A scary thing happened on the way to the Movie Forums - Horrorcrammers

Tools    





How does Franklin defy stereotypes about the handicapped being a burden? Explain that to me. Is his being handicapped the only thing that keeps him out of the stereotype of whiny loser that is used exactly the same in lesser, basic slashers? If not, what else is it?

You’re claiming that I’m missing something but you’re overlooking the obvious. Blind men seeing a snake and a tree but not the elephant they’re obviously looking at.

I don't know why you think youve got some absolute ace in the hole when you call Franklin a stereotype. Is he reinforcing the commonly held belief that handicapped people are annoying and whiny? That's not one I've heard. Are they generally interested it the process of making headcheese? Or is it simply because the characters treat him as a burden, which as the movie goes on, it becomes more clear they are the ones treating him poorly. And maybe this is why he is being so difficult and uncompiant and unhappy.


But for the sake of the argument, let's just say you've harnessed this clear and present elephant of yours, and Franklin exhibits all the standard and lazy trademarks of a person in a wheelchair. Now, my point is that the power of a negative stereotypes is fairly dependant on their being little else in the character beyond the stereotype. As a result, the audience is going to absorb someone like frankin as nothing but a collection of cheap and harmful characteristics. This can be intentional or unintentional on part of the director or actor, but the end result is the worst traits of a marginalized group are reinforced. Not good.


Because you reject franklin as being a character of any worth, I get that you might view the result of his depiction as nothing but a stereotype. I think you're wrong, but fair enough.


But when me, or any of the other number of posters here who have made it clear they see more in Franklin than this, that we empathize with him, that this empathy is derived by the actors characterization and Hooper's direction, the result of this is we aren't left with just a stereotype. He's not a stereotype because he is more than that collection of simplified traits. He's a full blooded character, arguably the most clearly observed in the whole fillm.


Your interpetation of this character isn't law. You don't like him. You don't empathize with him. You just see some poor articulation of a man in a wheelchair. Okay. I used to hate him too. Until I didnt.


And now where we stand is at least two or three other people have articulated fairly clearly why the character matters to them in the movie as well. Why they don't view him as some one dimensional irritant. Why he adds dimension to the movie. Why he doesn't undo the moments of horror. That they don't cheer when he dies. That they don't think he is some kind of speed bump on the way to representation of handicapped people.


And yet, franklin is still so clearly just this one thing to you, you reject any other possible way of viewing this. And I guess that's fine to. But sort of annoying. If you'd allow me to use a glaringly bad example to articulate (and mostly annoy you a little back) this is sort of like an argument I had with my aunt where she said she doesn't like tv shows with stereotypes of black people selling drugs, and no matter how much I talked about, yes, that's a stereotype, but these characters in the ****ing Wire are more than the sum of their parts, she just kept waving me away because she thought she had that one all sussed out on her own

So yeah, you're just like my aunt. Do you wear a beret that smells like cat piss too?

So basically, you can have your Edwige Fenech. Go be bored with her while I have Franklin all to myself to marvel over this wonderful headcheese I just made.



And yes, that was meant to be a two sentence reply. But I got lost in a time continuum again waiting for a bus. At least this time I didn't miss it and have to spend 60 dollars on a bus to work



I
So basically, you can have your Edwige Fenech. Go be bored with her while I have Franklin all to myself to marvel over this wonderful headcheese I just made.
Deal.



WARNING: spoilers below
What if Edwige Fenech played Franklin...



WARNING: spoilers below
What if Edwige Fenech played Franklin...

MKS would probably complain it was reinforcing the stereotype of handicapped people being stoically boring and badly dubbed.



WARNING: spoilers below
What if Edwige Fenech played Franklin...
Best character in the franchise and oddly likeable.



I don't think anyone has used the word victim to describe disabled people (outside of the context of being a victim in the literal sense in the horror movie).
I used the term “victim” as part of “victim impact”, admittedly in a very legal slang way to denote someone who is describing how they have been affected by a crime/experience. In that sense, members of any underrepresented group having sway over how they are portrayed are to me not unlike someone delivering a victim impact statement. A myriad of issues associated with it, mainly that the reaction is always emotive.

Which is to say that if you have a joke about an older woman or an "unattractive" woman reporting that she's been raped, and that's a punchline moment for two male characters to look at each other with bug-eyes, you might want to ask why that moment is important to include.
To me, this is about how meta we want to go on this. Meant to reply before it appeared, but to quote crumbs’ post below, which would pretty much encapsulate my take on this:

I don't know why you think youve got some absolute ace in the hole when you call Franklin a stereotype. Is he reinforcing the commonly held belief that handicapped people are annoying? Are they generally interested it the process of making headcheese? Or is it simply because the characters treat him as a burden, which as the movie goes on, it becomes more clear they are the ones treating him poorly. And maybe this is why he is being so difficult and uncompiant and unhappy.
I would say this applies more broadly to everything we are discussing. If I were watching a film with the kind of crass rape joke (at the Kanye West “fat friend, her nickname is Minivan” level, god help us all) that you’re referencing, I would definitely take that as commentary on the kinds of people/characters that would say that, not necessarily authorial intent (and even if so, that’s still also showing the kinds of characters the people who would say that sort of thing are. It’s only fair.) Now, again, one can bogged down in how meta that is.

Full disclosure: I’m always perplexed by the “why that was important to include” argument, honestly. I find it gets applied very selectively. There’s rarely a debate on whether the endless perfunctory banter about weed or pigeons in some Jay and Silent Bob film is important to include; nope, no one bats an eyelash; but when it’s a graphic sex scene (we’ve had this conversation) or an Irreversible-style rape scene, or a scene with the kind of misogynistic joke you’ve described, then suddenly it’s not important enough to include, and the debate ignites. All of these things, the random Jay and Silent Bob dick jokes and your hypothetical rape joke, are either equally necessary or unnecessary (and don’t get me wrong, I think Irreversible is rather lame, the rape scene included). But I feel like the rape joke banter is no different from any other banter, and, as such, deserves its spot on the silver screen.

I’m watching Kill Bill this evening, about 10 minutes left now; it always puts me in an odd mood for days to come, but to me the rape joke in one of the opening scenes of the first film (a rape joke about someone in a coma being a better lay, no less) is absolutely essential to the plot. For one, it tells us all we need to know about the gentlemen setting up the rape, as does the “Buck who’s here to ****” self-ID. Which isn’t to discuss that scene, but to say that if a rape joke can be essential, as I believe the Kill Bill joke to be, then who’s to decide whether it ever is or isn’t except the filmmaker? That was my exact sentiment/argument when we were discussing sex scenes.

Sex scenes, just as crass/misogynistic jokes, are no more or less essential than an affirmative conversation between a gay character and their parents on the subject that “it’s okay to be gay” (which again is in itself a bit offensive/condescending towards the audience). Both are stylistic choices. I recently came across a review of a novel called The Men which I haven’t yet read and a line that stood out to me went something like, “The characters feel flat, like it’s been sensitivity read into oblivion… …and the novel bends over backwards to demonstrate awareness of Twitter-trending issues, and is the lesser novel for it”.

I find that to be pretty apt and shrewd commentary on the outcomes of agonising over whether this or that potentially incendiary element was “necessary”/“important to include” in film or literature.

Again, if I as a filmmaker want to explore the inner world of that teenager who’s afraid of gay people because he was hit on as a kid, then I feel that’s good enough/important enough to include with no qualifiers. And look, I’m not deliberately arguing for anything absurd, e.g. I’ve read The Hunter and I don’t feel that sort of thing has any merit or raison d’ętre, literary or otherwise, save to feed someone’s sick ego and fantasies (and that’s the issue with the thing; it’s pure white supremacy propaganda). But with the exact joke you referenced or the narrative about someone whose perception of gay people has been permanently tarnished by a sexual assault experience, yes, I do think that’s important enough to portray just because the filmmaker finds it interesting. Not to mention that, as per comments in the last few pages, such things do indeed occur in real life. To repeat Wooley’s point above, where exactly am I meant to get my reference about a group from if not real life? Isn’t that, well, as grounded as it gets? If I know about said sexual assault/dislike of gay people situation from the media/hearsay, what does that matter?



I used the term “victim” as part of “victim impact”, admittedly in a very legal slang way to denote someone who is describing how they have been affected by a crime/experience. In that sense, members of any underrepresented group having sway over how they are portrayed are to me not unlike someone delivering a victim impact statement. A myriad of issues associated with it, mainly that the reaction is always emotive.
I think that many people in underrepresented groups have actually held relatively little sway over their portrayals. I'm not sure why the emotions of a person whose life is impacted (at the very least at an emotional level) are less important than the artistic impulses of another person.

It only actually becomes a problem if artists are literally being prohibited from putting certain depictions on screen. And they aren't. (They may be steered away from certain things by their investors if they have investors, but tough cookies. I can write any kind of book I want, but I can't whine about a publisher not wanting to pay me money for it because of its content.)

If I were watching a film with the kind of crass rape joke that you’re referencing, I would definitely take that as commentary on the kinds of people/characters that would say that, not necessarily authorial intent (and even if so, that’s still also showing the kinds of characters the people who would say that sort of thing are. It’s only fair.) Now, again, one can bogged down in how meta that is.
There's a difference between a character inviting derision and a film inviting derision. In the two films I'm referencing (What's Up Doc? and that Clint Eastwood film where he goes to the city to catch a fugitive), it is the film itself that is joking at the expense of the woman claiming rape. It takes it out of the realm of "this is how a character thinks" and into the realm of "this is a truth we are joking about".

To bring it back to Texas Chainsaw Massacre, a clear difference of opinion between people arguing here is whether the contempt toward Franklin (something that is expressed by the other characters) is something we are being asked to participate in as viewers. Some people (like MKS) clearly feel that the answer is yes, that we are being invited to find this man annoying and maybe even deserving of his fate. Others, like Popcorn Reviews, feel that he is actually an empathetic character and that we are not meant to share in the derision shown toward him by his crew.

Full disclosure: I’m always perplexed by the “why that was important to include” argument, honestly. I find it gets applied very selectively. There’s rarely a debate on whether the endless perfunctory banter about weed or pigeons in some Jay and Silent Bob film is important to include; nope, no one bats an eyelash; but when it’s a graphic sex scene (we’ve had this conversation) or an Irreversible-style rape scene, or a scene with the kind of misogynistic joke you’ve described, then suddenly it’s not important enough to include, and the debate ignites.
I apply this question selectively in the sense that I only ask about relevance when it seems to me that an element might be reinforcing actual harms that impact real people. Two fictional characters bantering about pigeons doesn't have real-world implications. Echoing and amplifying the cultural sense that women who are elderly or unattractive can't be victims of rape does have potential harms.

I’m watching Kill Bill this evening, about 10 minutes left now; it always puts me in an odd mood for days to come, but to me the rape joke in one of the opening scenes of the first film (a rape joke about someone in a coma being a better lay, no less) is absolutely essential to the plot. For one, it tells us all we need to know about the gentlemen setting up the rape, as does the “Buck who’s here to ****” self-ID. Which isn’t to discuss that scene, but to say that if a rape joke can be essential, as I believe the Kill Bill joke to be, then who’s to decide whether it ever is or isn’t except the filmmaker?
A filmmaker has every right to decide that any element of their film is essential to their purpose. And a viewer has a right to question any element of a film that they are encountering as an audience. Both things can exist at the same time. I mean, otherwise what could movie reviews be except "I didn't like this part of the movie, but I guess the director thought it was important *shrug*."

I find that to be pretty apt and shrewd commentary on the outcomes of agonising over whether this or that potentially incendiary element was “necessary”/“important to include” in film or literature.
If the primary objective of a piece of art is not to offend anyone, then yeah, you will end up with art that is compromised/neutered. But this is not some black and white situation. The choices aren't: "fret exclusively over what other people will think of my art" or "give absolutely zero consideration to the representations included in my art." Joe Lansdale is clearly a person who is sensitive to issues of representation, gender dynamics, etc. But his books still feature characters that would be considered stereotypes and sequences of violence/sexual violence.

Again, if I as a filmmaker want to explore the inner world of that teenager who’s afraid of gay people because he was hit on as a kid, then I feel that’s good enough/important enough to include with no qualifiers.
I don't disagree. At all. It's not about what is in a film, it's about the intention of the film and how well elements of the film fit that purpose. I think it's also about an artist honestly questioning what they choose to draw from real life. Like, take a step back and ask yourself why it is that the only gay men you're comfortable putting on screen are either flamboyant, effeminate "queens" or predatory creeps. Or why the only Black man you're putting in your movie is a drug dealer or gangster type. I don't think it's too big an ask for artists to do a little reflecting on what they are saying about the world and why they feel it's important to say it. I respect that artists can say "this just felt right" even if it's a stereotype. But I reserve the right as the person encountering the art to ask questions about it.



Well, I think MoE is more than just Lovecraftian. It has a vision and that vision is filled with doom. It definitely has a European-by-way-of-California way about it, but there is just so much in the way of visuals and dream-like sequences and nightmare outcomes, while the actual real-life Horror scenes almost seem like nightmares themselves (I refer specifically to the theater and the grocery store, both wonderful scenes) that there just aren't that many films quite like it. I feel like, if you take the artistic sensibilities in the genre at that time, and you throw in plenty of Lovecraft, and you also make it a low-budget almost art-film, and all of it is in California but is obviously informed by the Euro-Horror that's going on, you just get something special, something really unique that stands out from the rest despite low-budgets and whatever. That's how I feel about Lemora and that's definitely how I feel about MoE, and I continue to hunt for other that have some shine on them from that same spirit.
I wrote Lovecraftian in an attempt to try to figure out how it separates out from the other dream-like movies that were coming to mind.
Let's try to do some comparisons -

Carnival of Souls - You kind of have the eerie detached, dream logic where the character's reality feels like it's coming apart. And there's also this mystery of what's going on. And the final carnival scene is actually fairly comparable to the movie theater scene in some ways - I think, it's been a while. But, IIRC, there is the aspect of the main character getting drawn into a known area that's taking on a gradually haunting and more menacing appearance because of its macabre inhabitants, eventually resulting in her doom. Actually... I don't think I've rewatched Carnival of Souls since that evening over 10 years ago. My memory might be way off there. But at the same, you don't get that sense of universal doom. That it's localized very much to her.

City of the Living Dead - People going to a town because of a creeping end of the world plot. Eerie and dreamlike. However, some differences. Obviously the gore. But also, I don't recall any movie theater like scene. In Messiah of Evil, the big scenes are based on the notion of the character accidentally stumbling into something that is mostly normal, but seems a little off. And gradually it gets more and more wrong, until they get a glimpse of their real situation, and then it's too late. City of the Living Dead, it's more like, doom is approaching, you try to run, but in its slow moving pace, doom still manages to gain ground on you (plus bleeding eyes never hurt in terms of similarity). One other thing that occurred to me since last night, and this is where the American take on euro-horror might be relevant; most of the surreal euro-horror movies that seem effective in their surrealism, at a visceral level, seem to rely on the use of fog, the sound of wind, and it might be the transfers, grainy textures. I recall Bava's gothic stuff often relied on this (and hey, it works! but it feels different than Messiah of Evil. I think Wesele fell under this category as well, though less overt horror). Messiah of Evil, viscerally, I think, relies on the sense of emptiness of night. Like, if you have a 24 hour supermarket, and you go there at 4 am, after the bar crowd has already turned in, and it's too early for the morning crowd, it's just you and the grave yard shift. And there's just something unreal about that emptiness at that time of night. Maybe there's a few people outside doing something weird (or they just seem weird because everyone seems a little weird in just being there at that time of night). This isn't the only thing different about it, but it is an observation.

Going back to American movies that felt like they were tapping into euro-horror stuff.
Carnival of Souls achieves its surrealism through different means, such as cutting out the sound. Which made me wonder if Superstition might be a good fit (also might be unseen). But my memory of it isn't the best anymore, and I think the issue is, the kills feel too... typical horror and lack the style of MoE, as well as the mysterious seaside town setting (though maybe that's my bad memory speaking, since it does have a remote farm). But I think that one might be worth checking out (or revisiting for myself) if you haven't seen it. Just know you aren't going to get what you're hoping for.

Now, I think part of what's unstated in what you've said is the implication you're looking for a hidden gem (since, well, that's what I'm in the position is of well, and also the phrase, "looking for another," also implies you haven't seen it). But going back to the Lovecraftian, it does feel a bit like MoE hit some type of nexus point between Carnival of Souls and The Thing (the other movie besides City of the Living Dead that crossed my mind when I said Lovecraftian, but CotLD felt like it had a more similar plot - though it lacked the narrator establishing they came to a remote town to try to solve a mystery, which feels Lovecraftian in itself. Disclosure - I think I have not read a Lovecraft story since middle school).

If someone else has seen Night of the Seagulls and have thoughts of comparison to Messiah of Evil, I'd like to hear them, since I have no sense of my friend's assessment when they said MoE really reminded them of NotS.

Anyhoo, on the off chance you never listened to Welcome to Night Value, or listened to one episode and decided it wasn't for you, I'd suggest listening to A Story About You.
. It does have the comical nature of it, but it is probably their best episode and actually does prove rather good at being chilling.

ETA: It never occurred to me to try to find similar films through IMDB keywords on this one (looking at IMDB keywords on this one... oh boy, people didn't know what keywords should be applicable here). But I'm realizing now, the most comparable movie I'm seeing on the list might be... Egger's The Witch.
Reporting of things I'm finding that have at least some promise... the H.P. Lovecraft tag is the only that I think had both MoE and Lemora.
I'm now wondering (primarily) about The City of the Dead (1960). (hey! that's on Shudder!)
Also some curiosity about The Norliss Tapes (1973) and Marebito (2004) (the latter just because it happens to be in the collection of movies I've bought but have never watched - though why I bought it, I can no longer remember).



I only have vague recollections of seeing it, and it's really more of a meta horror movie than a straight up one, but the Spanish vampire film Arrebato is worth seeking out when looking for undiscovered, oddball gems.


It's on Criterion channel right now.


And as for Superstition, I know I thought really fondly of that one back in highschool. It's weird mix of gore and haunted house film kind of weirded me out. Wasn't nearly as good as I remembered when I rewatched it about seven or eight years ago, but I think it is probably worth giving a shot regardless



There's a difference between a character inviting derision and a film inviting derision. In the two films I'm referencing (What's Up Doc? and that Clint Eastwood film where he goes to the city to catch a fugitive)
Coogan's Bluff?



Victim of The Night
WARNING: spoilers below
What if Edwige Fenech played Franklin...



Also some curiosity about The Norliss Tapes (1973)
This was a pilot for a TV series that never came to be. I don't remember a lot of specifics about the film itself, but I was left with the impression that I would've loved the series had it happened.
I'd recommend it to fans of the 70s TV / Dan Curtis / Night Gallery aesthetic.
__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection



Victim of The Night
I wrote Lovecraftian in an attempt to try to figure out how it separates out from the other dream-like movies that were coming to mind.
Let's try to do some comparisons -

Carnival of Souls - You kind of have the eerie detached, dream logic where the character's reality feels like it's coming apart. And there's also this mystery of what's going on. And the final carnival scene is actually fairly comparable to the movie theater scene in some ways - I think, it's been a while. But, IIRC, there is the aspect of the main character getting drawn into a known area that's taking on a gradually haunting and more menacing appearance because of its macabre inhabitants, eventually resulting in her doom. Actually... I don't think I've rewatched Carnival of Souls since that evening over 10 years ago. My memory might be way off there. But at the same, you don't get that sense of universal doom. That it's localized very much to her.

City of the Living Dead - People going to a town because of a creeping end of the world plot. Eerie and dreamlike. However, some differences. Obviously the gore. But also, I don't recall any movie theater like scene. In Messiah of Evil, the big scenes are based on the notion of the character accidentally stumbling into something that is mostly normal, but seems a little off. And gradually it gets more and more wrong, until they get a glimpse of their real situation, and then it's too late. City of the Living Dead, it's more like, doom is approaching, you try to run, but in its slow moving pace, doom still manages to gain ground on you (plus bleeding eyes never hurt in terms of similarity). One other thing that occurred to me since last night, and this is where the American take on euro-horror might be relevant; most of the surreal euro-horror movies that seem effective in their surrealism, at a visceral level, seem to rely on the use of fog, the sound of wind, and it might be the transfers, grainy textures. I recall Bava's gothic stuff often relied on this (and hey, it works! but it feels different than Messiah of Evil. I think Wesele fell under this category as well, though less overt horror). Messiah of Evil, viscerally, I think, relies on the sense of emptiness of night. Like, if you have a 24 hour supermarket, and you go there at 4 am, after the bar crowd has already turned in, and it's too early for the morning crowd, it's just you and the grave yard shift. And there's just something unreal about that emptiness at that time of night. Maybe there's a few people outside doing something weird (or they just seem weird because everyone seems a little weird in just being there at that time of night). This isn't the only thing different about it, but it is an observation.

Going back to American movies that felt like they were tapping into euro-horror stuff.
Carnival of Souls achieves its surrealism through different means, such as cutting out the sound. Which made me wonder if Superstition might be a good fit (also might be unseen). But my memory of it isn't the best anymore, and I think the issue is, the kills feel too... typical horror and lack the style of MoE, as well as the mysterious seaside town setting (though maybe that's my bad memory speaking, since it does have a remote farm). But I think that one might be worth checking out (or revisiting for myself) if you haven't seen it. Just know you aren't going to get what you're hoping for.

Now, I think part of what's unstated in what you've said is the implication you're looking for a hidden gem (since, well, that's what I'm in the position is of well, and also the phrase, "looking for another," also implies you haven't seen it). But going back to the Lovecraftian, it does feel a bit like MoE hit some type of nexus point between Carnival of Souls and The Thing (the other movie besides City of the Living Dead that crossed my mind when I said Lovecraftian, but CotLD felt like it had a more similar plot - though it lacked the narrator establishing they came to a remote town to try to solve a mystery, which feels Lovecraftian in itself. Disclosure - I think I have not read a Lovecraft story since middle school).

If someone else has seen Night of the Seagulls and have thoughts of comparison to Messiah of Evil, I'd like to hear them, since I have no sense of my friend's assessment when they said MoE really reminded them of NotS.

Anyhoo, on the off chance you never listened to Welcome to Night Value, or listened to one episode and decided it wasn't for you, I'd suggest listening to A Story About You.
. It does have the comical nature of it, but it is probably their best episode and actually does prove rather good at being chilling.

ETA: It never occurred to me to try to find similar films through IMDB keywords on this one (looking at IMDB keywords on this one... oh boy, people didn't know what keywords should be applicable here). But I'm realizing now, the most comparable movie I'm seeing on the list might be... Egger's The Witch.
Reporting of things I'm finding that have at least some promise... the H.P. Lovecraft tag is the only that I think had both MoE and Lemora.
I'm now wondering (primarily) about The City of the Dead (1960). (hey! that's on Shudder!)
Also some curiosity about The Norliss Tapes (1973) and Marebito (2004) (the latter just because it happens to be in the collection of movies I've bought but have never watched - though why I bought it, I can no longer remember).


Wow. This is a great post, so much good stuff here.
So, just to clarify for starters, my earlier response was probably a misunderstanding that MoE was just another Lovecraft film in your mind. Obviously it is more than that to me and I responded based on that but it sounds, honestly, like you get exactly what I love about that film. Specifically where you talk about that "emptiness of the night" and the movie sort of imagines, "What if that emptiness were quietly, and then not so quietly, filled with unexpected Horror?"
And I think your evoking of CoS and CotLD (both major favorites of mine) hits the nail on the head both in their similarities and their differences. I remember the first time I saw each and then I also remember the first time that each of them really knocked my socks off. Which, while both made a serious impression on me, it was the second time they both blew me away. Because the first time my mind was just trying to wrangle their weirdness while subtly understanding I was seeing a particular way of approaching dread. And the second time I was then able to really chew on and enjoy the goods.
I have not seen Superstition but I will now see if I can and I'll check out that video you shared.



I have not seen Superstition

No one has. Or no one cares. That's why I was surprised to see Little Ash mention it. I thought I was the only person it ever made any impression on at all.



No one has. Or no one cares. That's why I was surprised to see Little Ash mention it. I thought I was the only person it ever made any impression on at all.
I go to (or at least, "went to", there are logistics in the post-covid world, not all of which are covid-related, that might make the future uncertain), 24 hour horrorthons where instead of giving you the line-up of movies, give you a line-up with vague descriptions. This started a little over 10 years ago (probably why a lot of my epoch references are, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, or a couple of years ago).* The description of the early, late night movie that would turn out to be Superstition was, "American movie that feels like a euro-horror movie." I also remember crossing my fingers and hoping it was going to turn out to be Messiah of Evil.

Superstition is no Messiah of Evil, but in terms of trying to narrow down what is it about MoE that makes its tone hard to think of comparable examples, it at least crossed my mind on the, "maybe it's the American take on euro-horror." I think one thing that hurts Superstition if you have MoE hopes is that the kills aren't slow-burn type of kills. My memory is hazy on a lot of the movie at this point, but I think I would probably compare the kills more to Fulci's movies, just less gory. I'd trust your take on this one more than mine, but I think I'm landing in the same spot, it's probably not the hidden gem one is looking for, but it's got something going for it.

*: Side note, going to these things is how I also encountered Butcher, Baker, Nightmare Maker way back when.... and also Boardinghouse.
Surprisingly the group responsible for these things isn't how I came across MoE, that was another random small indoor, public screening thing that a person just kind of... did. Due to time constraints I just had to kind of stop going to that one and I think it had stopped some years later. Which is unfortunate since it was also responsible for introducing me to Funeral Parade of Roses and Girlfriends.



And fwiw, Welcome to Nightvale is a podcast, which for some reason, I thought had stopped a few years ago. Looking now... I guess it's still going.
I think it usually leans into the comedy more and wasn't for everyone, but that one particular episode is the one that people say does creep them out.
The YouTube video I linked to is just the episode with their standard logo image for the video.



I go to (or at least, "went to", there are logistics in the post-covid world, not all of which are covid-related, that might make the future uncertain), 24 hour horrorthons where instead of giving you the line-up of movies, give you a line-up with vague descriptions. This started a little over 10 years ago (probably why a lot of my epoch references are, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, or a couple of years ago).* The description of the early, late night movie that would turn out to be Superstition was, "American movie that feels like a euro-horror movie." I also remember crossing my fingers and hoping it was going to turn out to be Messiah of Evil.

Superstition is no Messiah of Evil, but in terms of trying to narrow down what is it about MoE that makes its tone hard to think of comparable examples, it at least crossed my mind on the, "maybe it's the American take on euro-horror." I think one thing that hurts Superstition if you have MoE hopes is that the kills aren't slow-burn type of kills. My memory is hazy on a lot of the movie at this point, but I think I would probably compare the kills more to Fulci's movies, just less gory. I'd trust your take on this one more than mine, but I think I'm landing in the same spot, it's probably not the hidden gem one is looking for, but it's got something going for it.

*: Side note, going to these things is how I also encountered Butcher, Baker, Nightmare Maker way back when.... and also Boardinghouse.
Surprisingly the group responsible for these things isn't how I came across MoE, that was another random small indoor, public screening thing that a person just kind of... did. Due to time constraints I just had to kind of stop going to that one and I think it had stopped some years later. Which is unfortunate since it was also responsible for introducing me to Funeral Parade of Roses and Girlfriends.

My memories are definitely that Fulci must have been an influence. And I first saw it before I had seen any of his movies, so that tactic of making its violence seem so out of place it nearly becomes otherworldly, is what made it really stand out to me. Now that I'm pretty well versed in the European approach to ghosts and gore, I think it did lessen it's effect when I went back decades later. But still something that should be given a shot, because you never know what might connect


Sounds like those people curating those nights know their shit and how there is a connection between serious film and hard core weirdo junk. To me the two are inextricably linked due to their frequent purity of vision, but it's rare to see it reflected anywhere else but the video store I used to go to. I still don't think even I could do those types of marathons though. At least not unless I was at home by myself.