Reflections on "The Devil's Rejects" Part 1
—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film
Let me get to the obvious question first: Why on earth would I bother to review a film about a family of homicidal maniacs who go on a killing spree? The idea seems even more ludicrous when you consider that this film’s main claim to fame is that it is the sequel to House of 1,000 Corpses, which was roundly despised by critics and horror fans alike. As my parents used to ask in regard to my viewing choices, “Kevin, why waste your time on such garbage?� In response, I have what I feel are several valid reasons for seeing this film:
1. The resurgence of the horror genre: Horror films have always been with us. However, after occupying a fringe role in cinema over the last decade, they have been slowly creeping back into the mainstream. If you look at this year’s box office, so far 14 out of the 100 top-grossing films fall into the horror category, with many more to come.[1] That’s over twice as many horror films as you will find among the 100 top-grossing films of all time.[2] Clearly, something is going on here. But is this merely a blip on the radar, a fad that will quickly wear itself out? Or does it signal a major shift in public consciousness, a renewed fascination with the macabre? In either case, why this sudden need to confront death and fear in their purest and most terrifying forms? What are we getting out of the experience? To help answer such questions, I thought I would use myself as a test subject. What would I get out of viewing The Devil’s Rejects? Would the experience be completely negative, or would something positive also result?
2. A close encounter with Scott Derrickson: Two years ago while developing my own supernatural thriller (After…, which was recently made into a movie by my co-writer, director David L. Cunningham), I had the chance to meet writer/director Scott Derrickson (Hellraiser: Inferno, Urban Legends: Final Cut, and the upcoming Exorcism of Emily Rose.) That led me to an article Scott wrote for Christian Century called “Behind the Lens: A Christian Filmmaker in Hollywood.� Defending his own work in the horror genre, Scott says:
"No other genre offers audiences a more spiritual view of the world, and no other genre communicates a more dearly defined moral perspective. Haunted-house films like Poltergeist and The Uninvited offer a perspective rare in cinema—the recognition that there actually is a spiritual realm. Zombie films like Dawn of the Dead are satirical indictments of American consumerism, but they also present the uniquely Christian idea of bodily resurrection. More mainstream horror films like Angel Heart, The Exorcist and Rosemary's Baby explore the satanic and demonic realm with feverish moral passion. And even the so-called slasher genre ought to be appreciated as the only kind of film that makes murder truly horrific. Though slasher movies seems to take the extreme and disturbing view that if you're young and have sex, you deserve to be butchered, the usual perspective of contemporary films seems to be equally extreme in the opposite direction, for they imply that teenage sex is altogether exempt from moral judgment. More than any other genre, horror clearly communicates the distinction between good and evil."[3]
Scott is not alone in his positive assessment of the genre. Many other writers agree that horror films aren’t just significant from a spiritual point of view; they serve a valuable social function as well.[4] Not only do horror films confront spiritual issues head-on, they also act as a “psychic release valve for our repressed fear and anxiety.�[5] In other words, rather than act out on our fears in ways that might harm others or ourselves, horror films—like roller coaster rides—allow us to confront them in a safe environment. Through the influence of Scott and others, I came to see that writing off horror films as just so much garbage doesn’t cut it. (Sorry, Dad.) If we are to be responsible as Christian critics, a more reasonable response to movies like The Devil’s Rejects should include questions like: What is this film saying about God, about the spiritual realm in general? What standard of morality is being applied here? How does this film affirm or challenge Christian theology and morality? What fears underlie the sense of dread and horror this film creates? Where do such fears come from? How do we deal with such fears when we aren’t watching horror films? How should we deal with such fears?
3. Serial killers as superheroes? Over the last several months, I have done a lot of research on superheroes, particularly comic book heroes like Superman and Batman, to see what our fascination with such characters says about us as a culture. In general, I have come to believe that superheroes are merely a new mythology, the most recent manifestation of the Greek and Roman gods. We get a vicarious thrill out of watching them overcome evil, because they give us hope that we can do the same. Nothing too complicated there.
But around the time I saw the film Suspect Zero—which is premised on the idea that a single serial killer or “suspect zero� could potentially be responsible for the majority of unsolved murders in the United States—I began to wonder if perhaps there was a connection between superheroes and “superkillers.� Could we be drawn to both archetypes for similar reasons? Like superheroes, serial killers are everywhere—in the movies, on television, in the news, even in video games (which often turn players into virtual serial killers by rewarding them for each kill.) Where does this fascination come from? On one level, I think the ubiquitous presence of serial killers in film and fiction merely reflects laziness on the part of writers. Turning the bad guy into a serial killer is the easy way out. If the villain is simply nuts, there’s no need to develop a complicated backstory or clearly outlined motivation. But the explanation couldn’t be that simple. Writers may be lazy, but audiences are still eating up their work. It must be satisfying some sort of hunger.
That led me to wonder: Could it be that serial killer stories are merely a shadow version of the superhero myth? Just think of the similarities between your garden-variety superhero and your garden-variety serial killer: 1) both adopt new personas when they begin their public work, 2) both have secret identities, 3) both have (or believe they have) superpowers, 4) both adhere to a strict moral code, which usually allows them to operate “above the law,� 5) both believe individual action is the best way to cure society’s ills. The parallels are simply too obvious to ignore. The main difference I see is that superheroes exist to enforce the status quo while serial killers (and super villains in general) exist to challenge it, to question its assumptions, even to mock it at times. Therefore, it isn’t too unreasonable to suggest that we enjoy stories about serial killers because we also like to challenge the status quo, to stand out from the crowd and be recognized. Even though we don’t exactly approve of what these characters do, we can still cheer for them in principle. I thought that viewing The Devil’s Rejects would be the perfect opportunity to test my theory, to see if the members of the Firefly clan are really just superheroes in disguise—a dark counterpoint to the Fantastic Four.
4. My own fascination with the horror genre: For two Halloweens in a row as a child, I attempted to watch Salem’s Lot on television. Both times, I never got past the first half hour. Other early horror memories include attempts at watching The Fog and Orca. While I never had much luck sitting through such shows, I did gain a measure of bravery during high school that allowed me to take in horror classics like Jaws, Evil Dead 1 & 2, The Exorcist, Poltergeist, Psycho, Hellraiser, and the first three Nightmare on Elm Street films. While I enjoyed these movies immensely, nothing compared to the thrill I got out of The Shining, which I didn’t work up the courage to see until I was in my mid-twenties. It still ranks as my all-time favorite horror flick. The sense of dreadful anticipation Stanley Kubrick manages to sustain throughout the film is unparalleled. It still scares me today.
At the same time I was taking in such horrific masterpieces, though, I couldn’t shake the sense that I was doing something wrong, that I was violating a taboo of some sort. That sense increased after I became a Christian, where I was quickly confronted with the following verse, “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—of anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things� (Philippians 4:8). Not seeing how horror films fit into any of these categories, I swore them off for a while, choosing to focus on less frightening fare.
Even though I felt my interest in the genre was no longer appropriate, the fascination did not go away. It wasn’t until I embarked on the writing of After… that I was forced to confront it head-on once again. While David and I never set out to write a horror film, suddenly I woke up one day and realized we had done exactly that! Now what was I going to do? How could I, as a Christian, justify pouring my time and energy into such… garbage? Thankfully, as recounted above, I ran into Scott Derrickson and others who helped me see that perhaps there was some merit in what we were doing after all. In fact, suddenly I was excited to be on the cutting edge of a genre where most other Christians feared to tread.
Which brings me back to The Devil’s Rejects: Part of my spiritual growth process over the past while has entailed bringing “the deep things of darkness� into the light (Job 12:22). Rather than repress or hide my fascination with the dark side, I have determined that it is much healthier to bring it into the open, to hold it under the light of God, my wife, and my Christian community, and see if it can stand the glare. From the time I first heard of Rob Zombie’s lengthy struggle to find a distributor for House of 1,000 Corpses, I have wanted to see the film. But I kept that desire a secret, thinking I might rent it some time when my wife is away for the weekend. However, knowing that any secret between my wife and me could be potentially hazardous to our marriage, when The Devil’s Rejects came out, I finally came out of the closet and told her I wanted to see it. “For study purposes, mainly,� I said, citing some of my arguments above. But I wouldn’t be completely honest if I didn’t admit to having some less scholarly motivations as well. Having been a fan of Rob Zombie’s music for years (which is another story), I really wanted to see what he would do behind the lens. I also wanted to see if it was as gruesome as everyone said it was. I wanted to see if I could watch it, and survive.
------
[1] Under the term “horror,� I include psychological or “smart� thrillers like The Jacket,Land of the Dead, haunted house movies like The Amityville Horror, slasher flicks like House of Wax, and serial killer films like The Devil’s Rejects.
[2] All box office stats taken from http://www.boxofficemojo.com/.
[3] http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_3_119/ai_83143842#continue
[4] For more on this, check out the weblog “Holy Terror,� http://home.earthlink.net/~holyterrorblog/id17.html.
[5]http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_3_119/ai_83143842#continue monster or zombie movies like
—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film
—Photos
—About this Film
Let me get to the obvious question first: Why on earth would I bother to review a film about a family of homicidal maniacs who go on a killing spree? The idea seems even more ludicrous when you consider that this film’s main claim to fame is that it is the sequel to House of 1,000 Corpses, which was roundly despised by critics and horror fans alike. As my parents used to ask in regard to my viewing choices, “Kevin, why waste your time on such garbage?� In response, I have what I feel are several valid reasons for seeing this film:1. The resurgence of the horror genre: Horror films have always been with us. However, after occupying a fringe role in cinema over the last decade, they have been slowly creeping back into the mainstream. If you look at this year’s box office, so far 14 out of the 100 top-grossing films fall into the horror category, with many more to come.[1] That’s over twice as many horror films as you will find among the 100 top-grossing films of all time.[2] Clearly, something is going on here. But is this merely a blip on the radar, a fad that will quickly wear itself out? Or does it signal a major shift in public consciousness, a renewed fascination with the macabre? In either case, why this sudden need to confront death and fear in their purest and most terrifying forms? What are we getting out of the experience? To help answer such questions, I thought I would use myself as a test subject. What would I get out of viewing The Devil’s Rejects? Would the experience be completely negative, or would something positive also result?
2. A close encounter with Scott Derrickson: Two years ago while developing my own supernatural thriller (After…, which was recently made into a movie by my co-writer, director David L. Cunningham), I had the chance to meet writer/director Scott Derrickson (Hellraiser: Inferno, Urban Legends: Final Cut, and the upcoming Exorcism of Emily Rose.) That led me to an article Scott wrote for Christian Century called “Behind the Lens: A Christian Filmmaker in Hollywood.� Defending his own work in the horror genre, Scott says:
"No other genre offers audiences a more spiritual view of the world, and no other genre communicates a more dearly defined moral perspective. Haunted-house films like Poltergeist and The Uninvited offer a perspective rare in cinema—the recognition that there actually is a spiritual realm. Zombie films like Dawn of the Dead are satirical indictments of American consumerism, but they also present the uniquely Christian idea of bodily resurrection. More mainstream horror films like Angel Heart, The Exorcist and Rosemary's Baby explore the satanic and demonic realm with feverish moral passion. And even the so-called slasher genre ought to be appreciated as the only kind of film that makes murder truly horrific. Though slasher movies seems to take the extreme and disturbing view that if you're young and have sex, you deserve to be butchered, the usual perspective of contemporary films seems to be equally extreme in the opposite direction, for they imply that teenage sex is altogether exempt from moral judgment. More than any other genre, horror clearly communicates the distinction between good and evil."[3]
Scott is not alone in his positive assessment of the genre. Many other writers agree that horror films aren’t just significant from a spiritual point of view; they serve a valuable social function as well.[4] Not only do horror films confront spiritual issues head-on, they also act as a “psychic release valve for our repressed fear and anxiety.�[5] In other words, rather than act out on our fears in ways that might harm others or ourselves, horror films—like roller coaster rides—allow us to confront them in a safe environment. Through the influence of Scott and others, I came to see that writing off horror films as just so much garbage doesn’t cut it. (Sorry, Dad.) If we are to be responsible as Christian critics, a more reasonable response to movies like The Devil’s Rejects should include questions like: What is this film saying about God, about the spiritual realm in general? What standard of morality is being applied here? How does this film affirm or challenge Christian theology and morality? What fears underlie the sense of dread and horror this film creates? Where do such fears come from? How do we deal with such fears when we aren’t watching horror films? How should we deal with such fears?
3. Serial killers as superheroes? Over the last several months, I have done a lot of research on superheroes, particularly comic book heroes like Superman and Batman, to see what our fascination with such characters says about us as a culture. In general, I have come to believe that superheroes are merely a new mythology, the most recent manifestation of the Greek and Roman gods. We get a vicarious thrill out of watching them overcome evil, because they give us hope that we can do the same. Nothing too complicated there.But around the time I saw the film Suspect Zero—which is premised on the idea that a single serial killer or “suspect zero� could potentially be responsible for the majority of unsolved murders in the United States—I began to wonder if perhaps there was a connection between superheroes and “superkillers.� Could we be drawn to both archetypes for similar reasons? Like superheroes, serial killers are everywhere—in the movies, on television, in the news, even in video games (which often turn players into virtual serial killers by rewarding them for each kill.) Where does this fascination come from? On one level, I think the ubiquitous presence of serial killers in film and fiction merely reflects laziness on the part of writers. Turning the bad guy into a serial killer is the easy way out. If the villain is simply nuts, there’s no need to develop a complicated backstory or clearly outlined motivation. But the explanation couldn’t be that simple. Writers may be lazy, but audiences are still eating up their work. It must be satisfying some sort of hunger.
That led me to wonder: Could it be that serial killer stories are merely a shadow version of the superhero myth? Just think of the similarities between your garden-variety superhero and your garden-variety serial killer: 1) both adopt new personas when they begin their public work, 2) both have secret identities, 3) both have (or believe they have) superpowers, 4) both adhere to a strict moral code, which usually allows them to operate “above the law,� 5) both believe individual action is the best way to cure society’s ills. The parallels are simply too obvious to ignore. The main difference I see is that superheroes exist to enforce the status quo while serial killers (and super villains in general) exist to challenge it, to question its assumptions, even to mock it at times. Therefore, it isn’t too unreasonable to suggest that we enjoy stories about serial killers because we also like to challenge the status quo, to stand out from the crowd and be recognized. Even though we don’t exactly approve of what these characters do, we can still cheer for them in principle. I thought that viewing The Devil’s Rejects would be the perfect opportunity to test my theory, to see if the members of the Firefly clan are really just superheroes in disguise—a dark counterpoint to the Fantastic Four.
4. My own fascination with the horror genre: For two Halloweens in a row as a child, I attempted to watch Salem’s Lot on television. Both times, I never got past the first half hour. Other early horror memories include attempts at watching The Fog and Orca. While I never had much luck sitting through such shows, I did gain a measure of bravery during high school that allowed me to take in horror classics like Jaws, Evil Dead 1 & 2, The Exorcist, Poltergeist, Psycho, Hellraiser, and the first three Nightmare on Elm Street films. While I enjoyed these movies immensely, nothing compared to the thrill I got out of The Shining, which I didn’t work up the courage to see until I was in my mid-twenties. It still ranks as my all-time favorite horror flick. The sense of dreadful anticipation Stanley Kubrick manages to sustain throughout the film is unparalleled. It still scares me today.
At the same time I was taking in such horrific masterpieces, though, I couldn’t shake the sense that I was doing something wrong, that I was violating a taboo of some sort. That sense increased after I became a Christian, where I was quickly confronted with the following verse, “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—of anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things� (Philippians 4:8). Not seeing how horror films fit into any of these categories, I swore them off for a while, choosing to focus on less frightening fare.
Even though I felt my interest in the genre was no longer appropriate, the fascination did not go away. It wasn’t until I embarked on the writing of After… that I was forced to confront it head-on once again. While David and I never set out to write a horror film, suddenly I woke up one day and realized we had done exactly that! Now what was I going to do? How could I, as a Christian, justify pouring my time and energy into such… garbage? Thankfully, as recounted above, I ran into Scott Derrickson and others who helped me see that perhaps there was some merit in what we were doing after all. In fact, suddenly I was excited to be on the cutting edge of a genre where most other Christians feared to tread.
Which brings me back to The Devil’s Rejects: Part of my spiritual growth process over the past while has entailed bringing “the deep things of darkness� into the light (Job 12:22). Rather than repress or hide my fascination with the dark side, I have determined that it is much healthier to bring it into the open, to hold it under the light of God, my wife, and my Christian community, and see if it can stand the glare. From the time I first heard of Rob Zombie’s lengthy struggle to find a distributor for House of 1,000 Corpses, I have wanted to see the film. But I kept that desire a secret, thinking I might rent it some time when my wife is away for the weekend. However, knowing that any secret between my wife and me could be potentially hazardous to our marriage, when The Devil’s Rejects came out, I finally came out of the closet and told her I wanted to see it. “For study purposes, mainly,� I said, citing some of my arguments above. But I wouldn’t be completely honest if I didn’t admit to having some less scholarly motivations as well. Having been a fan of Rob Zombie’s music for years (which is another story), I really wanted to see what he would do behind the lens. I also wanted to see if it was as gruesome as everyone said it was. I wanted to see if I could watch it, and survive.
------
[1] Under the term “horror,� I include psychological or “smart� thrillers like The Jacket,Land of the Dead, haunted house movies like The Amityville Horror, slasher flicks like House of Wax, and serial killer films like The Devil’s Rejects.
[2] All box office stats taken from http://www.boxofficemojo.com/.
[3] http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_3_119/ai_83143842#continue
[4] For more on this, check out the weblog “Holy Terror,� http://home.earthlink.net/~holyterrorblog/id17.html.
[5]http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_3_119/ai_83143842#continue monster or zombie movies like
—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film
13 Comments:
Yes, Kevin. I've been wanting to comment on these particular articles of yours for weeks now, but left it a while to see if anybody else had anything to say about them... No luck yet it seems!
Let me see now if I can boil all my reactions down:
1) I think your parents' opinions were right!
2) You must have still been a very sensitive young lad though!
3) An interjection: You mentioned "House of Wax", I don't know if this was the old classic or the new version. But have you NOTICED that OLD Hollywood "horror" classics, House of Wax, Frankenstein and all that... have you noticed how much they relied on "building up an atmosphere" for their effect? And how this has now almost completely been replaced by visceral effects, in the slasher movies and so on. Also, when movies moved into colour, the horror movie really went into an intermediate stage, with "Hammer House of Horror" pictures, while revelling in the showing of VERY red blood (which is what you would expect, in colour!), had none of the "slime all over" or "yuck" effects that later horror movies - such as Alien - rely on completely. Hammer Horror pics were still very stylized. And isn't that how you would prefer your horror? I mean, is there REALLY any merit in "realism" in such movies, which are usually about totally non-existent things (in this dimension anyway!) like horrific monsters and so on... is there TRULY any merit in showing people, in lavish detail, being torn to pieces by such monsters - when our cinema can't even USUALLY bring itself to be realistic about showing the poverty which constrains the lives of so many people, etc... and is often very coy about what REALLY motivated people in times past, ie the union movement in 1930s America... where do you see films set in such an era which do it justice??
I adore Peter Cushing anyway - don't you? Anyway, he said that lots of younger people wrote to him saying they preferred the older styles of horror. Seems to me that the modern movie market is missing something. Also, I LOVE old Technicolor movies, their style and palette. If ever I got to make a movie I would try to make it like that - NOT all the blacks and greys and metallic blues and various other twilight colours that one sees all too often in modern commercial cinema.
4) Have you and your co-writer found a distributor for "After" yet? I'd really like to see it!
Is it at all like "The Descent" - which I haven't seen yet, but is set in a cave system in South America, cavers fighting evil underground monsters?? Only the cavers are all women, which is obviously why there is so much heavy (female) breathing on the trailer?
And do you feel that this is yet another case of "the hundredth monkey syndrome" (a mouthful, but it's the best if not the only "term" for the phenomenon I've found yet?)
You know, as soon as one monkey has an idea and it catches on, the monkeys on other, unconnected islands, mysteriously get the same notion?? Scientists, for what they're worth, say they've debunked the story and that it was just a "urban" (or a jungle?) myth all along... Yet isn't it just FUNNY how two or three different movies, on SIMILAR subjects, tend to get made/released by completely different directors and companies, at the very same TIME? I think this is a case of hundredth monkey.
Like, YOU didn't COPY your idea, for "After", from anywhere, did you? Course you didn't! It's very original or seems so to me, I've never read a fantasy/horror set underground or in a tunnel complex, before. Yet - here's your movie, and now there's a movie by a much bigger company, which explains its ease of distribution, which seems to have had a similar basis... monsters and tunnels, no? Only yours is set in... Russia, wasn't it? Moscow.
Well, let's hope it works in favour of your movie, and you get wide distribution because it's an idea that's been "market tested"!
5) Oo yes, before I forget. This latest notion of yours about superheroes having a parallel with serial killers. Hm. I feel mildly sceptical about this one, but am not going to endeavour to put you off it, seeing as you are obviously developing the idea for a new book/article/pamphlet.
Why don't I go big on it? Because it seems to me, firstly, that superheroes are (or should be) the ANTITHESIS of serial killers; and I DON'T WANT TO DRAG HEROES AROUND IN THE MUD ANYWAY, Kevin. This remark says a lot about me! I want heroes to remain heroes; and I'd PERSONALLY rather ELEVATE THE VILLAINS in a particular superhero story; make out that the most talented badguys had more to recommend them than one thought, rather than to have all the characters wallowing about in a sort of murk, which seems to be the "undying ideal" of such as F. Miller.
(Dig my sarcasm!)
Anyway... serial killers as superheroes? Hmm. Maybe the FICTIONAL serial killer; particularly the more MYTHICAL one of more recent years, cf. Harris' Dr. Hannibal Lecter, who I in another comment characterised as "the gentleman serial killer" rather as Raffles is "the gentleman burglar".
But in real life... most of them are pathetic, sex-starved, socially inadequate dopes, aren't they? Ed Gein. Jeffrey Dahmer. Even the ones who were more personable, ie John Gacy, Ted Bundy... (the latter was the only "aristocrat" among them and his family are still active in politics today, I understand!) Well even THEY made stupid mistakes and weren't very heroic; ie, I FAIL to see "ideals" in such people. (Whereas it's true that great villains such as Milton's Satan have ideals; but then he is more like a political revolutionary... and come to think of it, Rowling's Lord Voldemort has a VERY great ideal which he is able to inspire other wizards with: he wishes to conquer the power of Death. You REALLY must read ALL her books, Kevin!)
But serial killers? Come off it. They're just sexually frustrated and emotionally repressed; which is why, incidentally, you don't get very many black serial killers.
Wot, no comments/response? Come on Kev!
Liz: Put it down to battle fatigue. I've been on holidays recently. And when I haven't been on holidays, I have only been doing the essentials. Lots of pressing deadlines right now, not a lot of time for chit-chat. Sorry. I'll try posting a few comments over the next couple of weeks. But there's no way I can keep up with you.
OK! Still waiting with "bated breath"... have you noticed how many otherwise educated people on the net spell it "baited"?? NOT being linguists, that's what causes all the confusion!
For your "DARK KNIGHT RETURNS" efforts! Ha ha, I'm preparing a counterpunch to that and I shall stick it RIGHT at the end of my blog as soon as I see that your reviews have come out!
That's how you'd prefer it, isn't it, Kevin!
Hmm, wonder what I shall call it... various uncharitable headings come to mind!
I just CAN'T HELP THINKING... if somehow you got most of the prominent writers of today's comics, plus all their editorial staff... (OK, I'll leave out Gaiman, for Maurice's benefit and also John from livejournal's) and put the lot of them in a pile with some dynamite, retired to a safe distance and pressed the plunger down... I am experiencing some terribly violent cartoon fantasies in my head at the moment!
Or set them all adrift at sea in a large leaky barrel...
Would it REALLY make the world a worse place?
I'm just thinking of the Tom Ripley philosophy! (As in "Ripley's Game", the movie.)
Kevin - how's "After" going?
Have you sold it yet for a pile of moolah... like Mike Moore did with his first movie, Roger & Me?
Maybe the reason modern horror films are so graphic is that our society tries to ignore the weaknesses and imperfections of the flesh, and the reality of death and violence. Maybe these movies reflect this fact about our collective psyche.
Heh ... and are you sure you didn't count the number of horror films in the top 100 *grossest* films of all time?
Funny, Steve. Actually, in the comments section of part 2 of this article, Liz recommends an article that makes pretty much the same argument you just did, about how violent films help us deal with our feelings about real violence.
Liz: I hope you realize I can't answer questions about After... like that in a public forum.
Oh, I didn't know that! I thought you had already mentioned it on this forum!
Maybe not; maybe just on your own blog...
Are you not, then? Allowed to mention or discuss ANYTHING you've personally authored?
Oh, no, I didn't know...
Forgive me for not understanding your arcane rules... I never was big on "rules" anyway, I told you that... Something to do with the duck and water?
Oh, but I'm looking forward to see the above - if only it's distributed NEAR me - which is, of course, why I asked!
(Sorry - I didn't know it was a semi-secret... I thought it was coming before the general public any day now!)
(No-one's asking you to declare your income on-line!)
Have you bought or rented out the *2003* edition of Michael Moore's first film "Roger and Me" - with the audio commentary on it from that date - on which, among other things, Michael Moore explains precisely how he DID go about selling "Roger and Me", and the terms of the deal (Not the figure though!) that he finally was able to arrive at with Warner Brothers?
No, I haven't seen this, Liz, although I'm sure that part of it is interesting, seeing as it was his first doc. I'll have to check it out.
Yes, superheroes equated with super killers... Not something that inspires me wildly, though I suppose I'd better note you might have something there... But I'm certain that that analogy only makes sense in the CONTEMPORARY milieu, because of the extreme lack of idealism exhibited by "modern" superheroes... IF you were to have gone up to Siegel and Shuster, and compared their hero Superman to a serial killer who was known at the time, namely Peter Kurten, the monster of Dusseldorf, or similar, they would have replied in whatever is the American Jewish equivalent of "T'es LOCO, amigo?"
"You meshugga, bud?"
Yeah. Well. As I said in one of the posts on your Christians in Hollywood blog... the "do we like superheroes and serial killers because they are similar"? (ie, power fantasies), seems to only make real sense when the heroes in these movies are depicted as killing the villains, or when the villains ALWAYS manage to kill themselves by falling off something, die in combat, etc, etc, etc.
As in so many modern movies!
Then the analogy makes sense! Hero = killer
Well in THAT kind of moral universe... you MIGHT as well have Hannibal Lecter as the hero, mightn't you? Because he's more "classy", less hypocritical... more "human" than many of the "good guys", the authorities, who author T H Harris unfailingly presents as coarse and dumb... like today's Washington politicians.
Liz: I'm not equating super heroes with serial killers in this article, I'm saying that serial killers are like the dark underbelly of the superhero myth. They share many of the same qualities as super heroes, but we like them for opposite reasons. We like superheroes, because they affirm the status quo, and there is part of us that needs to have the status quo affirmed from time to time. On the other hand, we like serial killers because they challenge the status quo, and we also need to do that/see it done from time to time. Taken on a symbolic, Freudian level, I would say the serial killer represents the id--that primal, impulsive part of our nature that demands immediate satisfaction--and the superhero represents the superego, the part of us that has internalized the moral standards of society and seeks to keep the id and ego in check.
Post a Comment
<< Home