I have been looking forward to this post for weeks. As I kicked off the month of October talking about why I tend to steer clear from horror films, some of my favorite experiences dipping my toe in the genre are when my expectations are subverted and I end up enjoying a horror film that I anticipated disliking. Also, this is the inaugural post of my sixth (and, as of right now, final) blog series wherein I select films from the film reference book “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” by Steven Jay Schneider and discuss them in some capacity. So, in honor of my horror-themed posts for October, I will today be discussing three classic horror movies that I expected to hate but actually kind of love. Coincidentally, the films I will be talking about today are all from the 1970s. (Perhaps I was born in the wrong decade… 😊). So, without further ado… [NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “The Exorcist,” “Carrie,” and “Alien.” You have been warned.] Image by emersonmello from Pixabay The Exorcist (1973) Merely five years after Rosemary’s Baby terrified audiences and stirred controversy for its reliance on devilish antics (pun intended 😊) for scares, Hollywood bore another mainstay horror classic: William Friedkin’s The Exorcist, released in 1973. Based on the 1971 novel of the same name by William Peter Blatty (which in turn is partially based on real exorcisms performed in the United States in the late 1940s), the film remains a staple of horror cinema and (in my humble opinion) holds up as a terrifying thrill ride. Why? I’ll get to that a bit later. Friedkin, the director, is on the record saying that the film is intended to preserve all that could be verified by those involved in an exorcism performed on a 14-year-old boy nicknamed “Ronald Doe” in 1949. (Although Friedkin has also publicly expressed doubts about certain aspects of these “true events”). A secular Jew himself, Friedkin had access to the personal diaries of the priests involved in the exorcism in an attempt to accurately depict the events on which his film was based. I will not devote much time to the many fascinating behind-the-scenes about The Exorcist, but there is one I would like to highlight. The late actress Mercedes McCambridge, who won an Oscar for her performance in Robert Rossen’s All the King’s Men (1949), was cast as the voice of Pazuzu the devil that possesses Regan (Linda Blair) in the film. At McCambridge’s insistence, she swallowed raw eggs, smoked, and drank whiskey to harshen the sound of her voice. At Friedkin’s insistence, McCambridge was also bound to a chair to give off the impression of the demon struggling to free itself from its restraints. Prior to the film’s release, McCambridge volunteered to avoid getting credit for the performance out of concern that it would strip away recognition from Blair. This, along with many other stories about the production of The Exorcist, attest to the film’s legacy as a testament to dedication to one’s craft. Despite being nearly fifty years old by now, The Exorcist holds up as a genuinely terrifying experience. As I have said several times in previous blogs this month, the film is not scary because of the violence or jump scares or even tension. Rather, it offers up an incredibly stressful and intense scenario for characters that we as an audience sympathize with and would never wish on anyone. The physical, mental, and emotional toll on Regan’s mother and the performer of the exorcism, Father Lankester Merrin, (played expertly by Ellen Burstyn and Max von Sydow, respectively) are prime examples of just how impactful The Exorcist is. The fact that, for much of the first hour, Burstyn’s character Chris goes down several avenues in an attempt to discover the truth behind Regan’s unorthodox mental state shows not only her devotion as a mother but also effectively invokes enough of a connection with her to suffer with her as she watches her daughter’s devilish transformation. Furthermore, the lengths at which von Sydow’s Father Lankester and his assistant, Father Damian Karras (played by Jason Miller) go to in their efforts to expel Pazuzu from Regan are both heartwarming and chilling. While not my favorite of the three films I will be discussing today, The Exorcist earns its place for me among not just the classic horror films but in the genre as a whole. It has stood the test of time as one of the first truly scary movies. Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay Carrie (1976) Leading up to the release of It: Chapter Two and Doctor Sleep last year, I decided to watch some of the classic film adaptations of the literary works of the “King” (pun intended 😊) of horror fiction, Stephen King. As of two years ago, the only true “horror” films based on King’s works I had seen were 1983’s Cujo and 2017’s It. Needless to say, I was skeptical about this adventure due to King’s name being synonymous with horror. So, when I sat down to watch the 1976 Brian de Palma film Carrie I was surprised that I enjoyed it as much as I did. The first film adaptation of King’s endless body of work remains, in my opinion, one of the best. It tells the story of the shy sixteen-year-old girl Carrie (played by Sissy Spacek) who struggles to gain acceptance from her classmates in the lead-up to the school prom. She is bullied by classmate Chris (Nancy Allen), receives comfort and advice from sympathetic gym teacher Miss Collins (Betty Buckley), and is psychologically tortured and oppressed at home by her fanatically devout Christian mother Margaret (Piper Laurie). The film, released on November 3, grossed nearly 34 million dollars in North American on a budget of less than two million dollars and received rave reviews from critics at the time who recognized the legacy that it would have for decades to come. Spacek and Laurie were nominated for (but did not win) Academy Awards for their performances, and it has landed high up on multiple lists for the best horror films ever made. So, why do I love Carrie? For so many reasons, it is difficult to nail them all down. First off, the film’s opening scene in the locker room is haunting, yet mesmerizing. As someone who had less-than-uplifting experiences in the high school locker room (as I am sure many of you did as young boys and girls), Spacek becomes sympathetic in a manner of minutes. The cruelty she is subjected to at the hands of her peers when she (unbeknownst to her) menstruates while showering is simply heart wrenching. As a moment in a young person’s life when they should be comforted and reassured, Carrie suffers ridicule and embarrassment that jumpstarts her journey of maturation in the film. Simply put, Spacek’s portrayal of this closed-off and intimidated yet incredibly powerful young woman is never boring or disengaging. Quite the opposite; watching this film for the first time, I wanted to know everything about her life. Does she have any true friends at school? What is her home situation like? Why is she ignorant about her own body? All of these questions are answered in a way that is both satisfying from a storytelling perspective, but also disheartening in terms of what Carrie’s life really is like. She has virtually no friends her age, evident by her reliance on Miss Collins as a confidante. And the scenes between Spacek and Piper Laurie, who plays Carrie’s mother, are gripping, impactful, and resonant throughout the film. Some of the most memorably tragic moments have to do with Margaret’s rejection of her daughter due to the horrific circumstances surrounding her conception. And this gets to my great appreciation of the story’s larger themes that never cease to entice my love for the creative. For de Palma aptly explores the unique tensions of a mother-daughter relationship in order to make the climactic scene between Carrie and Margaret both intense and immensely tragic. The state of Carrie’s life is the result of two things. First, a mother who resents her existence due to her acting as a mirror for Margaret’s own obsession with her self-identified sinful sexual fantasies. And second, a toxic school environment that does all it can to push Carrie over the edge in what is certainly one of the greatest climaxes of a horror film that I have ever seen. The infamous prom scene could have turned out cheap or unearned. But, it just doesn’t. The moment that the bucket is dropped, coating Carrie in pig’s blood, Spacek does a brilliant job conveying the instantaneous loss of sanity within herself and empathy for other people. As she traps her entire class in the gym, lights it on fire, and walks through the destruction of her own making, it feels like a baptism by fire of sorts: who Carrie could have become is gone, and the Carrie that we see leaving prom is anything but an endearing person. And yet, I still love her. I never turn against Carrie even in her darkest moments, perhaps that says something about my psyche. Nevertheless, 1976’s Carrie is a sight to behold in the terrain of modern horror cinema that remains both a classic and a solid film in its own right to this day. Image by Эльвина Якубова from Pixabay Alien (1979)
Of the three films that I am writing about today, I have only seen one of them twice: the 1979 horror sci-fi classic Alien. The original concept of the film from screenwriter Dan O’ Bannon was a script called "Memory," in which a group of astronauts awaken to a distress signal from a mysterious planet. Yet he struggled to devise a second and third act until screenwriter Robert Shussett contacted O’Bannon and came up with the concept of one of the crew members being implanted by an alien embryo, thus allowing the creature to board the spaceship. While major studios were initially hesitant to fund their project (with names such as Dark Star and Star Beast), the unprecedented success of Star Wars in 1977 changed many minds in Hollywood about the profitability of science fiction movies. Ridley Scott was chosen to direct the film due to the critical praise of his directorial debut The Duelists, and it was shot from June to October, 1978 over a period of fourteen weeks. Described as “Jaws in space” and “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre of science fiction,” Alien was released on May 25, 1979 and grossed over 203 million dollars on an approximate budget of eleven million dollars. Initial critical reception to the film was mixed, with Roger Ebert notoriously feeling blasé about it upon release before calling it a “great original” on his Great Movies list decades later. I first watched Alien two summers ago, and found it slow and boring; the acting to be dry and unengaging (except Sigourney Weaver, of course); and the special effects to be outdated at best and tacky at worst. (Harsh words, I know). Needless to say, I was more than relieved after watching James Cameron’s 1986 film Aliens later that day as it was what I wanted from this kind of movie in the first place. But, since my first viewing of Alien, I have watched hundreds of classic films and thus my tastes have evolved and developed. Furthermore, I feel that I have a more acute ability to sift out the overrated films of yesteryear from the truly great classics of the past. So, do I love Alien? While I think “love” may be a bit too strong of a word, I found myself greatly appreciating Alien much more on a second viewing. First off, the deliberate pace felt natural and more effective at building intrigue and, later, suspense. The dynamic established among the crew members of the Nostromo in the first forty minutes of the film is both relatable and believable. The actors play their characters as genuinely “average,” and thus the predicament that they find themselves wrapped up in is all the more terrifying as a result. Without question, the standout for me is Sigourney Weaver. Of course, her performance in the final thirty minutes is commendable as she uses all of her wits to escape the Nostromo within an inch of her life. But Weaver’s portrayal of Ellen Ripley as the only rational person on the ship who consistently expresses doubts about the crew’s safety and security make her both a credible and sympathetic character, thus cementing her status as one of the best female protagonists of any franchise to date. But what about my initial impressions of the “outdated” special effects? While I still think that the final shots of the xenomorph (alien) being cast out into space are quite ridiculous, I love the evolution of the creature in all of its stages. The minefield of unhatched eggs is unsettling. The acid-bleeding “face sucker” that impregnates and kills executive officer Kane (John Hurt) in the infamous “chest-burster” scene is visceral and primal. And finally, the creature’s adult form makes the viewer’s heart beat faster and faster without ever fully revealing itself until the very end. This trope, while often overused these days, is an effective device to create mystery around the monster which makes it all the more terrifying. So, there you have it, folks! Three classic horror movies from the list of “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” that I expected to hate but ended up loving (or liking a lot). What are some horror films you ended up loving despite initial doubts? Which of these three films is your favorite, and why? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|