Unbreakable.
I remember thinking the final reveal to Unbreakable was unnecessary when I watched it a couple years ago, but DaMU provided some interesting insight on it back at Corrie, so I'll have to revisit it someday to see if I warm up to it some more.

The ending to The Sixth Sense, in addition to the large emotional impact it left on me, works due to how well it ties into Malcolm's and Crowe's character arcs.



It's entirely explicable. It is a feature, not a bug. You can't watch an 80's horror/slasher and really expect anything else. Takoma doth protest too much, methinks.
But just because you expect it from that decade/genre doesn't mean you should accept it; otherwise, why ever complain about any problematic aspects of any older film, since they're all technically "products of their time" anyway?



I think if you're watching 80's horror and have a problem with the nudity (or the reason or abscence of reason for it) it's fine to talk about it from a current modern position. What you think it does and why it's a problem. I think to expect it not to be there and be upset when it is, is a problem for you, not the film. I'm not saying that's what Tak was doing, as I haven't read the post and of the posts of hers I have read, that's not usually how she'd react IMO.
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.



But just because you expect it from that decade/genre doesn't mean you should accept it; otherwise, why ever complain about any problematic aspects of any older film, since they're all technically "products of their time" anyway?
If one complains about "wide shots of the horizon" and all the "gun violence" in a particular Western, as if these were surprising or disappointing features to find in the genre, such criticism suggests unfamiliarity with the genre. It's like going to McDonald's and announcing disappointment at all of the burger-type menu choices.

If I had the sense that Takoma were a younger person taking a tour of 80s cinema, I could see the disappointment and share in it. Like many, if not most, of us here, however, Takoma is older (or shall we say, old enough to be a known cinephile with decades of cinematic engagement, reflection, and commentary). This isn't Takoma's first rodeo, and it isn't the first time that Takoma has ridden this bull.

Also, "problematic" is a curious word in this context. That which is "problematic" suggests that which is typically freighted with problems, but not necessarily a problem in any given case. The "problematic" is that which is uncertain, dubious, indeterminate (Hey, we could be getting into trouble here...). "Problematic" is not the word that really fits here, but rather "problem." The term "problematic" bespeaks the piety of our new secular religion, but is rather coy and indirect (i.e., racism isn't "problematic," it's a problem - what is problematic are those policies and attitudes which are not directly racist, but which are implicated in possibly forwarding racist consequences).

Must we always invoke such pieties when visiting artworks of the past? "I just read the Iliad again and was disappointed by the valorization of toxic masculinity as arete in Greek culture. I really hoped Homer would do better."

Now, I will say that, on occasion, I visit an older film an I am much struck by a feature which today we would judge negatively. I recall, for example, watching David Jannsen in a mini-series titled The Word on YouTube which also features Star Trek alumni Kate Mulgrew, and Diana Muldaur along with players such as John Huston. It was obviously going to be horrible, but the collection of players was interesting. At any rate, every woman in the show wanted to (or did) become romantically entangled with the male protagonist. I was much struck by this--the implied viewer of the show was apparently in dire need of being desired by beautiful women. This seemed to me to be a needy masculinity--men apparently so unsure and unfulfilled in their "alpha" status demanded by society, in their virility, in their desert for love and attention that every female character in the film absolutely had to be sexually accessible to our audience surrogate. It was kind of pathetic, really. And, of course, that was quite typical of the age, so I should not have been surprised by it. But I was.

Thus, I can see watching an old film and being hit by what one should have expected. Even so, complaining about leering camera shots in 80s horror is a bit like complaining about all the sex in porn. I don't really buy it.



A system of cells interlinked
Added The Innocents to my list in the category A Film from the UK.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



I think if you're watching 80's horror and have a problem with the nudity (or the reason or abscence of reason for it) it's fine to talk about it from a current modern position. What you think it does and why it's a problem. I think to expect it not to be there and be upset when it is, is a problem for you, not the film. I'm not saying that's what Tak was doing, as I haven't read the post and of the posts of hers I have read, that's not usually how she'd react IMO.

I feel like I'm missing an in-between post here (i.e. I'm not seeing a post where someone's giving Tak pushback). Movies have multiple aspects. Maybe some you like and some you dislike. And sometimes when you binge a lot of movies from a certain era, those elements you dislike keep repeating themselves enough it becomes more difficult to ignore in the short term. The comment Tak gave made it sound like she was getting a little worn down by it in the recent spate of viewings. And (I'm inferring) just needs a change of pace, and probably wants to avoid a certain type of gratuitous, female nudity for a few films. Dagon, though from the 00's, does have that sex plot-element that I can't remember how that'd play out if you were feeling particularly sensitized at the moment.


From my own personal experience, I remember Cannibal Holocaust sensitizing me to unsimulated violence towards animals in film for a good year or two.



A Chinese Ghost Story - gets wonderfully nuts after a certain point. On Prime - it looked like only SD and the subtitles were bad, but not bad enough to ruin the experience.
Satisfies franchise original.



Victim of The Night
I remember thinking the final reveal to Unbreakable was unnecessary when I watched it a couple years ago, but DaMU provided some interesting insight on it back at Corrie, so I'll have to revisit it someday to see if I warm up to it some more.

The ending to The Sixth Sense, in addition to the large emotional impact it left on me, works due to how well it ties into Malcolm's and Crowe's character arcs.
I just think in terms of it being about characters and human emotions, I think it's No.1.



I remember Cannibal Holocaust sensitizing me to unsimulated violence towards animals in film for a good year or two.

Some horror films are on an unofficial "never watch" list for me. I heard enough about "A Serbian Film" to know that I didn't need to see it.


It's an odd bargain, you want enough realism in horror for a thrill, but not enough that you need therapy or eye bleach for decades. At any rate, the best stuff seems to be more implied than shown.



Some horror films are on an unofficial "never watch" list for me. I heard enough about "A Serbian Film" to know that I didn't need to see it.


It's an odd bargain, you want enough realism in horror for a thrill, but not enough that you need therapy or eye bleach for decades. At any rate, the best stuff seems to be more implied than shown.

Yeah... That was more the local repertory horror film group doing a screening and me not realizing the full extent of what I was getting into. I had seen some of the other entries in the Italian cannibal subgenre before this way (Jungle Holocaust and The Man from Deep River for example) and they hadn't affected me the same way. And I'd have to rewatch the former to see if the cutting open of the alligator was real or fake, but it seemed to get tucked away in a similar spot as the water buffalo scene in Apocalypse Now. Which is, "well, there isn't that much more violence here than there is on most people's dinner plates," and I think part of it is in my mind, those animals simply ended up as someone's dinner afterwards. (This also applies to the chicken which was beheaded in Spooky Encounters).


But the turtle scene from Cannibal Holocaust... just kind of hit the, "I think I'd this movie wasn't made, that turtle would probably still be alive." That and the poop eating scene in Pink Flamingos are my two go-to moments of reminding myself, "we all have our limits."



I feel like I'm missing an in-between post here (i.e. I'm not seeing a post where someone's giving Tak pushback).
Derp. I skimmed right over Stu's post responding to Corax's post (which I had forgotten in the Night of the Demons exchange) that was literally right above the post I replied to.


Context resolved.