THE MT VOID
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
10/25/02 -- Vol. 21, No. 17
El Presidente: Mark Leeper, mleeper@optonline.net
The Power Behind El Pres: Evelyn Leeper, eleeper@optonline.net
Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
To subscribe, send mail to mtvoid-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To unsubscribe, send mail to mtvoid-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Topics:
Word Origin? (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
A Definition of the Horror Genre
(comments by Mark R. Leeper)
BUBBA HO-TEP (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CABIN FEVER (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
RENO: REBEL WITHOUT A PAUSE (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
===================================================================
TOPIC: Word Origin? (comments by Mark R. Leeper)
Where did we ever get this widely accepted expression of
insincere threat? I am speaking of the paradoxical word "boo."
It is supposed to be a scary sound, but notice that it is rarely
used if there is any real threat. If said sharply in the first
instant it is disconcerting and perhaps it is even startling,
but since it is most often insincere, a moment later it is
reassuring. I have heard of words like "cleave" with opposite
meanings depending on usage, but this one has opposite meanings,
changing with time, on the same usage. If not said sharply, it
is used for disapproval hence giving it a third meaning. It is
less of a threat, but also less reassuring. The word "boo" is
thought to have originated about 1430 as an imitation of cattle
sounds. It is related to "moo." But that is questionable since
cattle are rarely associated with being either frightening or
reassuring. And rarely are they thought to be expressing
disapproval, except in the old "Rawhide" theme:
Keep movin', movin', movin'
Though they're disapprovin'
Keep them doggies movin', Rawhide.
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: A Definition of the Horror Genre (comments by Mark
R. Leeper)
In the words of Al Pacino in THE GODFATHER, "Just when "Just
when I thought I was out, they pull me back in." I had been
writing about horror and thought I was done. Actually, I was
finishing up a three-week set of articles on the subject of
horror and was ready to move on to the next topic, but I got a
fairly interesting question from Rob Mitchell and it got me
thinking again about just what is horror. I decided to stick
with horror a little longer, since after all this is the season
of Halloween.
Rob asked where one draws the line between horror and suspense.
Is it the presence of fantastical elements? I gave my opinion
that, yes, horror was a subset of fantasy. A story like John
Buchan's THE 39 STEPS is suspenseful, but it is not horror. It
is necessary, but not sufficient, for a story to be fantastical
to be in the horror genre. Certainly there are fantastical
premises in the two most popular horror novels, FRANKENSTEIN and
DRACULA. But one does not have to think very long to come up
with works that are considered horror, but which do not have any
obvious fantastic elements. I am not sure that when Gaston
Leroux wrote THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA it was more than a
potboiler love story with some crime and suspense. Far from
being a fantasy, it knit together actual events and urban
legends about the Paris Opera House into a melodrama that had at
the time only lukewarm popularity. But once Lon Chaney played
the role with a horrifying skeletal face, it was adopted
immediately into the horror genre even without overtly
fantastical elements. It certainly is more consistent with my
world-view than is, say, DRACULA.
But why stop there? Hitchcock's PSYCHO has similarly been
adopted as a horror film though it is set in our world. (As an
aside on a recent panel I was told that one thing puts a story
in the horror genre is that it uses "the tropes of horror."
That probably cannot be contradicted since nobody knows what the
heck a trope is anyway. Really what I think this says is that
something is horror if it has the characteristics of horror.)
BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER uses the tropes of horror but somehow I
do not think it is actually horror. Certainly the same goes for
Casper the Friendly Ghost and the Munsters. These are not
intended to be horrifying. But then, I believe, neither is THE
BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. The closer we look at Rob's question,
the more we seem to end up in the same quandary that we have
defining science fiction. Damon Knight's definition of the
latter was "Science fiction is what I point to when I say, 'This
is science fiction.'" Knight was apparently satisfied with his
criterion, which he might not have been if more people with his
telephone number would have needed to apply the criterion at 3
AM. Alas, Mr. Knight is dead now and will no longer be pointing
at science fiction, so we can never again be sure any more if at
least by his definition a work is science fiction or not. By
saying that horror displays the tropes of horror you are as much
saying, "Horror is what I point to when I say, 'This is
horror.'"
This is a roundabout way of saying that I do not know of a
really good and workable definition for the horror genre or the
science fiction genre. And a few weeks ago in an editorial I
think I said much the same thing about the Western genre. In
each genre there are obvious examples and there are gray area
cases where it is not entirely clear. To apply those
definitions you just have to go with either your own opinion or
with majority rule. That is probably what is used as the
practical definition of these terms. But I may not want to
leave it at that. Maybe I can still come up with a working
definition for horror.
First I would want to get rid of the word horror, at least in
the definition. The horror genre is about fear not about
horror. According to the dictionary "horror" is "intense
aversion or repugnance." Really the horror genre is more about
terror than horror. What is the difference between horror and
terror? "Horror" is seeing someone die in a nasty way.
"Terror" is knowing you are probably next. I would say a work
of horror--and it can be in any art form, not just film and
books--is one engendering personal fear and/or is about those
things capable of engendering personal fear. It has to be
personal fear. Trying to overcome someone trying to kill the
President is only suspense. If he has a knife to your throat it
becomes horror. DRACULA does not scare me as a movie, but it is
about things that, if they were real, would scare me. I would
call that horror. BUFFY is horror since I would probably
consider the creatures she fights as things that would be
dangerous to me if they were real. Casper cartoons are not
horror because even if he were real he would not be threatening
to me. Aside: Evelyn suggests that implies that newspaper
articles may be horror stories. Well, I guess they can be.
I guess that comes as close to defining the genre as I can come.
[-mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: BUBBA HO-TEP (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: In a Texas nursing home Elvis and JFK live on. And
they need each other's help. There is a murderous mummy on the
loose in a cowboy hat. Most of the action takes place in the
nursing home and the joke outstays its welcome. Clearly this is
the sort of film that will have a small following that thinks it
is CITIZEN KANE and a large number of people who will be accused
of just not getting it. I got it, but I didn't particularly
want it. Rating: 4 (0 to 10), low 0 (-4 to +4)
There is not a lot to this ultra-low budget film. Most of what
you get from the film is the idea. It takes place for the
greatest part in an East Texas rest home in the present day.
Elvis Presley (Bruce Campbell) is one of the residents. How he
came to be still alive and in an East Texas rest home is part of
the story. Another resident may or may not be John F. Kennedy.
(Ossie Davis... Don't ask.)
At this star-studded rest home some pretty weird happenings
happen. Just why takes some explaining, but a resurrected mummy
dressed in a cowboy suit walks the halls and kills people as
part of his evil plans. Presley and Kennedy team up to kill the
mummy. The mummy mythology, that part of it that comes from
films, seems to come entirely from Brendan Fraser mummy movies.
The Joe Lansdale story pre-dates those films, but the script's
emphasis on scarab beetles seems to come from the most recent
films.
Don Coscarelli (PHANTASM) directed and wrote the screenplay
based on a story by Joe R. Lansdale who also wrote RAZORED
SADDLES, a collection of western horror stories. Some of the
dialog is fun, but there is very little here to attract the
average horror fan and less for the average film fan. There are
much more rewarding films to rent.
Some of my friends had particular reasons for liking this film.
If you have a special interest in one of the actors, Elvis
stories, or rest homes this film may just be down your personal
alley. For everyone else I would have to put this film down in
the range of a 4 on the 0 to 10 scale or a low 0 on the -4 to +4
scale. [-mrl]
[The story by Joe R. Lansdale can be found in THE KING IS DEAD:
TALES OF ELVIS POSTMORTEM, edited by Paul M. Sammon, or WRITER OF
THE PURPLE RAGE by Joe R. Lansdale.]
===================================================================
TOPIC: CABIN FEVER (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: A flesh-eating virus wrecks a cabin party of five
college student celebrating their graduation. There are no
human villains in this one, no villains big enough to see with a
naked eye, but this is still a very disturbing little horror
film and one that is not too far from the possible. This is a
very bloody and violent film, but it is the most original horror
film we have seen in a while. Rating: 6 (0 to 10), high +1 (-4
to +4)
This is an effective horror film that derives its real scariness
not from inventing supernatural foes that are merely stories,
but from very real fears of things that already are known to
exist. With some variation the type of fearful thing that is
happening in this film has happened in other countries. This is
a horror film with a credibility that is lacking in most of what
Stephen King writes. It is a thriller that works for the same
reasons that THE CHINA SYNDROME works.
Five college friends have just graduated and are ready to go out
into the real world. For their last bash of their college years
they rent a cabin deep in the woods. After a little DELIVERANCE
style scariness as misdirection to the viewer as to where the
story is going, the group gets to their cabin. There in the
woods they come across a man who without wounds is bleeding from
all over his body. The group is terrified and wants nothing to
do with the man, but their contact is already too much. It
seems some sort of contagious flesh-eating microorganism has
infected the man. What follows is a horror story that
superficially looks like a lot of "horror in the woods" sort of
films like THE EVIL DEAD. This one is a bit different, however,
because the scare is not coming from spirits or aliens or
monsters or vampires but from things that do exist and are a
genuine a threat. This film does not so much recount a horror
story as a very possible scenario.
Co-author and director Eli Roth does some very intelligent
things with his first feature film that previous films on the
subject of disease outbreak have missed. He never identifies
the disease that is attacking people. Roth seems to have chosen
some flesh-eating bacteria as his monster, but it could easily
have been the Ebola or Marburg viruses without a lot of
difference in the story. By not defining the disease, he avoids
technical details. We see a lot of possible clinical effects of
such a disease and it is not a pretty sight. The film deals
with issues like how to treat the infected and the emotional
impact and dilemmas of quarantine and being left to die. While
CABIN FEVER may at first brush seem aimed at horror and thrill
viewers, word of mouth could well spread interest to a more
general audience interested in the very real issues the film
raises of public health, disease control, and quarantine. One
thing that CABIN FEVER does not have is a human villain. Roth
apparently decided that the disease was a scary enough menace
without adding the menace of evil people. Roth thus
intelligently sidesteps the dramatic errors of films like THE
SATAN BUG, THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN, and OUTBREAK.
At the Toronto International Film Festival, Lion's Gate bought
the film for release in the summer of 2003. It well deserves to
be seen as an effective horror film that only gets more
disturbing the more you know about the subject. I rate CABIN
FEVER a 6 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high +1 on the -4 to +4
scale. [--mrl]
===================================================================
TOPIC: RENO: REBEL WITHOUT A PAUSE (film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: Reno is a popular comedian and performance artist on
the stage in New York and on cable. This play is her
experiences on September 11 and her reflections on the meaning
of it all. Humor is subjective and what she does is not
offensive but is rarely what I consider to be funny. Rating: 4
(0 to 10), low 0 (-4 to +4)
Part of the September 11 themed material at the Toronto
International Film Festival was RENO: REBEL WITHOUT A PAUSE, a
filmed stand-up performance-art routine. Reno (that is her only
professional name) tells her experiences: some with Creation
Scientists, some on September 11, and some after September 11.
She talks about government policy and about public reaction.
The first relevant question is "is her material funny?" I found
myself laughing once and smiling three or four times. That is
not a very high average. I could have done better spending my
admission price on a Dave Barry or Far Side book. In fairness,
there were people in the audience who did laugh, but her
material just did not work very well with me.
Reno is a brash woman with an almost overpowering presence. She
reminds me a lot of Bette Midler. Much of the problem with the
film is that a lot of her humor seemed to be making points that
just were not true. She was just a few blocks from the site and
she jokes about why watch it on TV if you can see it live. Well
the answer is obvious, you might want to know more than what
does the site look like. She complains bitterly that
constitutional law must apply to the government even in this
state of emergency. True enough. But she ends the presentation
being very upset that someone expressed ideas she didn't like.
She called 911 to report it. Does she think that by tying up a
911 line she can get them to revoke somebody's First Amendment
Right? Does she have to tie up a 911 line to complain?
Reno has her share of good points to make, but occasionally her
presentation is a bit incoherent, sometimes she seems wrong in
her beliefs. In general, this film could have used a little
more thought. The camerawork is jerky. Overall the
presentation is lacking. It works neither as a political
statement nor as an effective comedy routine.
Reno began writing this comedy routine about October 11, 2001,
and was filmed under the direction of Nancy Savoca on December
19, 2001. Some of the New York humor may not be meaningful
outside of New York. I rate RENO: REBEL WITHOUT A PAUSE a 4 on
the 0 to 10 scale and a low 0 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
The typical American of today has lost all the
love of liberty, that his forefathers had, and
all their disgust of emotion, and pride in
self-reliance. He is led no longer by Davy
Crocketts; he is led by cheer leaders, press
agents, word mongers, uplifters.
-- H. L. Mencken
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Plan to Sell a Home?
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/jd3IAA/J.MolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mtvoid-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/