Cabin in the Woods

I cannot stress this enough: if you haven't seen Cabin in the Woods, STOP READING! There are spoilers ahead and if any movie rewards the viewer for ignorance, it's this one. Even the trailer gives away too much of the mystery. A group of kids go to a cabin in the woods and it's a horror movie. That's all you need, nay, should know. So STOP READING (if you haven't already).

There hasn't really been an effective "meta" film since Scream (though I enjoy the entire series and feel able to argue the validity of each entry). What most filmmakers and screenwriters screw up is that they spend too much time winking at the audience and not enough time creating an interesting narrative with compelling characters. Scream works because the viewer doesn't need to be a horror expert to enjoy the film (much like Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz work as a straight zombie and action movies, respectively, which is why I don't view them as parodies). Sure, there are references thrown in, but that's the icing on the cake. No one is saying, "Billy Loomis? Like the guy from Halloween?" (one must assume Randy had that conversation with Billy long before the events of the movie take place).

So here we are, sixteen years later (thirteen if you take into account that Cabin in the Woods was made three years ago and waiting for a release), and Cabin in the Woods hits the screens. Fortunately, it's goals are entirely different than Scream's. Cabin isn't deconstructing a genre, per se, just using a common trope to get at bigger issues. Whereas Scream establishes the tropes in an effort to subvert them, Cabin uses tropes to point out that anything can happen given the right circumstance. Take a group of attractive young people, isolate them, and that's basically 80% of horror movies.

For example, once our group of "heroes" are in the cabin, almost everything they interact with is revealed to be a trigger for their demise. In the basement, each character nearly summons a different beastie until Dana (our virgin) summons the Buckner's, an undead family bent on killing. It could have just as easily been a merman or a messed up ballerina. Basically, in this cabin setting, we could have watched literally any subgenre of horror.

But who's in control of this? Viewers are used to just one layer to this scenario. Cabin, instead, has architects who are setting the blueprints for the cabin-goers demise. Played amazingly by Bradley Whitford and Richard Jenkins, these men are essentially gods (or screenwriters). They manipulate the cabin and the people within to direct them to certain decisions. There's loads of talk about "free will" and the odds are certainly stacked against our young friends so the amount of it is debatable, though I don't want to take this too far into a religious discussion (I can't help think about when Bender meets God on Futurama, though)

And on top of the architects are ancient gods for whom the young are sacrifices! We're all puppets! In the process of establishing this hierarchy, Cabin kind of explains the survivor girl trope, too. I particularly enjoyed this plot turn because I've been reading a lot of Lovecraft lately (OK, ALL of Lovecraft), and this ritual sacrifice to ancient beings is distinctly Lovecraftian. Basically, Cabin in the Woods plays with the genre and really shows how malleable horror is. It's a very fun and funny movie and I'm sure I'd get more out of it by watching it again (and, had I written this the day or day after I saw it, it might be more insightful). With all that said, here are some thoughts and observations:

-- I really wish this had been an international effort with filmmakers from five or so other countries making the versions alluded to in the film on the video monitors. How cool would that be? Like when comic books have the world's intersect. Each movie includes clips from the others, but they are all done with the tropes and signatures of the country's own horror films.

-- One thing that bugs me about meta films is that they try to have it both ways. By commenting on the action, you can really get away with anything. For example, I was pretty disappointed with the Buckner's because it was so familiar. Who needs more zombie-like creatures. However, Bradley Whitford's character comments on this. He is disappointed not only about the family (which I believe they've seen before), but also that it wasn't a merman, something Whitford has always wanted to see. Rubber was the worst offender of this by having a surrogate audience watch what we're watching. SOMETIMES I WANT TO SEE A TIRE THAT CAN BLOW PEOPLE'S HEADS UP WITHOUT COMMENTARY! (Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park also position them in a holier-than-thou position by mocking everything, including themselves. It makes them basically critic proof and is kind of brilliant. I hate them for it.)

-- Also, the stoner guy bugged the shit out of me, but that character sucks in most movies. Commentary or just annoying. I hate not being able to give my whole heart into complaining about him!

-- I was disappointed that the god at the end was humanoid. Probably residual Lovecraft yearning.

-- However, the beastie melee finale was epic and amazing and I smiled through the whole thing. And I don't know if it was intentional, but the cubes with the monsters in them reminded me a little of the movie cube with the way it was set up and also with having a different way to die in each box.

-- The scene of people rooting for the boobs: classic.

-- I loved that the cabin looked almost exactly like the Evil Dead cabin and the direct quote of that film when the cellar door flies open.

-- I ready in the comments on a friend's blog that someone didn't think the story/characters didn't develop beyond the concept. I disagree, though I hope that's clear above. But the comment made me think about the characters and I don't actually think that the group of young people are the one's we're supposed to care about in the end. The real protagonists are the architects of the cabin. I feel like we know and understand more about them and their lives and desires than the victims, who are just cyphers anyway (the movie says as much). Or maybe I just like them the best...

If you've seen the movie, let me know what you thought. I want to talk to someone about it!

Snake Head Revisited: The Dunwich Horror

Perhaps it's the aftermath of the H.P. Lovecraft Film Festival or the fact that I've been feeling the need to extend my reading habits into the horror realm, but I've been really digging on the idea of H.P. Lovecraft lately. I watched Dagon not long ago and mostly dug it. I like the world of tentacled beings he's got going on. I was a little jealous of some volunteers and their ability to easily discuss the man when I really know very little about him aside from film adaptations (which, as I understand it, take many liberties with the original tales).

To be honest, I had my sites set on watching this film long before most of that stuff I mention above. I was sold the minute I saw the poster:

 

There's not a part of that poster that doesn't appeal to me. The copy at the top is pure gold. The film has a surprisingly stocked cast, too. Sandra Dee, Dean Stockwell (who I immediately forgot was in the movie and didn't recognize him at all... it must have been the mustache), Ed Begley, and though she's not credited on the poster, Talia Shire. On top of that, one of the screenwriters is Curtis Hanson (yet another lauded filmmaker who got his start working for Roger Corman for me to be jealous of)!

Sadly, a good pedigree isn't enough to elevate The Dunwich Horror (taken from the Lovecraft story of the same name) much above, "Eh, it's alright." There's a nifty opening credits animation and some cool editing decisions (during the line, "Suppose she goes up there," especially). The first monster attack is trippy and campy and all sorts of fun, but even those get tiresome. The end of the film has some really neat shots of wind blowing across a stream and through the forest. There's definitely stuff to recommend, but as I'm sure you've noticed, none of that has much to do with the story.

Probably the biggest issue is that Anything involving Walter Whateley (Stockwell) is totally unbelievable. I love Dean Stockwell, but whatever direction he was given or decisions he was making were the wrong ones. Are we really supposed to believe Nancy (Sandra Dee) would so willingly go along with this creep? I know... supposedly she's in some sort of Dracula-like trance, but that really seems more like an easy way to get around the fact that she would ever do what he wants. Surely if he has some sort of mind control, he'd use it on the townsfolk so they stopped hassling him. The scene where Nancy goes into Walter's home for the first time is excruciating and awkwardly times. Fortunately, that is the film's nadir and the rest of the way is tolerable.

Some other odd aspects of the film are that Nancy dreams of bizarre feral hippies from some inexplicable reason and there is a weird filter used in another dream scene where she's laying on an altar that makes the movie look like it's being projected onto a burlap sack. The finale consisted of two characters incantating at each other, but the viewer has no basis for why this is happening, why it works, and why the victor wins. It's abrupt and poorly established. Finally, there are aspects of the music that continually brought to mind the music in It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown.

So yeah... The Dunwich Horror Poster is better than the movie. But with Corman, one should never be surprised when the advertising surpasses the film.

Weekly Film Rec: From Beyond

I was going to apologize for yet another horror film, but A) one should never have to apologize for recommending horror films and B) I haven't really recommended that many. So while The Bad Sleep Well would have looked good for diversity and done much for my film geek street cred, I'm going to go with Stuart Gordon's From Beyond (though The Bad Sleep Well is pretty awesome).

Taken from a story by H.P. Lovecraft (much like Gordon's Re-Animator), From Beyond is about scientists who unlock access to a sixth sense by using a machine to stimulate the pineal gland thereby gaining access to a new plane of existence (and allowing those things within this plane access to you). I'm not entirely sure about the science of all of this (or the existence of a "pineal gland"), but if this is what it takes to play with some fantastic practical effects, then I'm more than willing to go for the ride.

Mainstay of Gordon's films, Jeffrey Combs, is the lead and even though he can sometimes be a bit too over-the-top (I'm looking at you, The Frighteners), I always love watching him. He's got this great manic energy that's perfect for a mad scientist type. Of course, he's not the mad scientist in this one, or at least not the maddest. There's at least two other that are more insane than he. One who gets to turn into a wicked beasty and Barbara Crampton, most notable because she was in Chopping Mall the same year.

I'd be completely remiss if I didn't mention genre all-star Ken Foree. He plays the comic relief here and does it quite well. It does feel a bit cliched having the sole black person being the funny one, but dammit, it's Ken Foree! Dawn of the Dead!

The film is by no means great, but it's a bit of fun with some disturbing effects. Great for a night of high quality cheese.