Day Thirty-One: Reykjavik Whale Watching Massacre [Harpoon] (2009) - dir. Julius Kemp

One of the reviewers of the this film described it as Texas Chain Saw Massacre on a whale boat.  While I get the comparison, this film is nowhere near as well shot as Hooper’s film.  Admittedly, its not often that you get to see a death by harpoon gun. However, if the audience is really paying attention, they will recognize that there is no real story, no matter how simple it is, to back up the actual massacre. 

A group of foreigners gather together at at port in Reykjavik, Iceland in order to go whale watching.  Once they get on the water, an accident happens which kills the captain and they radio for a nearby whale boat to pick them up.  Unfortunately, this whale boat is manned by a psychotic family who likes to kill people.  Yeah, that is the whole story.  Not much to it. 

Considering there is not much to the film as far as the story is concerned, the film is not near as bad as one would expect.  The cinematography is quite good and the acting is better than most slasher films that have ever been made, but not a whole lot of the decisions made by the people make any sense whatsoever.  Everything being considered the film really wasn’t bad overall.

And because I am warn out from the month and running out of motivation to write any more on a film that doesn’t really require a lot of thought, I am just going to allow this film to slip by as pure entertainment.  I don’t think I could really drag much meaning out of it in the first place.  I am just glad to be done with the month; it makes for a long and busy month!  Thanks for tuning in all month.  I hope you got just as much out of this series of films as I did.

My slasher Michael Myers costume.  He’s gone a little preppy I think, but he is digging it.  Oh, and by the way, this is what I wore to my job……at a church. 

Day Thirty: Wolf Creek (2005) - dir. Greg Mclean

This film is the supposed true story of a Crocodile Dundee gone bad…real bad.  I am not even sure but what the villain’s outfit was the same exact costume as was worn by Paul Hogan.  I saw this with my best friend when it came to theaters almost 8 years ago.  I thought it was alright then and I thought it was rather dull and uninspired this time around.  I think the first time around I had not witnessed any of the rather pathetic “torture porn” or “gore porn” flicks that arrived around that time and so, in my mind, this film was rather brutal.  However after seeing Saw, Hostel, and various other brutal, yet pathetic films, this one seems fairly tame.  And, surprisingly enough, after this month of slasher flicks, it seems even more tame. 

What’s sad is that, on second thought, maybe I found it rather lackluster, because it was a little too realistic without hardly an ounce of sensationalism.  I am almost a little disturbed at myself when I find that realistic torture and murder is not enough, but that the blood and pain has to be exaggerated.  Maybe, in fact, I didn’t care for this film simply because my bloodlust was not satisfied; in which case, I end up being the biggest villain of all.  But I digress, as this is becoming a little too personal for my tastes…

Three young Australians take a road trip to Wolf(e) Creek to go see the site of the meteor impact crater and come back from their hike to find that their car won’t start.  Night comes and so does a man who is willing to take them to his place to fix their car so they can leave by morning.  While they are there, their water is drugged and they are held captive by this man as he tortures them in different ways, all the while trying to escape.  This is pretty much the extent of the film.  It is supposedly based on a true story, but who knows how true it really is.  According to the final statements of the film, the man charged the murders was acquitted and, presently, lives in Southern Australia to this day. 

If this film does anything for the slasher flick, it is giving the genre a reality check.  It is seriously void of any kind of significant exaggeration of torture or killing.  Matter of fact, the movies plays out more like a crime documentary than it does an actual horror film, let alone slasher.  At the end of the day, it still goes to show that actual human beings tend to be more sadistic than any kind of semi-supernatural slasher villain.  And we actually have to be in the same dimension as characters like these.  It could very well be our next door neighbor or that friendly Santa Claus at your local department store.  The movie makes the evil very present and possible in just about everyone.  Theologically speaking, this is a massive truth.  We are all sinful and fallen short of the glory of God and all of us are depraved (in that sin affects all aspects of our being), however we can rely faithfully and hopefully on the restraining grace of God.  We aren’t always as bad as we could be, but some of us are.  Wolf Creek shows us that evil in actual humanity is still just as sickening and violent as any slasher film that could be put out. 

Day Twenty-Nine: À l’intérieur [Inside] (2007) - dirs. Alexandre Bustillo, Julien Maury

Leave it to the French to make the most disturbing slasher on the whole list.  The one nice thing about European film is that they are not as apt to give in to Puritanical moral codes when their nations are way past being largely Christian in their makeup.  America is notoriously bad about trying to retain Christian “values” (which became a little too individualistic in their interpretations) when the climate of the nation is largely secular even when most people claim a nominal Christian identification.  I am not sure that this film would have been made in the US, at least not without major cuts and edits from the MPAA.  I actually shuddered during one of the kill scenes because I think it was even a little too much for me (which should worry a majority of people because I have a fairly thick skin). 

The film opens up with a car wreck and shot of a baby in utero hitting the inside of a woman’s stomach.  The camera pans out to the wreck on the outside of the womb to show a man and woman (who is pregnant) in bad shape after the wreck.  We come to find out that the husband dies leaving the wife alone and close to birth.  The movie skips ahead to the night before the child is to be born and the young mother is at home still recalling her husband and in grief, when a knock comes at the door.  A woman is on the other side saying that the baby to be born belongs to her and knows various details about the young woman.  This sets into motion a dark and violent night of cat and mouse with the women in a bloody struggle: one trying to cut the baby out and one just trying to survive. 

Half of the time I wasn’t sure if the movie was actually scary or tense or just grotesque (and, more than likely, it a bit of all of them), the other half I just felt sorry for this young mother-to-be.  Throughout the horrific night, it never ceases to amaze the audience what the young lady is willing to do in order to have this child.  At one point, a sharp object is shoved into her throat and she pulls it out, as the bloods leaks out of it, and she gets up and takes some duct tape out of a drawer and wraps a large piece around her neck to stop this bleeding.  She is that determined and that hardcore.  Admittedly, this film is not for the squeamish, because it contains very gory and disturbing imagery, but, interestingly enough, it takes artistic cues from Italian giallo films with its choice of color filters.  There is a red haze that settles over most of the film which, visually, lends to the intensity of the film.

To be honest, the thing that struck me throughout the movie is the dichotomy of the determination to live (or give life) with the equal determination to take life.  The twist of the film plays on this very dichotomy which ends up giving the audience a warped sense of sympathy for the villain.  She too has had life taken from her, just as she is, also, taking life.  The most intense symbol of this idea of living and protecting life is found in the young mother who is being tortured and threatened throughout the night.  She never gives up protecting the child inside of her regardless of how hopeless it starts to seem (and there are a couple of pretty hopeless parts in this film!).  It creates a strange dissonance to have such life affirmation being portrayed in a film that is so dark and violent and bent on taking life.  Admittedly, neither one of the women wants the unborn baby to die.  However, the villain wants the baby for herself in order to gain the child she lost.  Even then, her want of life is still the need to take life away from another.  A lot of interesting theology could be brought out from this film.  And an ample amount of social commentary could be interpreted from it as well.  Interesting film, but not necessarily an entertaining film.

Day Twenty-Eight: I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997) - dir. Jim Gillespie

This is quite possibly the only film you will see that connects Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the Ghost Whisperer, Reese Witherspoon’s ex and Freddie Prinze, Jr. together.  Much like Scream, I remember going to see this in the theaters when it first arrived.  I am, also, pretty sure that I read the book that this movie was loosely based on.  And I am, also, pretty sure that I had a major crush on Sarah Michelle Gellar and Jennifer Love Hewitt after this film was over with.  I remember the usual middle school/high school conversations about who was hotter.  I think I was always on the Hewitt side, for I have an undeniable bias towards brunettes.  Nonetheless, this film had a pretty central place in my young life and I don’t think I had watched it again in over ten years.  It was both refreshing to relive a part of my young life, but it, also, made me realize the definite flaws in the movie overall.

Four teenagers find themselves in a terrifying situation after a night of alcohol and sex on a beach as they careen around the curves of the coast land only to run straight into a man walking across the highway in the middle of the night.  In the process of deciding how they are going to handle the situation, they make all of the proper mistakes to make for a rich introduction to a slasher film.  They put the body of the man in the trunk and rolled his body off a pier for the currents to take him away.  However as they roll him into the unforgiving sea, he comes back to life for one final scare before he sinks to the bottom.  The film then transitions to a year later, where a gaunt Hewitt is heading back home after her first year of college only to find a note that simply says, you guessed it, “I know what you did last summer.”  What follows is classic formulaic slasher fare with not many surprises as far as the story goes.  However, the fisherman strikes a monolithic and evil shadow which gives each kill scene an abnormally intense and nefarious feel. 

This film is by no means the worst of the films I saw this month, but it isn’t the best even though it came from the same pen as Scream, Kevin Williamson.  The acting, however, is a rise above most of the films in the sub genre, but all of the actors were already fairly well-known by the time this movie was made and they all seemed fairly comfortable and natural in their roles.  There is much to like about this film, but some of the elements do not wear well in a new decade.

I found it interesting, a little over halfway through the film, that our brave protagonist (Hewitt) delivers one of the most morally monstrous statements made in any of the slashers I saw this month.  All four of the main characters are confronted with a villain that is teasing and threatening them and Prinze’s character is the first to say that they should go to the police and admit to what they had done.  He says that they made the wrong decision the first time, now they needed to make the right decision.  Hewitt turns to him with a steely glare and states “I no longer care about what is right.  We have to take care of this.”  In a split second, the protagonist begins to be more identical with the villain of the film.  Both have decided to give up on a right response to their victimization, instead choosing violence and vengeance, rather than justice.  Other films have made such subtle admissions before, but none as bluntly as this one.  This is interesting, ultimately, because we all can, at our worst, be identified with the villain in the film.  Human nature shows, time and time again, that it would much rather seek vengeance rather than justice.  That it no longer cares about what is right.  And, at that point, what is the major foundational difference between those who consider themselves largely good, but react sinfully and the killers?  Not much.  Circumstances may be different but the motivations and sentiments are the same.  When that scene strikes in the film, it should give us all a pause and make a shiver go up our spine.  Because, at the end of the day, who hasn’t mouthed those same exact words?

Day Twenty-Seven: Scream (1996) - dir. Wes Craven

So we finally reach what Adam Rockoff called “The Resurgence” of the slasher flick with the modern classic, Scream.  Now, this is the first slasher flick that I was actually old enough to really see and I went to see it with my older sister.  I remember loving the film for so many reasons.  Most of them had nothing to do with the cleverness of the movie itself and more to do with the basic formula of the slasher flick that is still inherent in the film.  I knew nothing of Halloween or Friday the 13th or A Nightmare on Elm Street, but I knew that the suspense that was surrounding the murders and identity of Ghostface were compelling film for my late middle school/early high school mind. 

I would later, on repeat viewings, come to see some of the references made in them film to past slasher flicks and even on this viewing, after seeing all of the films I have seen this year, recognized more references than I ever had before.  You see, the beauty of this slasher flick is that it is, by all means, a spoof of the traditional slasher flick formula, without losing its edge or the traditional slasher formula or giving in to cheap laughs (Scary Movie, for instance).  It is still a frightening movie once the credits roll and the reveal of the “killer” is probably one of the best in slasher film history.

Sidney Prescott is surrounded by murders that are taking place in her small town around the one year anniversary of the rape and death of her mother.  A mysterious voice is calling people and toying with them before they kill them and are killing those around Sidney (and attempt to kill Sidney, herself, a few times).  The final portion of the film takes place at a party, not unlike other slashers.  One by one characters drop off until there are only a few suspects remaining.  Wes Craven (A Nightmare on Elm Street) directed this film with the same magnificent hand that he had with The Last House on the Left and with the same humor that was incorporated into the Nightmare movie.  Too bad that the large portion of his other work was overshadowed and outdone by these three films.  I am not sure that he was ever able to get past the popularity of them. 

Now there are numerous approaches that could be taken in finding analogous elements to the Christian faith in this film, but the one I want to look at is the element of referencing the past, referencing those influences that have made an impact on itself.  You see, by 1996, the slasher was all but dead; crawling away from its killer, only to meet the killer exactly where it is crawling to.  Scream was the perfect film for a new generation.  Enough time had passed since 1984 for the younger generation to go largely untaught about the nature of a slasher flick.  This film is, at its base, a slasher through and through.  However, it is a slasher that references all of the slashers that went before it, that plays and remixes all of those elements that have been done before.  It is not wholly original, in and of itself, but it is effective because it knows its heritage, its past.  All the way through the movie, names and scenes from the great slasher flicks are given homage.  Why this is so important to the Christian is because we are not divorced from the Christian past.  We are derived from all of the Christian thinkers, denominations, and theologies that have gone before us.  We, as a new generation of Christians, are constantly reworking and rewording the faith that was expressed by multitudes before us.  None of it is original, except for how we go about expressing it to others in our day and age.  

Paul Zahl, on one of his great broadcasts, drives home the same point about preaching by comparing it to sequels to old horror flicks.  He says that the basic story has not changed from one film to the next, but the expression, how we “preach” the truth, is something that is inherent to us individually and corporately.  Scream was a great film exactly because it made an old story relevant again to a new generation and brought out elements that were obscured by the slashers in the hey-day.  It was a post-modern retelling of a modern tale.  But the form and function are the same throughout.  As Christians, we, too, are charged with making sure that we come to know the truth about Christ, but expressing it in a way that will capture the hearts of those who are listening so that the Spirit can do its work.  At the end of the day, this movie is the perfect analogy for how we are to view the legacy of storytelling, especially those stories that are true and trans-formative.

Day Twenty-Six: Child’s Play (1988) - dir. Tom Holland

And with a lightning strike, the soul of a cold-blood, ed killer is transferred from his human body to the body of a Good Guy doll named Chucky and thus begins the first film of the well-loved (though I never understood why) Child’s Play series.  Taking a cue from the transference scene witnessed in the original Frankenstein, the ever-brilliant Brad Dourif is turned into a creepy, talking killer doll who is taken in by a young, unsuspecting boy and her single mother.  As people start dying, most of which are connected to the killer who entered the doll’s body, the only evidence left behind seems to make the young boy the suspect and, of course, no one believes the kid.  I am pretty sure that if my kid came up to me and told me that his doll pushed his babysitter out of a window, I would have a little more faith that he was telling the truth than what his mother has.  I mean kids can make up a lot of stuff and can be manipulative, but I wouldn’t expect them to say something that far-fetched. 

So the movie is fairly cheesy and really not that intriguing as a film in my opinion.  The idea is stellar, up there with Pennywise, the demonic clown, in It, but Holland botches it by revealing Chucky too quickly instead of maybe building up a little more suspense as to what is actually doing the killings.  Maybe make the audience believe that the lightning scene at the beginning was just misdirection and that it was actually something else doing the murders, maybe even make it become even more likely that the kid is actually behind the murders.  Creepy kids outweigh creepy dolls any day. 

So I suppose the most intriguing aspect of this slasher is, of course, the concept of an animate soul possessing the “being” of an inanimate object.  The Bible, that I recall, doesn’t talk about demons possessing inanimate objects, let alone the souls of deceased humans.  However, it does talk about demons possessing humans and animals.  The idea of possession by a foreign entity is legitimate and is Biblical.  Now what the circumstances surrounding the person that is being possessed are, I am not sure anyone can be terribly certain, but I do believe that someone with strong faith in Christ cannot be possessed, but can be tormented and oppressed by those powers.  The idea of possession is pretty frightening, way more frightening than an inanimate object being possessed.  It is an act of violation and not just one of a loss of control, but the act of a loss of complete control to something that will make one harm themselves and others.  We shouldn’t be afraid of the presence of the Spirit in us because it is guided by the good and sovereign hand of the Lord, whereas with demonic possession, there is no good intent.  That is truly frightening.

Day Twenty-Five: A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) - dir. Chuck Russell

As far as the overall story line goes, this film does a better job of harnessing the potential of the whole dream-reality dichotomy that was so revolutionary for the slasher flick when the first film came into theaters.  The sets used for the dreams are much more elaborate and the murders are much more restrained (which consequently makes them appear more realistic).  No fountains of blood shooting from a bed or anything of that nature.  Admittedly the last part of the film becomes a little less restrained but that is to be expected considering it is the last hurrah of the film. 

The one flaw of the film is really a matter of consistency from the first film.  In the climax, the remaining mental institute wards go into the dream world together and they try to fight him in their dreams.  It seems that Nancy (who is now their psych intern) should know better than to do that considering she was the one who figured out that Freddy has to be taken out of the dream into reality in order to be injured and killed.  It seems like a waste of innocent lives for them to be attempting to take Freddy on within the confines of the world that he rules.  They main concern should have been rescuing the mute kid and then waking up before Freddy could do any damage.  However, we do learn that Freddy does get stronger with every kid he kills, because, somehow, he takes their souls.  Now, try to figure out how killing a kid in their dreams could deliver their souls to him and you should win the Nobel Peace Prize. 

With the minor exception of the inconsistencies on fighting Freddy in the dreams and the unfortunate inclusion of the dreaded Freddy skeleton scene that kills Nancy’s father and attempts to bury the kids’ doctor, the film is a pretty decent flick and a good entry into the slasher annals.  I did appreciate the fact that they gave the characters a little more room to explore the dreams where they met Freddy.  Even though, I think fighting Freddy was useless, I did appreciate the fact that they allowed the characters a little more agency in their deaths instead of being held captive to their dreams only to get assuredly murdered. 

We come to find out a little more about the back story of Krueger who was born to a woman who was raped by several convicts in a locked room in the mental institute.  From the rape, Freddy was born and the rest is history.  The doctor finds out that the ghostly nun who gives him the key to taking care of Freddy was actually the ghost of Freddy’s mother.  This has an interesting element that ties closer with the Catholic idea of the intercession of the Saints.  Freddy’s mother who happened to be a nun, and shown to be good, interceded for those being persecuted by giving the doctor the key to getting rid of her evil son.  Now, I am not sure where I stand on the idea of the intercession of the Saints and I don’t believe that the Saints would be giving us the key to save ourselves, but instead directing us to the God who has the power to deliver us from all evil and darkness.  However, it brings in an interesting element to the movie, especially intercession is such an essential element of the Christian faith; the foremost being the intercession of Christ which was perfect and complete in that there is nothing we could do that would add on to the work that He accomplished. 

Day Twenty-Four: April Fool’s Day (1986) - dir. Fred Walton

Round two with Fred Walton at the helm (When A Stranger Calls), this film is distinctively different from his last slasher flick.  He was instrumental in developing some of the key elements of the sub genre and, with this film, he is now deconstructing elements of it.  You see there is a catch you this film which if you take the title to be completely serious then you should have caught it from the beginning.  If you haven’t seen this film yet then do not read any further.  The subtle brilliance of this film is that all of the people who are murdered by the “killer” in this film are not really killed.  The film follows the near perfect formula of the slasher flick until the very end with the final reveal.

A rich young lady by the name of Muffy St. Claire invites 8 of her friends to her lakeside mansion for a weekend away on April Fool’s Day weekend.  As the friends gather, the house is filled with various pranks and they come to discover that Muffy has a trickster side.  However, the friends start turning up dead, one by one, during the weekend retreat.  The final two left outside of the killer are Rob and Kit (who was also the final girl of Friday the 13th, Part 2) and they come to find out that Muffy apparently has a twin sister who is evil.  As “Buffy” chases the two people around, Rob is locked in a closet and Kit is trapped against the sliding doors of the dining room with a knife being raised before her.  She slides the doors open to find all of her friends there, alive.  The whole thing was an elaborate prank in order to give a rehearsal for the murder mystery mansion that Muffy plans on opening up with the inheritance of the lake house from her mother.  Hence the title, April Fool’s Day.  It is the quintessential non-slasher, slasher flick.  Leave it up to Fred Walton to deliver a clever story, well executed.

The film is almost cathartic in the sense that everyone who has gone through violent, traumatic experiences has had the thought that none of what just happened, really happened.  That it is, just a ruse, in the end.  The few times I have experienced something even remotely like a traumatic experience (and I have been blessed in not having anything really serious at all), I had a strange feeling that I would just open the door to find the person alive or unharmed and it was all just an overactive imagination or a trick.  As in real life when real violence and trauma happens, we are not assured such a comfort.  In reality, the violence does happen; the trauma does affect the ones we love.  However, this film gives a small glimpse into the feeling that things will be alright after a traumatic experience.  It is a less superior analogy for the hope that is in Christ, that one day those sins, violence and traumas will no longer exist, that the people we love will be reunited with us in the knowledge of and devotion to Christ.  A therapeutic movie, indeed, and a fun little movie to sit through as well.

Day Twenty-Three: A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) - dir. Wes Craven

By 1984, the slasher flick was crumbling as a legitimate form of entertainment within the horror genre and there were no slashers that were able to reinvigorate the sub genre.  However, that would soon change with the introduction of A Nightmare on Elm Street and it’s director Wes Craven.  Now, this film is nowhere near as good as Last House on the Left (1972) nor does it show the talent that Wes Craven has as a director.  But the conceptual aspects of the movie are what gave the first slasher movement its one last thrust before it would start to dwindle away aesthetically and in its profitability.  However, it had already lasted longer than most of the critics assumed it would.  Nightmare brought a new icon to the slasher and gave it a new thought-provoking scenario.

So what happens when a child murderer (changed from the original script surrounding a child molester) is let off on a technicality and all of the parents who knew he was guilty offer their own form of justice, by bringing his death my burning him alive?  Well, naturally, the offended party would come back to get his vengeance then.  Except the killer actually is dead, so what does he do then?  That’s right, live in the dream states of the children of the offending parties and kill them in while they sleep.  The basic set up of the film is nothing new as far as the vengeance plot is concerned, but where Craven was clever was to make the killer immortal (much like Myers and Jason) in the dreams of those who dream of him. 

The young teens who are dreaming of the same figure, this Fred Krueger with the bladed hand, start to realize that maybe something more is going on when they wake with injuries that were inflicted on them in their dreams.  And, the simple fact, that they are all dreaming of the exact same burnt man.  One by one, they get massacred in their dreams in such a way that it gives a new meaning to the “big sleep.”  Only one, Nancy, is able to happen upon a way to possible kill him.  When she wakes from a dream, she has Freddy’s hat in her hand, the hat she had ripped from his head as she awoke.  So she has to be holding onto him when she awakes to bring him back into the real world.  The climax surrounds this exact plan and you can discuss whether she is successful or not when watch the film.

Once again the sins of the parents (burning a man alive), come to visit upon the lives of their children when they are most vulnerable…asleep.  Another lesson that shows that violence, in response to violence, only begets more violence.  No one is innocent in the whole matter.  If the parents had just shown grace to this child murderer, even though he was guilty, then maybe some real change could have come about in the life of this Fred Krueger.  But, that is not the case, and the innocents of the film are the one who reap the consequences.  Perhaps the most interesting part of the film is this interaction between the dream world and the real world.  Dreams, in and of themselves, are so hard to discern meaning from, but there is no doubt that there is importance in them.  Some reveal our hopes and joy, others uncover, subconsciously of course, our deepest sinful desires and, if you are like me, sometimes you get the sense that you have experienced things in your dreams only to get the strange feeling that you have arrived in that exact scene at some point after the dream.  But dreams are flighty, ambiguous, illogical and chaotic, as well.  So the concept of someone wreaking havoc in our sleep life actually is quite terrifying.  Unfortunately, the character of Freddy Krueger has too much cheese and not enough psychosis.  Some of the dreams I have had in my life are a hundred times more chilling, terrifying and psychotic than Freddy…and that, my friends, is why I am thankful that I didn’t receive that which I deserve, condemnation.  My God gave me mercy and grace and has refused to burn me alive, but, instead, made my a son and co-heir.  Freddy ain’t got nuthin’ on me.

Day Twenty-Two: Silent Night, Deadly Night (1984) - dir. Charles E. Sellier, Jr.

With a title like this, no one goes into this movie expecting much.  This might be part of the reason why I actually didn’t find this movie near as vapid or idiotic as the title would have suggested.  Another reason why this movie may have seemed better than it may have actually been is because it came on the heels of Sleepaway Camp, which really was trash on further reflection, especially with the ham-handed statements about sexuality that were made.  Nonetheless, this movie at least has some interesting characters, characters that are actually developed to some level (for a slasher, anyways).  And, like Black Christmas, there is something attractive about turning what should be a most joyful time and turning it into a nightmare straight from the bowels of the earth. 

A young boy accompanies his parents and baby brother to visit his old, seemingly catatonic, grandfather.  While the doctor is talking to the parents, the grandfather wakes and talks to the little boy about Santa Claus and how he brings joy to the nice kids, but for the naughty ones he brings, you guessed it, punishment.  So the drive home is unfortunate as they come upon a thief dressed as Santa who ultimately kills the mother and father, as the little boy runs off into the woods to hide.  From that point on, he is traumatized as he and his brother grow up in a Catholic orphanage and he loses it every Christmas as he is ridden with guilt about being naughty and hoping Santa does not come to punish him.  One he becomes a young man, he obtains a job at a toy store and everything seems like it may turn out okay, but then Christmas comes…and Santa comes back.

On the surface, this film wouldn’t seem to have anything truly interesting to talk about, but upon deeper reflection, the viewer should recognize the interesting turn that the film takes in the last third.  The whole time the boy is paralyzed with fear of this, otherwise joyful, symbol of Christmas and goodwill and is plagued with memories of his dad and mother being brutally murdered in front of him.  Once he becomes a young man and starts working at the toy store and Christmas is upon them, he is asked to become Santa Claus for the toy store to replace the man who usually does it.  He ultimately becomes the symbol that he most fears and something worse happens at that point.  Everything he knows about Santa is punishment of the naughty by violence and on Christmas Eve as the rest of the employees get drunk and he comes upon one of the workers trying to force a female coworker to have sex, he snaps.  He becomes Santa Claus and starts punishing people.  The transference the main character makes from paralyzed fright to embracing that which he most fears and becoming exactly what he fears and was traumatized by is an interesting concept.  At some level, we all have the ability to slip into that same mentality.  The more we indulge fear, the more we become what we fear.  Take for instance those, directly after 9/11, who were angered and gave into feelings of vengeance and fear towards the fundamentalist Muslims, often turned that fear and rage towards all Arabs, including those who were citizens in the US.  That fear led them to the same hatred of “the other” that drove the Muslim fundamentalist to do that evil deed in the first place.  We become what we fear, if we allow the fear to overtake us.  It is just another aspect of the sinful nature of man and something that, strangely enough, this film does a strikingly good job, however cheesy it may be, ultimately, at portraying that part of human sinful nature.

Day Twenty-One: Sleepaway Camp (1983) - dir. Robert Hiltzik

Wow.  I just don’t know what to do with this film.  There is nothing remotely aesthetic about the cinematography, matter of fact, a high school student film could have probably produced the same quality of film that this features.  The acting is largely atrocious and the characters seem either merely incidental or to serve the purpose of the very heavy-handed message about gender and sexuality that permeates the entire script of the film and constitutes the only “interesting” aspect of the climax to the film.  Speaking of climax, it is not so much the reveal of the killer that is shocking at the end of the film, but, instead, the nature of the killer that constitutes the only reason why this film didn’t die the painful death of obscurity. 

A multi-aged, co-ed summer camp begins and we are introduced to a rather precocious and silent girl by the name of Angela, whose family died in a boating accident that was showcased at the beginning of the film.  She doesn’t talk much and creepily stares at people without blinking or moving her eyes.  She is a little off, but she becomes the butt of every joke from the older boys and girls at the camp.  It is not surprising that those who are picking on Angela start to die off as the movie wears on and some of the murders are quite sadistic especially the death of the camp bad girl, Judy.  The film does not really hide the fact that, in fact, the killer is Angela, but that is because the writer of the script has a bigger surprise in mind for the ending of the film.  And, admittedly, the final scene of the film is pretty stunning, not only because of what we find out about the past of Angela, but the rather non-human “silent scream” look on her face when a couple of camp counselors come to find out that she is the killer.  It is just a weird ending to an overly horrifyingly bad film in every aspect. 

I would not recommend this film to anybody for one main reason: the film is just bad and the script and concept are so embarrassingly simplistic and embedded with propagandized messages about the changing gender and sexual norms that were starting to become realities in the 1980s.  There was no subtlety to a discussion that, apparently, was very important to the writers.  It had all of the heavy-handedness of a Christian “Left Behind” movie. 

I almost feel cheap discussing the issue of sexuality that is brought out over and over again in the film, because the writers provided no context for serious discussion of the issue and how it played into the story of the movie.  It was, as if, the writers felt like they needed to stick as many off-kilter sexual elements into the movie as possible, including an incredibly disturbing flashback about half-way into the film, in order to inundate the audience with the “new” sexuality.  In reality, all they succeed at is making human sexuality largely laughable instead something that has complexities and is something more than just mere stereotypes and novelty.  As a Christian watching this film, I was appalled at how callously the writers approached the issue of sexuality.  Not at all giving it any kind of serious contemplation, but, instead, giving it mere de-contextualized presence without any significant meaning.  Slashers were the bane of feminist writers throughout the 80s and on (though this, in and of itself, seems counter-intuitive, but that is for another post), but Sleepaway Camp does more damage, in the end, to serious contemplation of female and male sexuality than all of the rest of the slasher films combined.  At the end of the day, I actually feel bad for watching this film, because I feel it had more of a negative influence on legitimate discussion about a very important part of being human.  The best thing that could happen with this movie is for it to, all of a sudden, just disappear.

Day Twenty: The House on Sorority Row (1983) - dir. Mark Rosman

As we get deeper into the vaults of the slasher flick and closer to the timely death of its first movement, we come across this rather laughable excuse for a slasher film with the targets being none other than stereotypical sorority girls who, with the exception of one, seem to be dumber than the stereotypes they are supposed to characterize.  This is the debut film for director Mark Rosman who would go on to direct other indefinable horror films as A Cinderella Story (2004) and eleven episodes of “Lizzie McGuire” during the 2001-2003 seasons.  There is nothing even remotely original or even well executed about the film.  It really is completely trash.  The only upside to it is the lead actress, the final girl of the film, Kate McNeil, who actually does have an acting bone in her body but was unable to get much work outside of scant TV appearances after this film. 

The story surrounds a sorority prank played on the house mother gone terribly wrong (it is sad that these girls were not even smart enough to pull off this prank without a hitch) and the subsequent revenge that takes place afterwards during one final party for the graduating sorority sisters.  The kills are not even remotely creative and the final reveal (which is not even a proper reveal) is less than interesting. 

It is starting to get extremely hard as the first slasher movement comes to an end to really draw anything remotely thoughtful from these films.  There is really nothing that can be said for this movie as far as theological insight, or even remotely interesting or thoughtful social commentary.  I am sorry to disappoint, but there is just nothing here to discuss without making major leaps or coming off as reaching for things that are only vague, if not completely nonexistent.  I wouldn’t waste your time on this film.  Sadly, this is the first film all month that I think could have and should have been replaced with a better film.

Day Nineteen: The Prowler (1981) - dir. Joseph Zito

This film takes a cue from the revenge of a jaded soldier who comes home only to find that his sweetheart has given up on him and gone on to someone new.  He ends up killing her and her new lover with a pitchfork on the night of the annual graduation dance which causes the dance to be cancelled for years to come, much like the plot in My Bloody Valentine.  Years later, the graduation dance is back on and the sheriff is out of town on her annual fishing trip and there is a prowler on the loose around the campus, killing off the students. 

As far as plot lines go, there is not much new here, however, this film gets major acknowledgment by most for the extremely realistic deaths that are shown in the film.  Once again, the mastermind of Tom Savini is behind the effects of the film and are considered to be some of the best of his career.  That being said, that is about the only thing that really delineates this film from the normal slasher formula.  There is nothing new and even the reveal of the killer (who is dressed up in military fatigues and a gas mask and armed with a pitchfork and shotgun) is less than surprising.  However, on cinematography alone, there are some extremely well shot scenes in the film and to some extent it makes the film quite interesting to watch for the execution of it overall. 

Considering the twist of the film surrounds the broken heart of a soldier who has been trained to kill in the wartime and comes home to such trauma and loss, now takes his violence into the domestic realm.  The audience is brought into a world of violence and revenge.  There is no grace involved in the motives of the killer.  He is out to pay back those who symbolize the qualities of the young ladies who are so apt to trade one man’s love for another and those who are taken as their lovers.  Much like My Bloody Valentine, the guilt of the victims is only symbolic.  There is a retribution to be paid to the killer and the only seemingly legitimate reason for this to be the case is the concept of corporate sin being passed down from age to age.  They may not have committed the sins, but the sins of their elders will come to visit upon their heads like the Old Testament says.  This is a fully Law approach to justice that the killer is following.  If grace was involved then the killer would take on the pain that wounded him and would forgive those who offended him and forgive those who would symbolically wound him by committing the same action.  However, slashers are not about grace, there are about getting what is due, either individually or corporately.  The Prowler makes no real diversions from this main theme of most slasher flicks, but it still comes out being a truly entertaining film nonetheless, which could probably be credited to the direction of Joseph Zito in the end.

Day Eighteen: Halloween II (1981) - dir. Rick Rosenthal

Where it took only a year to make the sequel to the highly profitable Friday the 13th, it wasn’t until three years later that the cards fell into place for the sequel to Halloween, one of the most successful independently produced films ever.  Carpenter, however, was afraid of being typecast as a horror director so, instead of directing, he and Debra Hill took on the writing credits for Halloween II and gave over the directing reins to Rick Rosenthal.  Though I would argue that the first one is still the superior film of the two because of its excellent directing and use of tense, suspenseful moments, there is a pretty wide collection of fans that would argue for this film being the best.  I can, at least, understand their position.  There is much to like about this film.

For one thing, it builds off of the action of the prior film by dropping the audience right into the aftermath of the first film.  Laurie Strode has been transported to the local hospital to be cared for after the attack my Michael Myers in the first film.  Most of the action takes place in the hospital; giving the film a more claustrophobic feel.  It does not feel like there are as many places to run to or hide (even though most hospitals are bigger than neighborhood blocks where the first film was set).  However, the hospital setting works extremely well for a sequel and it is a mystery to this day why hospitals were not the settings of more slasher flicks.  Another thing that could be argued is that Curtis was required to have a wider range of expressions in this film whereas the first film really had her as more of a nameless babysitter who happened to be targeted by an evil killer. 

The most important argument that most would make was the complication of the Myers/Strode story line that is presented in this film.  In the first film, Strode as a target for Michael Myers seemed random, at best.  It was just horrible luck that she happened to be the one who got in Myers’ way.  However, the beauty of this film is we find, whether it had been planned from the beginning or not, that Laurie Strode was actually adopted by the Strodes and that she was actually the youngest sister of the Michael Myers.  She is blood.  This knowledge adds a whole new level to the detrimental nature of the chase.  It’s like Myers is not satisfied that he hadn’t gotten rid of both of his siblings.  So he broke free in order to finish what he started.  That was a clever twist on the slasher formula.  That the prey of the psychotic killer would, in fact, be related to him. 

These are good reasons to hold the first sequel, at least, as equal with the first film, if not better overall.  However, I still find the iconography of the Myers’ archetype is more solidly formed in the original film and Carpenter’s ability to ramp the tension up to such a high level is a credit to him alone.  But this, in no way, denigrates the quality of Rosenthal’s sequel, which has its fair share of superb qualities. 

The thing I find so fascinating about these first two Halloween films is how the movies interact with each other.  Watching the sequel first would absolutely destroy the effectiveness of the original film, because the viewer knows too much at that point.  The viewer must enter into the beguiling nature of the first film.  Because in the first film, the viewer is left clueless as to why Michael came back to Haddonfield in the first place and once he strikes upon Laurie Strode, in the initial film, it seems that he devotes all of his attention to her.  If he was just a madman loose, then it would seem that he would be going for quantity of kills instead of becoming a guided missile.  By halfway through the film, the observant viewer will start to wonder why he is always watching Strode.  Why does he end up devoting all of his attention, by the end of the film, toward her instead of moving on?  Then the viewer tosses in the sequel and things start to make sense with the knew knowledge of their relationship.  And something magical happens.  The viewer starts to reflect back onto the first film the knowledge that they now have and mysterious elements from the first film are given a clarity and fullness with the new knowledge that were once shrouded in shadows; they were kept hidden, though subtly suggested in the first film.

So why do I find this element of interaction so intriguing?  Because what I just described through the interaction of these two films is, in fact, how we, too, should understand the interaction between the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.  You see reading the Old Testament is much like watching the first Halloween in that it is a magnificent story that is shrouded in a mystery of things not fully understood nor completed.  There are these characters and there is this Hebrew God and we see the interaction, which is largely negative in that the Israelites are, time and time again, failures in obeying the commands of the God that has made a covenant with them.  And there are elements in the Old Testament that seem (and, ultimately, are) foreshadowing future events, but it is not, altogether, easily understood, but only subtly hinted at.  Then comes the New Testament and we see the God man who is born of a virgin and is God’s own Son.  He is the foreshadowed prophet, priest and king that the Israelites were waiting for (even though according to the Gospels, his own people largely rejected him).  With the New Testament, the reader is brought into a more clear and more full understanding of the larger story, the story that the Israelites largely missed.  The relationship of God and his people is given a fullness and completion that wasn’t present in the Old Testament, but was alluded to.  This would be the same as seeing Halloween II and gaining that surprising knowledge of the relationship between Laurie Strode and Michael Myers. 

Then with the the entrance of the New Testament, something truly beautiful happens, with the new revelation we have been give my God in the person of Christ, we, now, look back on the stories of the Old Testament and we begin to see how this new person of Christ was present all along in the revelation of the Old Testament.  The Old Testament is pregnant with expectation of Christ’s coming and his work on the cross to complete the work that no created men could ever do; for the Law led only to condemnation and recognition of our weakness and sinful natures.  But this new knowledge, literally the Word of God become flesh, allows for the reader to have a more full and completed understanding of the big picture, of who exactly their God is and what their relationship with Him really means. 

I bet you have never heard the Bible explained this way, have you?  You all have John Carpenter to thank for this rather insightful, albeit probably unforeseen, allegory for a proper textual reading of the Christian Scriptures.